Here
and
Now

opinions

Republicans accuse Obama of socialism

219 Comments
By Tom Raum

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

219 Comments
Login to comment

Sorry, how many states in the US are on the verge of bankruptcy? How many promises has Obama held since coming to office? Sorry, what are you talking about with this western system? Is this the same western system you are talking about? Lets talk about how it is doing today, pick a country if there are any left. You must be old, because what you talk of is old news. As zurcronium says, don't try so hard, and posting your garbage twice doesn't help either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zurcronium: I probably lost you with facts mates. The 1917 revolution was the Bolshevik Revolution. The proponents and almost all operatives Jewish, many Russianised their names. It is not a racist comment, it is what happened. Their communist theory was to dispossess people of their land and assets and introduce collectivised state farms and factories. Tens of millions were stripped of their wealth and millions finished up starving. The system was a failure of gigantic proportions. Eventually the whole system collapsed in 1988. Our Western system was introduced in Britain in 1691 and protects private ownership of land and assets with courts and laws to back it up. It has made Britain and the countries that flowed from it the freest and wealthiest on earth. Our economies are mixed economies with some planning, some public ownership and a lot of private ownership and a free market. The mistake the Americans make is to associate "Socialism" with the former, not the latter as it is practised around most of the advanced western world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zurcronium: I probably lost you with facts mates. The 1917 revolution was the Bolshevik Revolution. The proponents and almost all operatives Jewish, many Russianised their names. It is not a racist comment, it is what happened. Their communist theory was to dispossess people of their land and assets and introduce collectivised state farms and factories. Tens of millions were stripped of their wealth and millions finished up starving. The system was a failure of gigantic proportions. Eventually the whole system collapsed in 1988. Our Western system was introduced in Britain in 1691 and protects private ownership of land and assets with courts and laws to back it up. It has made Britain and the countries that flowed from it the freest and wealthiest on earth. Our economies are mixed economies with some planning, some public ownership and a lot of private ownership and a free market. The mistake the Americans make is to associate "Socialism" with the former, not the latter as it is practised around most of the advanced western world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge said:

goodD: "teleprompter wants socialism... He hates socialism"

/

You feelin' OK, goodD?

Amazing what you can get away with by using ellipses inside quotes isn't it? You must have a ball putting WAV's together to say funny things or joining MPEG's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

brutal Jewish 1917 "Bolshevik" Soviet communism . . .

Racism always helps to bolster any argument. I think that is in the republican how to win elections manual, chapter four.

You pretty much lost me after that. My advice to you is to not try so hard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodD: "teleprompter wants socialism... He hates socialism"

You feelin' OK, goodD?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm pretty sure goodDonkey has something to say, I just can't work out what it is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter said:

Not one of Obama's would-be defenders here seems to understand that socialism in America will not and cannot be like socialism elsewhere.

/

The posts above are replete with historical blindness, Euro-centrism, jingoism and naivete, not to mention ignorance of even the most basic terms being thrown around.

/

And that is why so many here insist socialism isn't coming to America or is a figment of paranoid conservative imagination.

You tell 'em teleprompter. Socialism in America is different. It includes mostly free markets. It includes 99 point many decimals (99.8888888.....%) public ownership of corporations, businesses, sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLC's, LLP's, S corps, C corps, Non-Profits, 501(c)4's, 501(c)3's not to mention a very health underground market. We don't need to pick jobs for people to be socialists. We don't need government officials in any corporations, etc. (refer to above). Private ownership, tell 'em teleprompter, we can still have socialism with private ownership. Don't let the stock markets, bond markets, Boards of Trades, commodity markets, futures markets and all the other trading facilities fool you either we will still be socialist. Just because people are still free to start up a local bank out of their own volition does not mean we can't be socialist. Just because farmers are free to sell their products to anyone they choose doesn't mean we are not headed for socialism. We don't have to be egalitarian to be socialists. It is not the Egalitarians anyway it is the Democrats. We can keep all of our various wealthy economic stratifications and still be socialists. We don't need central planning. We don't even need to nationalize 1% of our nations commerce producing facilities and we can still be socialistic.

teleprompter wants socialism and we're going to get socialism damn it. He hates socialism and it is Obama's fault that we have it. All we need is Social Security (see it has the word Social in it). And we are going to have Medical Security. And they teach Social Studies to kids in school

You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig!

"Not one of Obama's would-be defenders here seems to understand that socialism in America will not and cannot be like socialism elsewhere." - telepromter

.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zurcronium: It seems you are confusing socially beneficial activities with the brutal Jewish 1917 "Bolshevik" Soviet communism that dominated Russia and its neigbors until 1988 and the genesis of the far more genteel kibbutz in Israel. They were misplaced experiments of an earlier age. They failed because they involved the destruction of private and individual property rights. Something that is not envisaged by anything President Obama promotes. President Theodore Roosevelt as long ago as the 1890's, a enlightened man of enormous inherited wealth, saw the benefit of public infrastructure, services and utilities and introduced them in NY State. 100 years later New Yorkers were selling to the world the benefits of privatising public infrastructure and services for personal gain. Obama had little choice with his big spending as the US is publicly bankrupt from borrowing for stimulus packages to benefit private entreprise and tax cutting at the same time. The alternative is a financial collapse for say a decade or more and widespread and absolute misery in the US. Guys you have to start doing it better!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even the left wing Spiegel mag is dissin' zurcronium's World Prez Obama.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,632494,00.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Obama's handling of the economy isn't his strongest card"

Really?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The fact is the free market myth that conservatives have pretended to believe in for decades is dead now. It died again with the bush economic melt down and the boy blunderers $900 billion bailout of the finance industry in the US.

Obama is no more a socialist than Reagan was one, who raised taxes several times in his political career. The difference is that republicans want to give tax breaks only to the rich and do not mind running up trillions in debt. It always takes a democrat to bail out the country from the massive failures of the republican mistakes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

socialism in America will not and cannot be like socialism elsewhere.

Then maybe it isn't socialism then. As far as I can tell, all it is is the-GOP-talking-points-for votes-country-be-damnedism. Obama sneezes and the GOP will try to find a political angle on it.

Yeah, I know America is special but you can't hide behind empty ideas by trying to redefine the argument everytime someone challenges you. You rightists criticize at every turn and reject every overture - may as well move to Iran. America is just an excuse to play politics (the same goes for the left-wing nuts).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not one of Obama's would-be defenders here seems to understand that socialism in America will not and cannot be like socialism elsewhere.

The posts above are replete with historical blindness, Euro-centrism, jingoism and naivete, not to mention ignorance of even the most basic terms being thrown around.

And that is why so many here insist socialism isn't coming to America or is a figment of paranoid conservative imagination.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The reason why Americans fear Socialism is because from the very start they developed a severe cultural distaste for paying taxes. That is why they went to war against Britain. It was over a tiny little tax to assist mother Britain fund a war against hostile France at the time. Their was nothing heroic in the Boston Tea Party or the War of Independence in 1776. Australia started off as a British colony in 1778 and like the early US was heavily subsidized by the British. Every request Australia made to Britain for self government was always promptly approved. A decade ago we voted overwhelmingly to reject a Rupublic and remain a Constitutional Mornarchy with the "Queen" as out head. A wonderful system that has made us the wealthiest and freest people on earth.

We started the eight hour day and numerous social reforms as far back as the nineteenth century. 96% of Australians have voted at every Federal election since 1926 because it is compulsory. That means all Australians take a real interest in public policy. We don't have self serving lobbyists distorting our development as the US does.

We have had a fabulous publicly funded health system since 1975. No one in Australia fears losing their savings or their home if the get sick. There are very few law suits against the medical profession. Melbourne has the best hospitals, medical research and doctors in the world and you get treated free! The most serious always go straight to the head of the line. People bitch because they have to wait 12 weeks for a free hip operation. We attract the best medical brains in the world here!

We took the future of our medical system out of the hands of the doctors in the 1970's and put it into the hands of health professionals and the Parliament. Our health drug system ensures people get access to the best drugs at a very competitive price and effectively free for the less wealthy.

Australians if given a choice between a tax cut or better public services, will take the latter every time. They go for practicable things and are not trembling in false fear of silly labels like "socialism". It is just a word, and a word that hardly gets mentioned here. FEAR is an acronym for "false evidence appearing real".

America is almost broke now it is drowning in $13 trillion of the giantist "ponzie" scheme of all time. Federal "Public Debt" is so big in the US it cannot even service the interest on it for goodness sake. Australia on the other hand is just going into a "minute" amount of public debt to assist its people from suffering from the world financial crisis started in the US. Our economy is actually now out of the financial crisis and doing very well.

Like most "Aussies", I really love America and Americans. They are on the whole great people and the greatest force for good of all time in the world. We are forever grateful for what our big US brother has done for us . But guys you Americans have an elite that only looks after the elite and that is bad for your Society. Our elite and Parliament put the interest of the whole society first. We have never had a national leader sacked for improprietry or accused of not putting the whole nations interests first. We would demand sacking of a PM if he was late returning a library book!

We have learned a lot from the US, but now the US population might have a look across the Pacific and see what why its little brother down under is doing so well and abandon those stupid self destructive labels.

Obama is a great force for good in the World. Wed could show him how to solve America's financial, health and democracy problems in a few days.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Conservative is not an argument, it may have been at one time and certainly not on these boards. Now it is a shout with a handful of insinuations, veiled threats, and an inability to actually accomplish their stated goals.

And yes, "BOO!" America is not going socialist anytime soon. It is just the GOP in search of a purpose.

An argument? sorry, not in the real world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

buddha4brains again proves my point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BOO!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Read a quote recently which said that "When love is applied to human relations, capitalism will no longer be possible and socialism will no longer be necessary."

You prove an important point - conservatism is an argument, a debate. Modern liberalism is all about what libs "feel."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the US is headed for Socialism then Socialism is inevitable. The United States is the only country in the world that doesn't have a significant Socialist, Communist or Labor Party. If Democrats are really being forced into Socialism by circumstances, against their will, then Socialism is inevitable, and the Republicans better get used to it. In the meantime, maybe they should find out what happened to the old Socialist Party of Eugene V. Debs and why it failed to attract any support after the early 1920s. Why only a miniscule number of Americans support Socialism is a mystery. Why some 10% of Americans (half the shrinking Republican Party) think the Democrats are Socialists is just beyond my imagination. They're going insane.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Read a quote recently which said that "When love is applied to human relations, capitalism will no longer be possible and socialism will no longer be necessary."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's a hilarious heading. "Accusing" someone of "Socialism," as though it were a bad word in itself. Socialism does not necessarily mean having a state like the USSR or Cuba. Communism in that kind of scope is nearly dead. What "progressive" leaders like Obama stand for is social control against a ruthless free market. What it means is in practice is (a) fair distribution of wealth, (b) social guarantees for every person so no one is left behind. By that yardstick Japan is a near-perfect Socialist state. And yes, their constitution was made by Americans. Who, in turn, based their constitution on the ideas of the European enlightment.

A free market will never magically regulate itself, it is not all-knowing and all-powerful like Friedmanite freaks will let us believe. The financial crisis is a clear example of what happens when there is no regulation - humans are greedy, and markets operate on bottom lines, it does not care about wealth inequalities and middle-class workers losing their jobs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet at 09:07 PM JST - 24th June i said polls show the majority of americans want doctors to take the lead in putting forth the needed changes in our health care system.

So you are saying that more than 50% of Americans want Doctors to write the new health care bill. Well do happen to have anything that proves your statement?

I do not think many people would want Doctors to write a health care plan.

I think most Americans would love to have the same health care plan that the Government gives it's employees. Here let me help you, check out the plan;

http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/health_care_for_the_us_congress

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/

Their plan is a darn nice one, and guess what, it works and it is real cheap. We do not need to ask Doctors anything, we have what we need right now.

inkjet at 09:07 PM JST - 24th June tort reform does not mean no legal recourse at all. it means controlling it. your hypothetical of the doctors chopping off limbs with no consequence is.... nonsense . i can't think of a better word.

Tort reform would limit the payments for injuries incurred because of a Doctors/Hospitals mistake.

Let's see how much for that leg, hm the patient did not use it much. Ok 400 dollars seems fair...

Take the case Dr. Rolando R. Sanchez, this fine surgeon remove the wrong leg of a patient. The hospital paid 1.2 million and the Doctor lost his license for a whopping six months.

Let's see, man loses leg Doctor's license is suspended for 6 months. LOL The Doctor should have lost his license completely. Do not know about you but I do not want to have this guy as my surgeon.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20061021/LOCAL/61021012?Title=Finding-out-your-doctor-s-history-can-be-difficult-but-prudent

In my world if you are a professional who has the lives of people in your hands and you cost people injury or death by your mistake. You deserve to pay dearly for those mistakes.

If an engineer makes a mistake on plans people will be injured. Same for a Doctor if he cuts the wrong leg then someone will suffer.

You see it in favor of the Doctors because you want to protect them. But who protects the people?

inkjet at 09:07 PM JST - 24th June "republicans are the most socialist out there"

Well then I shall, what is Socialism?

1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Take a look at what the supporters of tort reform advocate... http://www.atra.org/

Btw take a nice look at the staff and what party they belong to, I do not think any of them are Democrats or Independents.

I just love this line;

ATRA is the only national organization exclusively dedicated to repairing our civil justice system. ATRA fights in Congress, in state legislatures, and in the courts to make the system fairer. We identify and champion elected officials and judges who want to fix the system. In the media, we serve as the national voice of the civil justice reform movement.

repairing our civil justice system

That is Socialism.....................

The Republicans have been attempting to "change" our system of government for the longest time. They claim they are trying to reform a damaged system. But what they are doing is trying to reform our nation into a Socialist nation. All the time claiming that they are doing it to save America.

America is just fine the way the Founding Fathers created it. Anyone who says different is a Socialist.........

0 ( +0 / -0 )

joe,

i'll break it down for you.

i never said one group should control the justice system, unless of course you're talking about congress. i said polls show the majority of americans want doctors to take the lead in putting forth the needed changes in our health care system. i provided the link. did you see it? the doctors came out 20 points ahead of obama. they say they need tort reform. did you read the article i posted about doctors struggling to make ends meet? with the exception of specialists doctors are having a very hard time. the plumbers i know make more money than my brother (or obama's personal doctor). it's not such a happy lifestyle as you might imagine. if we treat doctors like the bad guys they will just pack it in. good luck getting a trial lawyer or politician to help you when you are sick. tort reform does not mean no legal recourse at all. it means controlling it. your hypothetical of the doctors chopping off limbs with no consequence is.... nonsense . i can't think of a better word. american doctors are the best trained in the world. just ask your japanese doctor what he thinks. to suggest doctors in the us can't do their jobs is well..nonsense. 5."republicans are the most socialist out there" on face value i have to say ..nonsense, unless you want to elaborate.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet at 02:53 PM JST - 24th June your reply is just nonsense. sorry dude.

In other words,"I have no comment!"LOL

That is okay, just as long that we both have points of views on the route our nations needs to be taking.

You are for one thing that I consider an abuse of the people, but you see it different.

Isn't America great when two points of view can argue?

That goes to prove that our Great Nation is not heading in a socialist direction.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

your reply is just nonsense. sorry dude.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet at 10:44 AM JST - 24th June the doctors number one concern is tort reform.

So you want one group to control how the justice system works?

Isn't that a little socialist?

The AMA has been one of those groups lobbying to protect their bread and butter over the good of the people. They have paid their way to power. Now the people are paying for them to enjoy a happy lifestyle.

In my book a socialist will want to remove the right of the people to receive just compensation.

If the AMA has it's way, a person who gets his/her leg cut off by an incompetent doctor should not have the right to sue. That to me only protects the doctors and not the patients. Doctors need to do a good job at what they do and stop crying poor me. They forget that people suffer because of their mistakes.

Doctor screws up doctor should get sued, what is so hard about that?

In my book Republicans are more socialist then any Democrat out there. The day that Republicans start taking the needs of the people over the needs of the rich, that is when I will start taking a closer look at them. But until then my vote is with the Democrats.

Man it is good to be an Independent.....No party loyalty.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The sky is falling the sky is falling!

isn't that obama's line? let's remember what he told the country about his stimulus package? if it wasn't passed right away the economy "may never recover." gee what a maniac!

i, like most americans (i posted the poll earlier), think doctors should lead the discussion for making the needed changes to the system. the doctors number one concern is tort reform. obama took it off the table. they booed him for it. see the article about obama's own personal doctor. in all the years he treated obama he only asked him one question about policy. he asked him about tort reform. don't you get the message?

all your accusations and speculation about me are meaningless and pointless. speculating gets the conversation nowhere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The sky is falling the sky is falling!

Please far right have a seat on the couch, put on your aluminum caps and post on your blogs how Socialist our President is, you will feel better.

Or you can always sit on the couch and tell the good Doctor all about your fears about big bad President Obama....

You guys know that they make some happy happy drugs that will help you to coup.....But where is the fun all all that?LOL

inkjet at 09:39 AM JST - 23rd June

So you do not have a problem with the cost of health care today? You are ok with paying through the nose? No problem with going broke just to pay for one medical bill?

You must get FREE Doctors visits from your Brother. But the rest of Americans have to pay as they visit.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He is what he is, a socialist. The US has been inching into a Socialistic form of government for a long time. I am not too happy but there is not much I can do about it. I have emailed the White House expressing my opinion and that is about all I can do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ever since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created the U.S. has slowly gone socialist. --Otherwise why would you bail-out the Financial Terrorists and have "Fema camps", Patriot Act -etc,etc.

=you are owned by the bankers that own the Federal Reserve. =The more you "borrow" from them the more richer/brazen they get. =if you need to borrow money for anything they will say yes and print it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this is a good article on the state of the medical profession.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993462778328019.html

my brother is one of the best doctors in our area. he was forced to opt out of medicaid and medicare. he couldn't survive.

he now runs what they call a boutique practice. his patients must pay an annual fee of $1,500 . in return he gives them his private number and spends as much time during visits as they feel they need.

often when people see my name they ask if i'm his brother. then they gush about how great a doctor he is. now i get people lamenting his new practice. many don't want to pay the fee. i say 'want to' because these are well off people. i see them driving their new BMWs and mercedes while my brother drives his old honda. they just think they shouldn't have to pay for medicine.

maybe now that obama owns GM they will be expecting free cars too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are medical decisions being made based on medicine or the HMO's bottom line?

i had basic insurance back in the states. yet i had access to more tests there than i do here. the doctor here simply told me even though the tests are effective (and needed here) the government chooses not to include them...to save money.

don't be so sure you will be getting better treatment if the government is your provider. i actually have no idea why you would think that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But more important than money are the ethical choices HMOs force doctors to make: Are medical decisions being made based on medicine or the HMO's bottom line? What do you think? The unethical doctors are rewarded for keeping costs down to the detriment of their patients.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet (RR) said:

(First Beerplease said:)

The doctors are getting screwed by the HMOs--let that be your focus.

(injet (RR)'s reply)

funny the doctors don't agree with you. did you ever wonder why?

What an uninformed statement. The doctors have complained for decades about income loss due to HMO's.

teleprompter (RR) said:

Thanks for confirming what I have said for years - The Democrats are the party of the rich and one of the most pernicious myths in America is that Big Business (Microsoft, etc) is monolithically Republican.

Your welcome! Glad to do it. I have an vested interest in the truth. But that now begs the question whether the "rich" are socialists. Please explain how the rich practice socialism?

That is the problem when your ideas and slogans are totally wack. It becomes impossible to put 2 and 2 together to make 4.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fr right wingers have this idea that is anyone does not view economics like they do then they must be a Socialist.

But as usual the far right Christina republicans are dead wrong.

teleprompter at 02:22 PM JST - 21st June Bill Gates contributed to Obama. More of the richest Americans voted for Obama then the Republican running at the time. Thanks for confirming what I have said for years - The Democrats are the party of the rich and one of the most pernicious myths in America is that Big Business (Microsoft, etc) is monolithically Republican.

Actually Bill Gates and most other "Rich" gave to the Democrats because they thought that Obama had the better strategy then McCain and the Republicans.

It is all about making more money, and the Republicans have made them poorer. Remember Bill Clinton made them real rich....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just start with the wealthiest (1BN+), and the middle class will sort itself out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The doctors are getting screwed by the HMOs--let that be your focus.

funny the doctors don't agree with you. did you ever wonder why?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The doctors are getting screwed by the HMOs--let that be your focus. I "should have known" you'd take the side of the greedy, insensitive corporate pigs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's cap the salaries of all occupations at reasonable amounts

well i should have known you'd like to cap everyone's salary. my picture of you becomes more clear.

but in the mean time you'll keep up the fight for the slip and fall lawyers. now that is a noble cause.

screw the doctors.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just start with Forbes 100, and we will save millions from poverty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's cap the salaries of all occupations at reasonable amounts--why just lawyers, and trial lawyers at that. Why not corporate lawyers? Are they somehow more nobler? Hehehehehe, I have to laugh at all the boogiemen the wingnuts come up with. We should start with caps on the salaries of execs of the big HMOs to start.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its not about Republican or Democratic, left or right, it is about rich and poor.

that's right. the trial lawyers are getting rich and the general practitioner is getting poor.

read the article about obama's personal physician. obviosly one of the top doctors in chicago saw his income shrink to $22 hour before he retired.

how many trial lawyers make $22 an hour? what a joke. you liberals really ought to shake yourselves out of your partisan trance and look at what is going on.

my brother is a top doctor in our area in new york. besides his 60 hours a week his wife works full time so they can send their kids through college.

many areas in america already can't attract enough doctors. and you guys just want to make it worse for them. weird.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its not about Republican or Democratic, left or right, it is about rich and poor.

Pretty straightforward, do we need to talk about anything else?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bill Gates contributed to Obama. More of the richest Americans voted for Obama then the Republican running at the time.

Thanks for confirming what I have said for years - The Democrats are the party of the rich and one of the most pernicious myths in America is that Big Business (Microsoft, etc) is monolithically Republican.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The republicans are so shallow. You can pretty much count on them to do the opposite of what they say. Bush wanted smaller government, he make it massively bigger. He didnt want to nation build, he invaded two countries. The right wingers do not want socialism, bush passes a $400 billion drug bill to augment medicare. And he lines up $900 billion for citibank and AIG.

Oh, and regarding voter fraud, the republicans made up the ACORN issue during the election and meanwhile their operatives in CA are now going to jail for . . .voter fraud. Amazing.

The owner of a voter-registration company pleaded guilty Tuesday to voter-registration fraud, according to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office. Laguna Beach resident Mark Jacoby, who collects signatures for petition drives, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and was sentenced to three years' probation and 30 days of service with the California Department of Transportation.

Jacoby, owner of Young Political Majors, registered to vote at Los Angeles addresses that were not his own. State law requires petition circulators to be qualified voters. Jacoby will also be required to show proof he is registered at his correct address.

And what they didn't bother to mention in that story?...Amongst other things, the fact that Jacoby and Young Political Majors were hired by the California Republican Party to head up their voter registration efforts in the state. Jacoby had been arrested for Voter Registration Fraud last October, smack dab during the media's orgasmic heights of last year's phony GOP ACORN "Voter Fraud" hoax, even as Fox "News" (and the other news outlets who similarly fell for the scam) were going wall-to-wall with their unsupported insinuations about voter fraud by ACORN, Democrats and Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@realist

Worse than Obama being a "socialist," I think his views on religion are more to be feared. His speech in Cairo was atrocious.

Could you expand on this point?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@30061015

Socialism is a top down one size fits all cookie-cutter approach to market economics on the continuum to communism, which is inherently antithetical to freedom. Socialists always think they can manage markets and free people better than supply and demand.

Antithetical to freedom? The UK, France, Sweeden and a host of other European countries don't seem to be antithetical to freedom. However, I suppose it might depend on how you define 'freedom'. Comparing the European nations with the GWB USA I feel the freedom defect was more in the USA's court.

Socialism has no idea how to create wealth, only spend it on programs that need to continually justify their existence by increased spending.

And yet Europe's still there - representing half of the G8 nations, where did they get the wealth?

Socialism never saw an emergency it didn't like, because its goal is to nurture a dependent slave State.

Really? Is this in The Secret Protocols of the Elders of Socialism?

We the people are not so hoodwinked by the outright theft and acts of treason perpetrated against us by complicit unelected bureaucrats and banksters, that we should ignoantly believe bailout-Oba-mania is merely altruistic messianic medicine to save us all from ourselves.

Well, seeing that you have 'treason' and a reference to President Obama in one long sentence - how about hanging the 'treason' tag on GW Bush too - he started the bailouts!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

realist said:

Worse than Obama being a "socialist," I think his views on religion are more to be feared. His speech in Cairo was atrocious.

As relevant as your comment is, so is my response that you wish every government promoted your fundamentalist christian goals. I think you are just as much in favor of a theocracy as any other religious extremist. You just happen to choose a different brand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Worse than Obama being a "socialist," I think his views on religion are more to be feared. His speech in Cairo was atrocious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

Bill Gates contributed to Obama. More of the richest Americans voted for Obama then the Republican running at the time. His views on health care were well known at the time. He also said he would raise their taxes. They still voted for him. All those rich socialists. Yes, I am quite sure they were aware of the cries of socialism at the time also. Your shrieks were heard around the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge said:

President Obama doesn't want socialism for America. He's a true-blood, unabashed capitalist who has a proven track record of running successful businesses.

Too bad Obama did not have other advisers besides Warren Buffet. Yeah, stupid Warren Buffet was so clueless; he was by Obama's side during the election. Too bad Warren Buffet had no "proven track record of running successful businesses."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There was a little boy who cried wolf so many times that when he attempted "Satire and humor" it was "always lost on" the good people of the village; but the wolves understood it very well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I prefer remaining a dumb liberal instead of relying on the "Kemp" School of Economics for every possibility that may occur with the vast underpinnings of the global economy in its dynamic condition. I prefer to remain ignorant and believe that no economic theory has yet captured the nature of the perfect solution to all our problems especially theories that were developed prior to the complex symbiotic relationship our economy has with the global economy. I repent for not recognizing that Kemp understood and could explain every facet of economics. If we had only cut taxes a little more and deregulated a little more we would not be in the mess we are in today. I may be an ignoramus but . . .

Ignorance is bliss.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't want socialism for the United States. I did not want to have to bail out banks and financial houses and purchase interests in those businesses as well as the auto industry. I am glad they did it and trust that it will be a temporary measure. I commend Bush for making the right decision and wish he would have with Lehman Brothers. I understand it was a hard left turn away from Economics championed by the University of Chicago. I honestly believe we would have lost huge portions of certain sectors of our economy. Every automaker in the world (for the most part) has been hit hard. Do we want to let that sector go when other countries are saving their own auto industry? I believe it is worth taking a chance on our well established auto industry. I am willing to fail. For the Billionth time we could not let the Financial houses fail because of the linkage to our stock and bond markets as well as their integration into vast credit networks that support daily operations at corporations across America. Look at what happened anyway. Without liquid credit known as commercial paper our country lost it's ability to function in many of the very largest corporations that borrow money and pay it back in a very short term. A good example would be how farmers need seed money and how the term "seed money" is used for many different applications now. As many conservatives as well as liberals know many family owned farms needed loans annually for seed, fertilizer, fuel and other initial costs of start up every year. It was relatively small compared to the return that could be assumed. Corporations today use commercial paper, or a line of credit, for payroll, inventory, projects, and countless other costs. Furthermore they may need to take out short term loans that are longer term than commercial paper for bond payments, equipment repairs and other operating costs that may occur annually or that occur within annual cycles.

We needed the structure to facilitate the flow of liquid money. All of these magnificent methods and funding of these transactions have been put into place and the overwhelming majority of them work just fine. It would have been disaster to have let any more fail then already has. It already had the domino effect. I am in full agreement that we need to break much of the linkage and interdependence that causes the domino effect. But letting banks and financial institutions fail, to the point of dissolution, last autumn was not the best solution and was very close to the worst solution. It was equivalent to knowing what would happen in the crash of '29 and saying "let capitalism take its course" if economists had known a temporary solution, albeit a very expensive solution. These conservatives have zero proof that our GDP could not have been cut in half for quite a few years in the future had our financial structures and markets collapsed completely. Even if we spent 5 trillion dollars and it saved our GDP from a 25% reduction for 3 years it would have been well worth it. Bush used socialistic techniques by intervention in banking and financial institutions. Good on Bush.

It is not socialism when we return the assets.

As far as socialized medicine goes, even a single payer system is not truly socialized medicine until all the medical structures are owned by the government. What some conservatives are advocating is a continuation of allowing a certain amount of people to die from lack of health care so that no rich person should ever experience any reduction in the comforts of their golden parachute lifestyles. With all due respect it is hardly conceivable that health care will not proceed with even higher quality for the wealthy, even if it is only done so by increasing costs for their exclusive care. They will be able to receive everything they do today if they are willing to pay for it outside of the system that allows every American affordable health care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The eternal motivational force that keeps a liberal going is typically a daily doze of Starbucks coffee combined with the dialectical struggle of the opposites.

The Starbucks part can't be true since liberalism is now in ascension while the coffee company has been in decline. But that "dialectical struggle" is simply the ability for one brain to hold two opposing thoughts at the same time without the threat of overload.

As for patriotism, the ability to understand multiple perspectives of an issue causes liberals to forego the cheap and easy flag-waving and "USA..USA" jingoism. There is a deeper form of patriotism which loves the nation so much that one is not afraid to ask and expect of it much better things -- rather than settle for the lowest and easiest common denominator.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind writes: "A liberal brain is known to have a ... benign "Smarter Than Thou" tumor..."

This probably originates from the growing awareness that conservatives don't seem to mind in the least showing the world that they are "Dumber than thou."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Socialism A progressive political system that takes the power away from wealth creators and gives it to wealth distributors.

Funny, when you realize that all wealth is created by labor. The capital that is used to "prime the pump" to allow labor to create additional wealth was itself created by labor. Go back and read the words of Lincoln's first State of the Union message.

Socialism is therefore a system that attempts to return more wealth to the real wealth creators.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Starviking:

When the economic laws of survival of the fittest are ignored to prop up banks that caused this financial crisis, or to give extravagant bonuses to AIG employees, to make healthcare "free" to everyone on the globe; it is all a form of socialism, and socialism is government knowing how to do everything better than free markets and free people ever could. Socialism is the suckling of successful market economics that one day becomes the 400 pound gorilla in your living room.

Socialism is a top down one size fits all cookie-cutter approach to market economics on the continuum to communism, which is inherently antithetical to freedom. Socialists always think they can manage markets and free people better than supply and demand.

Socialism has no idea how to create wealth, only spend it on programs that need to continually justify their existence by increased spending. Socialism never saw an emergency it didn't like, because its goal is to nurture a dependent slave State. The billions and billions in debt incurred by bloated socialist states like California and New York are testimony to the bankrupt nature of feel good myopic social welfare programs on the liberal road to terminal stupidity.

We the people are not so hoodwinked by the outright theft and acts of treason perpetrated against us by complicit unelected bureaucrats and banksters, that we should ignoantly believe bailout-Oba-mania is merely altruistic messianic medicine to save us all from ourselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Obama doesn't want socialism for America. He's a true-blood, unabashed capitalist who has a proven track record of running successful businesses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind, from your writing, I guess we would have to presume that you are a "wealth creator", relatively "wealthy", against both socialism, and obviously communism, and therefore capitalist.

How much wealth do you have, and what are you doing with it, in a time when it is now estimated that 1B people (That's 1 in 6 worldwide) are in poverty, 26k children under 5 are still dying of poverty everyday, and official unemployment in western countries is about to surpass 10%.

If the information above is propaganda, which I doubt, then I would apologize, but is it too "ideological" (which by the way hints on the theological), for you to see that there is a gaping income gap, and that capitalism is not only more likely to be destroying wealth than creating it, but seems to have lost its steam, or maybe in sailwind's case, no more wind?

Just worried about you guys, let me know if I'm not seeing things correctly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

my previous post showed the majority of americans want doctors to decide how the health care system should be fixed. here is a quick excerpt from an article on obama's long time doctor (scheiner).

"Scheiner says he never thought it was appropriate to talk about health policy with Obama, especially once he became a U.S. Senator. The one exception was medical malpractice reform. "I once briefly talked to him about malpractice, and he took the lawyers' position," he says.

Obama reiterated his opposition to caps on medical malpractice-related damages when he addressed an audience of doctors earlier this week at the American Medical Association's annual meeting. (See "Will Doctors Buy Obamacare?")

Scheiner, like most others in his profession, thinks that it should be harder to sue doctors and that awards should be capped. He says that he and other doctors must order too many tests and imaging studies just to avoid being sued.

Scheiner graduated from Princeton and then started at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons 50 years ago. After training in internal medicine in Chicago he joined a practice in Hyde Park. His partner was Quentin Young, a doctor known for supporting universal coverage and for briefly being the personal physician of Martin Luther King Jr.

Before selling his practice, he watched his income decline over the years to what he calculated to be $22 an hour ($2,100 every two weeks after withholding for taxes, health insurance and malpractice insurance.)"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well I think Obama and goodDonkey and USAF pretty much have all the classic liberal brain functions.

Reading some of the posts from USAFdude up above, I have to admit, you make a compelling argument. GoodDonkey is a little better off, but not by much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the way goodDonkey,

I got it from, http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=42

They're the Stalinist version of "The Onion". Satire and humor were always lost on you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Liberalism A normal state of a healthy person whose brain developed under the caring guidance of the progressive establishment. As opposed to the rigid and bigoted Republican/Capitalist/Conservative brain, a Liberal/Socialist/Democrat brain is hard to map because it undergoes perpetual reshuffling of its centers and synapses. Generally it can be characterized by a compassionate concern for not taxing the rich enough, combined with generosity in spending other people's money. A liberal brain is known to have a well-developed "blame-America" synapse, a benign "Smarter Than Thou" tumor, a Global Warming Panic Center, the Entitlement Synapse, Moral Relativity Gray Area, and a "P.C. Lobe" responsible for speech codes, multiculturalism, racial quotas, and alternative lifestyles. The underdeveloped areas of a Liberal Brain usually include those that handle common sense, personal responsibility, sense of humor, patriotism, and work ethics. The eternal motivational force that keeps a liberal going is typically a daily doze of Starbucks coffee combined with the dialectical struggle of the opposites - the feeling of being a victim of oppression and the feeling of guilt for oppressing the others at the same time.

Well I think Obama and goodDonkey and USAF pretty much have all the classic liberal brain functions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind must have went to NEWSBUSTERS.COM to get that definition.

That is too funny. Geez, what passes for knowledge these days. Hilarious!!!!

If you want a definition minus all the deceit here you go:

Webster

1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Random House

1 a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2 procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3 (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

The conservatives should by all means continue their policies of prevarication. There are people like sailwind all over the U.S. that are winning the hearts and minds of people towards the Democrats. The kids in elementary school learn about socialism in their latter years and it does not begin to mesh with the b.s. that the conservatives are peddling. The rhetoric above sounds like the typical presentation of a charlatan.

sailwind said:

That just about covers it I'd say.

Whatever is under that cover stinks to high heaven.

What is next? Screams of Dictionary bias?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USAFdude13:

How about "liberal-leaning media" (my personal favorite)?

Right on! Nobody pullin the wool over your eyes.

NBC anchor Brian Williams bowing to Obama? Never happened!

[http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2009/06/03/brian-williams-bows-before-obama-tcot-gop-hhrs/]

ABC to broadcast from the White House and give Obama 2 hours to pitch nationalized health care. No rebuttals or equal airtime will be allowed.

The media, quite literally, in Obama's house. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/06/17/during-healthcare-special-abc-refuses-paid-ads-oppose-obamacare]

It a coincidence!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That just about covers it I'd say.

Except for the inarguable fact that what you've described is nowhere near what President Obama wants for America.

Checkmate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i think the lefties need a group hug. such anger. so sad. take a deep breath the boogie man is gone.

this poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120890/Healthcare-Americans-Trust-Physicians-Politicians.aspx

shows how people really feel. they want the doctors to decide. not the politicians. doctors clearly have people's trust. do doctors support obama's plan? parts of it. but their biggest need is not addressed tort reform. lawyers don't score too high on the list do they?

obama's plan is already in peril. enemies within his own party are questioning how he plans to pay for it. where are the cost savings?

i guess cheney must be spiking their water with evil juice. dear oh dear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And while your at it, get a dictionary and look up "socialism". You'll learn something you obviously didn't know before.

I'll take that challenge.

Socialism A progressive political system that takes the power away from wealth creators and gives it to wealth distributors. Wealth distributors are typically a class of highly trained government bureaucrats who are being watched by a class of political commissars, who, in turn, are being watched by a class of secret police, all of whom are banded together by shared progressive morals. Because progressive morals are relative by definition, a certain measure of absolute propaganda is necessary to encourage collectivism and discourage counter revolution. Since such propaganda is delivered through mass media, arts, and schools, a degree of ideological monopoly, uniformity, and censorship is also required in those fields. The resulting mass enthusiasm creates a vibrant state-subsidized culture, leading to great economic successes and technological breakthroughs, e.g., in North Korea.

That just about covers it I'd say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

old man mccain tried this in the election and we know how that turned out. He lost badly.

Americans want Obama to fix the unholy mess that bush and his band of idiots and criminals created in the last 8 years. It will take massive spending to fix the economy, end the failed wars and turn the USA around. Republicans would prefer the USA collapse before they admit the truth of the bush failures and collapse of crony capitalism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans accuse Obama of socialism - and I could not be happier. Every time the Republicans spread a lie like Obama's alleged "socialism", the Republicans succeed only in marginalizing themselves even further than they already have (who'd've thought it was possible?).

Outnumbered, Republicans are trying to tap into negative public attitudes toward “socialism” and taxpayer bailouts.

Says it all; the Republicans know they're lying to people; the Republicans know they're tapping into the fears of the most uneducated, superstitious, and gullible people in America, whose numbers, thank Christ, diminish daily. Need more proof? Fine... check out the next quote from the article:

Republican consultant Frank Luntz, who wrote a detailed strategy plan on the language of health care, Republican consultant Frank Luntz, who wrote a detailed strategy plan on the language of health care, suggests that Republicans use the term “Washington takeover.” While vague, it “grabs attention,” he says.

One of the things that most disgusted me about the previous administration was its shameless use of these little phrases and soundbites to make their "point", phrases that were easy for their idiot supporters to remember and always say emphatically, as if doing so made some deep statement. Don't you remember "Have you forgotten"? Well, my answer then and now is "Yep, I remember that it was Al-Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11, so why do you people wanna go into Iraq?" Never failed to shut up the Republicans. How about "liberal-leaning media" (my personal favorite)? Hell, any time I turn on the news, all I see is some piece of trash like Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, or Rush Limbaugh spouting crap against President of the United States of America Barack Hussein Obama. Invariably, they can only childishly spew hatred; we're all still waiting for one, just one Republican to actually come up with an idea that's better than any one of President Obama's.

And now, we're into the Republicans' "Socialism! Socialism!" phase. "Washington takeover", huh? Yep, Washington has been taken over by the leaders elected by the American people. This little "Washington takeover" phrase is just as easily defeatable as the rest of their garbage soundbites. How so? Simple - people aren't buying the Republicans' lies anymore. Don't believe me? Again, check out the article:

the word “socialism” may not evoke the same degree of alarm among the public it once did, especially among younger voters.

Of course it doesn't, you miserable Republican peons! We know your accusations of "socialism" are lies. Hell, most Republicans don't even know what socialism is; they once again (wrongly) think that by uttering the word "socialsm", they add depth to their pathetic mewlings. It'd be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

You see gang, nationalization of certain areas of the business and private sectors does not equal socialism. Yet again, check out the article:

No matter that the bailouts and nationalizations were begun under the Republican administration of George W Bush.

So, I guess that makes bush as much a socialist as President Obama, huh? LOL!

So, to wrap up, I'm not afraid to admit that I enjoy being smarter than the conservatives who post their vile crap here and elsewhere; neither is the rest of the American people. It's those like you who set the example of what we'll never let our children become - hateful, racist, lying, traitorous garbage.

I'm also proud of my service, especially in light of the vast upswing in confidence and patriotism I've seen in my fellow US troops as a direct result of Obama's election as President of the United States of America.

So please, by all means, keep spitting out your venom towards President Obama; it gives us true Americans something to laugh at while we're supporting President Obama's efforts to clean up the mess his predecessor made of America.

And while your at it, get a dictionary and look up "socialism". You'll learn something you obviously didn't know before.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A right "not to be criticized"?

that was me paraphrasing beer drinker. i pasted when i should have copied or something like that. multitasking is not my thing.

my last post was not a quote either. i am sorry. these were flawed posts. there is really no defense. i will try to do better in the future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

of course it's not the only problem. but to deny it's a major problem only tells me you are a know nothing partisan. with an attitude to boot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

that's right. letterman could use one right now to protect his 1st ammendment right not to be criticized. i forgot you have such a deep understanding about how our laws work.

A right "not to be criticized"?

The right to criticize what people say is central to the idea of free speech that the 1st Amendment was created to foster and protect.

Only a "liberal" could believe a snarky, pervy old Lefty like Letterman should be able to wish rape upon the 14 y.o. daughter of politician he dislikes and not face consequences for his actions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The poor health care system in the U.S. is not a result of too many lawyers. Don't believe everything you think.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

beer man let me get your logic straight.

the over abundance of lawyers in america has been good for the health care system while the lack of lawyers here in japan has been bad for their system.

is that about right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

that's right. letterman could use one right now to protect his 1st ammendment right not to be criticized. i forgot you have such a deep understanding about how our laws work.

i'm sure the aclu can dig one up for him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Considering the "justice" received in Japan with their deliberately kept low number of lawyers, I'll take too many any day. Lawyers provide an integral part in a judicial system of checks and balances.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"50 million Americans don't have any health care insurance at all"

This is totally misleading. First of all, a lot of those 50 million ( wasn't it 45 million just a couple of weeks ago? ) are illegal immigrants, and many more are young, healthy people who elect not to pay into health care insurance at this time.

Beerplease - What's a wingnut?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lawrence Summers: "We do not want to be owners ( of businesses )"

Then why did you take over these businesses?

Beerplease - What's a wingnug?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's only put caps on corporate lawyers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, brother. Whenever I hear tort reform, I hear giant pharma wanting to be able to market unsafe products with impunity.

i thought liberals were supposed to be good at nuances. you can only see black and white? good and evil? liberal and conservative? why not come up with caps that protect both doctors and patients?

why protect the lawyers?

why not just put caps on the earning lawyers can make. let the patients keep their money. obama thinks execs make too much, how about these slip and fall lawyers? why not cap them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, brother. Whenever I hear tort reform, I hear giant pharma wanting to be able to market unsafe products with impunity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

. A majority consists of more than %50 and in this case way more than %50 of Americans want affordable health care.

Affordable health care yes, socialized, government run health care, no. And that is the difference here. Despite your crack about Republicans. Most educated people realize, that tort reform would solve the majority of problems with health care in America. Not all the problems of course, but the vast majority. Obama doesn't want tort reform. Hell, the person he appointed to run the department is the former governor of Kansas, and the former head of the trial lawyers association for that state. Tort reform is not high on his, or her list. Which means, any action taken will be useless, and meaningless. Actions that will cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars. Money we simply do not have.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush hasen't really said anything since leaving office.

actually in a speech recently he did make some comment which could be seen as an idirect poke at obama. he said the economy will heal itself through the efforts of the private sector not through government action. something along those lines.

but considering level of partisan attacks made on him by the dem's x leaders it was very muted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the Japanese system is a good system. I thank God for the dental and health care I receive here. God bless this civilization.

first of all japan doesn't have a culture where doctors get sued. this helps keep costs down. again obama has shown he supports the lawyers over the doctors. his own personal doctor has spoken out against this.

i went for a check up here in japan. in new york i was put on a certain (basic) testing routine because of my family medical history and specific symptoms. here in japan i was told they can't run those tests. when i pressed the doctor he admitted they could prevent me, and many japanese, from getting cancer but in japan they don't see enough benefit so they don't spend the resources.

in america if i got cancer i could sue him. do you see what is going on?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But the reality is that socialized health care is the solution that America needs and it is the solution that more and more Americans want and expect.

Why? Governments prove time and time again that they can't handle even the most rudimentary functions that the private sector takes care of. Iceland went bankrupt, the swedish socialism model was a failure, the canadian health system is so unreliable that you may find yourself in line after 3 or 4 people who have already died but have yet to be removed from the list, and everything that the current bailouts have touched in the have changed from a few shareholders problem to everyones problem overnight with no sign of improvement. What could possibly posess anybody to think that their handle on healthcare will be any better?

Bush invented TARP, and now he's complaining about Obama's handling of the economy.

Bush hasen't really said anything since leaving office.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Molenir - And the number of those Americans are a very small minority"

I think you are confusing the words minority and majority. You see a minority is a group comprised of less than %50 like, oh let's say, the Repulican party. This is an extreme example as the pubs are way way less than %50. A majority consists of more than %50 and in this case way more than %50 of Americans want affordable health care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is always entertaining. Bush invented TARP, and now he's complaining about Obama's handling of the economy. These are deficit spending, anti-constitutional, let's police the world, fake conservatives here. The only thing about the GOP that is conservative is their anti-gay and pro-life fixations, that's it.

They haven't been conservative for the last 8 years, and here they are complaining of socialism. It's funny they didn't seem to mind fascism all this time. These idiots and the Democrats deserve each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now you can talk about tort law, you can wave the socialist warning flags and you can try to argue that the government cannot handle things. But the reality is that socialized health care is the solution that America needs and it is the solution that more and more Americans want and expect.

And the number of those Americans are a very small minority. When you have 3 people wanting your socialized medicine, adding a 4th out of 250 million, doesn't make much difference. The majority of Americans, upwards of 80% of Americans don't want your solution. Don't see it as a solution. They realize, that the government is the least effective solution. With all the screwups the government makes in so many areas, from foreign policy issues like going on a trip, and giving the English a gift of the wonderful statute that they themselves gave us. To miscalculating taxes. Running health care is not something any sane person would desire. Tort reform yes. As has been said repeatedly. If you get tort reform, more people would be able to afford health insurance, more people would be covered, more people would become doctors, and all these issues you're complaining about would go away. Why then do you feel its the only solution? If you really want health care to be paid for by the taxpayers, move to England and suffer through their failing system.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@30061015

Socialism is as socialism does. What it does best is throw good money after bad.

Corporate bonuses, the A12 aircraft, Bank Bailouts, Medical Insurance Premiums, the Superconducting Super Collider, B2 Bombers...

...socialist?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Socialism is as socialism does. What it does best is throw good money after bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Regarding the aforementioned "first Republican" Abraham Lincoln's words on labor and capital, teleprompter claims, citing no evidence whatsoever, that Lincoln never said them. Well, the link below has the entire transcript of Lincoln's first State of the Union message to Congress on December 3, 1861. Here are the words again, posted directly from the transcript, towards the end of the speech:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/73.html

One can only wonder why certain conservatives feel no shame at uttering such easily discreditable false statements.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bled

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Education and Healthcare really are different issues for how much the government should be involved. I think the Japanese system is a good system. I thank God for the dental and health care I receive here. God bless this civilization. The US could learn something from them. They pay 20%. Good idea. Do not give free (expensive) health care. People need an incentive to work and save. Freeloaders do no one any good. The working people will be bleed to death.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Repubs' dictionary of medicine:

Socialized medicine--public bureaucrat between you and your doctor under a universal, affordable health care plan.

Free-market medicine--private bureaucrat paid to deny you coverage between you and your doctor under a health care plan affordable by few.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this conversation finally was moving past the tired old cliches. please spare us the rhetoric and say something about the issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet (rr) said:

zzzZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz.

Exactly. That is what Americans are saying to the conservative criticism. Keep your eye on that pendulum.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh that's right, that is what conservatism is in the U.S. The same old tired crap recycled over and over never adapting to a changing world.

zzzZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TKoind2 : Agree : Just use something like vouchers to insure the freedom of choice to go where one wished in Health care and Education. There are some very good historical reasons for this. The government fails in the end to deliver the same efficient, quality product the private sector can deliver in Education and Healthcare. The role of government is to fill in the gaps and to keep things honest. I think that is what Obama is trying to do. The vouchers for education? I think he would like that as well, but the teachers union will scream, having their own agenda for themselves (oops), and us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Republican false usage of the word "socialism" is so played out. Didn't they use that b.s. description during the campaign? Yep, they used the "socialism" card and the "media bias" card to no avail. Get a new line conservatives! Oh that's right, that is what conservatism is in the U.S. The same old tired crap recycled over and over never adapting to a changing world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

well i'm glad to see we aren't violating any un resolutions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the United States is a signatory and legally bound under the terms of membership in the United Nations:

Article 25. 1.Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look if you sort tort law you still don't make health care accessible. So you solve one of the symptoms but fail to address the root disease. You have to do both.

amen brother. now you know why i am not supporting obama. he is refusing to do both. and in my opinion for political reasons. i'm glad we finally agree.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look if you sort tort law you still don't make health care accessible. So you solve one of the symptoms but fail to address the root disease.

You have to do both. Make universal socialized health care available, back it with proper accountability and support and then offer protections from unreasonable risk for practitioners. This works.

As for health care as a right. I htink what johnnyreb means is a moral right. I believe it is an obligation of an advanced society to care for the health and well being of the population. It does not make sense that hard working Americans cannot have proper access to affordable health care. They work, pay taxes and are the very flesh and bones of our society. And yet they can't have access to health care. Now just how does that make sense to anyone?!?

We should make health care a social and civic responsibility, one protected by law and assured for every citizen. That care should be high quality. And we can do this.

But add to this socialized education. Why? Because you want the bright minds out there working to support socially responsible programs like socialized medicine. Open the chance to gain medical and scientific careers to more people through socialized education. We invest today in what will be the future leaders of industry, of science and of our communities. More opportunities to create new doctors, nurses, teachers and more.

This kind of program would pay back dividends in the provision of talented young people to support socilized health care. It would pay back in the generation of smart people to lead innovation and the developments of new technology.

Build into this a 4 year return program where beneficiaries of the system give back 2-4 years working in government and civic programs or in programs sanctioned as beneficial to the public. Then let them take that experience on to the private sector or elect to remain in public service.

Imagine all the poor kids who could break the cycle of poverty. Imagine the sons and daughters of hard working families who cannot afford current university tuition but are not poor enough to gain special benefits, now being able to go to school and raise themselves up too. Just imagine a better educated and more capable generation of Americans.

Some say socializing programs is scary. But the fact is that we can and have benefitted from such programs. And we should move forward now with universal health care and with socialized higher education, both for the betterment of America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Speaking as an European, I think most Americans have been manipulated during the Cold War to think for themselves when the word "socialism" comes up. Socialism is, in fact, a more fair economic system and, although it can't be applied to every government section (at least, not without rigorous controls to avoid corruption and demagogy), it should be used to warrant the basic needs of the population.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

food is a right too

is that in the constitution too? i need to read that again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

health care is a right, not a privilege.

where did you read that? the constitution? the bill of rights?

i'm just curios.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

food is a right too, but you dont see people handing free food to all people

0 ( +0 / -0 )

health care is a right, not a privilege.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then you should support socialized medicine. Because it would necessarily render changes to tort law.

in here lies the snake in the grass. i believe obama knows this and wants to keep the 'capping' trump card out of play until he gets his political changes pushed through. of course he will have to protect the government from the law suits if it's holding the insurance. that or raise taxes and the debt even higher. that is already becoming a political problem for him.

remember what rham said, don't waste a good crisis.

it's been his MO, use the crisis to get his political agenda imposed on the private sector.

we'll see if he gets away with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@teleprompter

From what country comes the vast majority of medical advances? Hint - It's in North America, but it ain't Canada...

Got any facts to back up that assertion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Molenir

Not a matter of what they expect, its a matter of value. You have the US, suddenly say, you can't make more then 250k a year. Bam. 10 companies in Europe offer the guy 400k. Guess where hes moving. Next guy comes in, starts making 250k, another company in Europe offers him 400k. Another guy gone.

Speaking as a European, I sincerely doubt anyone wants to employ an American CEO - rightly or wrongly they are seen as being behind the whole financial mess we're all in. Besides - we have our own CEOs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet,

no one in america is denied basic medical service.

read my post, I never said that. Maybe I should have, but I didn't. I said that my dad got artificial hips for free in Canada, whereas my friend's dad couldn't in the States, despite being insured. Them's the facts. Now, my dad, who is 75 can live like a 55 year-old, and my friend's dad, who is 65, is living like a 85 year-old.

If you think that giving everyone with bad hips or knees etc the ability to walk through a fairly simple (and by simple, I mean that it is performed frequently and with a high rate of success) is not basic medical service, I will continue to say that the American system is a joke. In Canada, this kind of operation is "basic." It is indicative of a far higher average level of care. And did I meantion it's free????

Freedom fries, indeed!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then you should support socialized medicine. Because it would necessarily render changes to tort law. The government would need to change the laws by which people can seek address to medical related issues.

At the same time, provision must be maintained to assure the quality of medical services. As we see in Japan there are few consequences for doctor who fails to diagnose a serious problem or who refuses care resulting in damages to an individual.

Any social medial system in the US must inherently include accountability. Though I personally believe that is better served through professional sanctions and suspensions rather than damages.

But in a socialized medical system, we must have laws that protect both the system from unreasonable suits and the patients from poor quality. Again we have good models to follow.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

to be honest i have no opinion yet on his health plan. it's still being formed. what i do have a very strong opinion about is tort reform. any plan that does not address it is a political hack job in my opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet and teleprompter. Denial will not help you get through the coming changes gentlemen or ladies.

You just cannot run away from the facts. 1. Many full time working people in the US now do not have health coverage or access to proper care. 2. Society is aging and the need for affordable healthcare for this huge constituency will become greater and greater along with their demands for it. 3. Americans want and expect access to affordable health care.

Now you can talk about tort law, you can wave the socialist warning flags and you can try to argue that the government cannot handle things. But the reality is that socialized health care is the solution that America needs and it is the solution that more and more Americans want and expect.

It does not mean the end of the world for medical workers. It does not mean the decline of western civiliation as some of you try to paint this. What it does mean is a society with responsible consideration for the general working population. Access to health care for everyone. And the ability to create a healthier and better cared for society like our peers Canada, the UK and many of our European partners.

This makes sense. And only a hand full of zealots who are afraid of change are painting this as something bad. Americans don't care about the words you call this. They care about being able to get the care they need without going bankrupt. And they look at the UK and Canada and they wonder what the heck is wrong with our country. And they are right to do so. We are backwards when it comes to healthcare and social responsibility and it is long overdue that we address and resolve this issue. It will happen. So get used to the idea now boys.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but you still demand that the gubmint, which can't even run the postal system, be entrusted with your health care.

hell the post office is a tough business. the government couldn't even run OTB (off track betting). that is quite a testimonial.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Health care should not be a profit-making endeavor. Period.

if obama uttered that phrase he could kiss his high approval rating bye bye.

get over it, america ain't going socialist. obama may try pushing us in that direction but the poll numbers are already showing people just don't want it.

i can see the left are getting carried away with themselves over this obama thing. people like him and were pissed off at the republicans. but that doesn't mean we are all suddenly french.

geez.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Health care should not be a profit-making endeavor. Period.

Lefties amaze me sometimes. You want 150 TV channels, competition between airlines, new i-pods every 9 months, a range of affordable import cars, a variety of cheap cell phones and user plans, imported foodstuffs, baristas who can fix your coffee 20 differnt ways etc. but you still demand that the gubmint, which can't even run the postal system, be entrusted with your health care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Health care should not be a profit-making endeavor. Period.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Teleprompter,

Regarding Lincoln:

"Many of them aren't even his words. . . "

Why do you even bother to post here? No discussions, no contributions. Just regurgitation of Limbaugh-isms and other Right wing loons, while making unrelated points to irritate when you have no legitimate way to refute a point. You're a troll, bottom feeder of the Internet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As for denial of care. The list of true stories of people being refused life saving care in the US is so long that no blog could ever contain it. I know from the experience of direct family members that health maintenance, regular check ups and other basic health care is not available for free to working poor. And barely available to absolute poor.

Based on this, I'm really starting to wonder if you are as you claim American. If you are, you would know, that no one, let me repeat that again for those who can't read, NO ONE is denied life saving medical treatment. Hospitals are legal required to accept patients needing treatment. Thats why hospitals in places like Arizona, California, and Texas are struggling to survive. Because all the illegals know, if they need treatment, they simply need to call an ambulance, and then not pay the bill.

Heres the thing, for those who are interested in reality, as opposed to the fantasy presented by tkoind2. The majority of Americans have health insurance. Despite everything the trial lawyers can do, the majority of people do not lack health insurance. Those who do, are made up primarily of 2 groups of people. Illegal immigrants, and young Americans in their 20s and early 30s, who frequently choose not to have it. The vast majority of Americans have health insurance, or if they want it, they can get it through their jobs.

In reality, what this means, is that people from other countries, Canada, Mexico, and yes Japan, come to the US for treatment. Because when it comes down to it, its the best health care system in the world. So while it may be a joke to some Europeans, when they get sick, they quit laughing and head to the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2

Inkjet why don't you write a letter and ask the President directly.

good one. abc won't even allow alternative view points to buy air time during is abc sponsored infomercial.

look i'm not saying there is no problem. there is a big problem. people are too many uninsured people who have to rely on the emergency room for treatment. that has to stop for many reasons.

i just think the debate is a stacked deck. malpractice awards could account for 50% of all medical costs! besides the direct costs of the insurance you have doctors over prescribing to protect themselves. this is a major, major cost issue. most of his proposals will increase costs not decrease. capping awards clearly would lower costs, yet obama will not consider it.

my answer as to why is he does it to protect his special interest group supporters, lawyers and unions. now if an obama supporter wants to disagree i'm open to hearing from them.

if any of you know enough to spout off about this issue you ought to know enough to address this crucial element of the debate. 'ask obama' doesn't cut it. he obviously doesn't want to go there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Inkjet why don't you write a letter and ask the President directly.

As for denial of care. The list of true stories of people being refused life saving care in the US is so long that no blog could ever contain it. I know from the experience of direct family members that health maintenance, regular check ups and other basic health care is not available for free to working poor. And barely available to absolute poor.

If you fall ill in an emergency you will get care. But why should people have to wait until they fall down to get care? Especially when proper health maintenance would prevent many of the advanced illnessess that people fall victim to.

People need basic, continuous access to care. Not only in emergencies but always.

How many people have to delay surgery or tests that may otherwise save their lives or prevent the advancement of illness? How many cannot have access to care that would better the quality of their lives?

In Canada and in the UK you can get basic care, have access to the treatments you require and not have to mortgage your home to do it. This is called civilization and responsible governance. And the US badly needs this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sydenham

please don't spout off on something you know nothing about. no one in america is denied basic medical service. of course some premium services are exclusive. but this is true even for people with certain insurance. and even in a socialist country i would wager.

but to continue this rant about health care being denied anyone in the us is just not true. you are just repeating propaganda. please stop it. have you ever lived there? have you any direct real knowledge on the subject, other than the propaganda pieces i'm sure you've read?

now i do not know much about countries with socialized medicine. but let me guess there are caps on malpractice awards. am i right?

if some pro obama poster out there would mind cutting though all this propaganda and answer my question, which i've already posted several times: why won't obama consider capping malpractice awards?

a reasonable answer to this question would really move the issue along for me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet. See you are still waving the red flag and trying to paint socilistic policies as a return to Stalinism. Thankfully you are the only one on the thread who seems to buy into that fear tactic.

I guarantee you that McCain would have been under the same situation if he had won. The downstream impact of AIG or GM failing would have motivated similarly socialistic programs to bail them out. Proof is in the fact that the Bush administration was following a similar policy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Teleprompter. I have to agree with sydenham that the system is clearly tooled towards people with money. If you are poor the US system may as well not exist.

I know so many people in the US who don't have insurance and can't afford it. Then there are the ones who do have insurance but their portion of the payments or the limiations that the policy enforces make it nearly useless for them. For the lucky few who have good insurance or enough money not to worry about it, then the US system is indeed gold.

Now I will grant that the system is gold in terms of technology and capability. But that only matters if you can afford it.

We need a base line provision of accessible socialized health care that enables all Americans to have access for health maintenance and for the treatment of illness and disease. Period!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Teleprompter. If a system is built and maintained only to provide full service to a portion of the population, while holding the same services out of reach for those who cannot afford it, it is literally, a system for the rich, and therefore a joke, for the the average joe.

It's the truth. His insurance says it's not necessary, and will not cover him. Taint no lie. And my dad did get them for free!!! free!!! let me say this again, it cost him...nothing!!!

If you really have worked in American hospitals, and with many relatives in the same boat, if you're doctors that is, you're happy with the status quo. High salaries.

That's the bottom line, isn't it? money. and making a buck, at the expense of people's well being. Sounds like the opposite of the hippocratic oath to me.

The American system is a joke.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet : Thanks for the link : http://www.cimca.ca/media/EmployeeBenefitNews-Feb07.pdf

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The American health care system is the joke of the so-called first world nations. It's a system for the rich, only."

From what country comes the vast majority of medical advances? Hint - It's in North America, but it ain't Canada...

"System for the rich"? That is all relative to where you're from.

My American buddy's father needs the same, but can't get it, even after working his butt off for 50 years of his life.

Sorry,having worked in US hospitals and with many relatives still doing so I'm skeptical of your little story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's wrong with socialized medicine? Seems to work in Europe, of course the medical companies and hospitals are lobbying for their $$$'s. This is health care, it should be god given right and should be paid for by government taxes. Thank god for the British NHSS.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The American health care system is the joke of the so-called first world nations. It's a system for the rich, only. My American co-workers marvel at the Japanese system, while their parents back home can't pay for their necessary care.

My father in Canada had his hips replaced for free under Medicare. My American buddy's father needs the same, but can't get it, even after working his butt off for 50 years of his life. I should say working his hips joints off.

The Republican mentality is cannibalizing America. They think everything is a competition, and even health care should be restricted to only those who can afford it. That's the only way they feel happy: to have something others don't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the swedish government refused to buy saab. it said a government has no business running a car company. but of course obama is not a socialist.

in fairness he is not (yet). but he's certainly leaning that way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Republicans are really desperate. Unfortunately, Obama is not a Socialist. It would be nice if he were. Given the temper of the times, people might like Obama more if they thought he was a Socialist.

Europeans would like him more. For that matter, so would the Chinese. The people who wouldn't like it however, and in fact who don't, are the American people who elected him. Last poll I heard, had 85% of people opposed to socialism. Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Socialism works. There are plenty of socialist countries today, and many are our allies.

It works in special circumstances, for short peiods. If it's the so-called Swedish model you refer to it is generally now regarded as failure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bgood41: Soviet Union did not work, so does America Union or Obamaunion.

The Soviet Union was not socialist exactly. It was communist, or at least its economy was.

Socialism works. There are plenty of socialist countries today, and many are our allies. From the rest of your post, I would think that you know all this.

It does not mean we have to become socialist, but all this fear of socialism is silly and uncalled for. Scare-mongers are a horrible bunch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Soviet Union did not work, so does America Union or Obamaunion. The social security is running dry, medicare and medicaid are under fund; and now more trillions in social medicine in the name of good intention that might not work? Come on, your great-great-great grand children are going to pay for all these? We have to fix the problems and it will not be solved by using scaring tactic to gain a short term benefit. Obama's inner circle has a clear liberal agenda transforming America into a historical failure of European Socialism. I did not find this kind of policy anywhere in the birth of this nation. We all pay for their egos.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Soviet Union did not work, so does America Union or Obamaunion. The social security is running dry, madicare and mdicaid are under fund; and now more trillions in social medicine in the name of good intention that might not work? Come on, your great-great-great grand children are going to pay for all these? We have to fix the problems and it will not be solved by using scaring tactic to gain a short term benefit. Obama's inner circle has a clear liberal agenda transforming America into a historical failure of European Socialism. I did not find this kind of policy anywhere in the birth of this nation. We all pay for their egos.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lucky are the Americans who live near the Canadian border.

in fact it's canadians who come to the us for care. if they can afford it of course. this is an interesting article for those who care to read it.

http://www.cimca.ca/media/EmployeeBenefitNews-Feb07.pdf

in fact most americans don't want socialized medicine. even obama promises it's not what he's after. but you know he wants it. so he'll push it as far as he can now and try to get more later.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Republicans are really desperate. Unfortunately, Obama is not a Socialist. It would be nice if he were. Given the temper of the times, people might like Obama more if they thought he was a Socialist.

The US is the only major industrial country without universal health care of some sort. Lucky are the Americans who live near the Canadian border.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lincoln's words are just as true today as they were when he said them. There are no "competing quotes."

Many of them aren't even his words.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you strand naked human beings on a fertile though deserted island with no initial capital whatsoever, through labor and ingenunity, wealth will soon be created. The illusion that "times are different" can blind many to this basic truth.

a false premise. even so in your model the ones with the biggest biceps would be making the rules.

we live in a very complex culture. trying to bring it back to pre-industrial or even pre-agricultural days is ridiculous. geez talk about being throw backs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you strand naked human beings on a fertile though deserted island with no initial capital whatsoever, through labor and ingenunity, wealth will soon be created. The illusion that "times are different" can blind many to this basic truth.

And if you leave out context, and situation, you miss the point of what was being said, and the essential message the speaker intended.

One of the brightest spots for me in all this, is seeing the Dems caving on the health issue. The more news about it comes out, the more blowback they start to get. They realize, that if they pass socialized health care, they're done. Mid Term elections are coming real soon, and the further they go in nationalizing companies, the more likely it is, that Obama will have a hostile congress for the second half of his term.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" : We all care about the human person. I had a friend who played by the rules. Saved his money weekly in the stock market for years. Lost most of it recently. Where did the money go? He says to money heaven. So much for fleeting wealth. The baby boomers are looking at a dismal retirement even if they played by the rules. Certainly something has to change somewhere and the means to safeguarding individual freedoms and at the same time stop the ruthless from trampling the weaker members of society is a fine line. Having government dictate how yabits (for example) should live his life is not the answer. Yet we must organize. I think Obama is trying to listen and I hope workable solutions that are focused on the person are found, with mechanisms for honest feedback to help us keep on course. Both the Dems and GOP want the same ends. Means will differ and they keep each other in line. Thank goodness.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain, thank you.

Molenir: Lincoln's words are just as true today as they were when he said them. There are no "competing quotes."

If you strand naked human beings on a fertile though deserted island with no initial capital whatsoever, through labor and ingenunity, wealth will soon be created. The illusion that "times are different" can blind many to this basic truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If President Obama came out today and said something like that, the howling jackals of those who claim to be from the "party of Lincoln" would howl even louder.

lol, you really don't want to get into competing quotes. I mean really. JFK had a lot to say on the subject, so did FDR, and quite a few other Dems. Different times, different situations, different speeches.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits,

Truly excellent post. Thank you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No wealth~No jobs???

One of the founders of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, put it best in his very first message to Congress:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

If President Obama came out today and said something like that, the howling jackals of those who claim to be from the "party of Lincoln" would howl even louder.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Accuse? He seems to have the attributes of a socialist. I have a friend who has a saying, " If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck. It is a duck" . Same principle applys with Pres. Obama. He is what he is. I just wish he were more honest about it. Is there such a thing as an honest politician?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oneforall: "No wealth = No jobs"

I think we have this the other way around, "No jobs = No wealth", if corporations keep firing people at the rate they are, we are shooting ourselves in the foot don't you think.

CEOs & VPs keep their same salaries and performance bonus for poor performance, and fire 5-10% of their workforce doesn't make any sense.

They should reduce their salaries by 5-10%, or I would argue by the same value that their stock value dropped.

It is Psychopathic behavior, and very, very, un-Democratic.

Don't worry, change is already happening, and we will not forget what these totalitarian leaders did to our Democratic system.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It always strikes me odd when people believe that govenment, an institution not ment to make money, should be able to dictate how people and businesses manage their finances.

If a business feels like crippling itself by paying its leaders an extravagant ammount than let them, another company will take its place. If a CEO is not worth his salary than the shareholders can fire him and if it all goes to pot they have nobody to blame but themselves.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” - Winston Churchill

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not a matter of what they expect, its a matter of value.

LOL!!!! Wow...that is a good one.

So, as the US was growing after WWII up until the 1970s and dominating the world economy, the ratio of CEO pay to ordinary employee pay was on the order of 75 to 1. From the late 1970s, the ratio shot up to several hundreds to one.

If they were truly worth that much more in compensation, the US would not be as messed up economically as it is now. The big problem is that the people who are doing the bidding are essentially the same ones who decide on compensation, as in Former CEO of company A is now on the board of Companies B, C, and D. It's a revolving door where self-regulation and common decency are thrown out the window.

The ones getting shafted are the shareholders and employees of the companies that now can't keep talented and effective people at the top.

A regular laugh-riot. So a good manager of a car plant will ipso facto be a talented manager at a pharmaceutical company as long as the pay is higher? The Japanese turned out a pretty good auto industry; how many high-priced, "talented" managers did they have to attract from outside Japan to do it? Did the Japanese "failure" to go after the highest priced talent end up shafting employees and shareholders?

And yet, [tort lawsuits are] the biggest, most out of control cost in health care.

You really believe that baloney, don't you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With Marxist/Socialism there are no lawyers = good for health care, but something would be needed to check quality.

Obama-Change is difficult, but we must go blindly forward and forget any history of the past like any true Socialist would.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And what country on Earth would be willing to pay the salaries these CEOs expect?

Not a matter of what they expect, its a matter of value. You have the US, suddenly say, you can't make more then 250k a year. Bam. 10 companies in Europe offer the guy 400k. Guess where hes moving. Next guy comes in, starts making 250k, another company in Europe offers him 400k. Another guy gone. Thats the way this works. All the talented people leave for greener pastures. The ones getting shafted are the shareholders and employees of the companies that now can't keep talented and effective people at the top. Who does this help? Does it help US efficiency? Does it help US companies be competitive? When all their quality people are being recruited overseas?

Back to the subject of health care. Obama has said repeatedly, he doesn't want tort reform. And yet, that is the biggest, most out of control cost in health care. The US has the best health system in the world. Best docs, most innovation etc. But Obama wants to change this. You want to cover everyone. But its a sliding scale. You have a choice. Quality health care where a few people are left out, or average health care where everyone is covered. No one dies from lack of coverage, no instead they die from poor health care.

Frankly, if we could get tort reform through, I'd be happy leaving the health care system the way it is. It doesn't need to be socialized. Changing the laws so lawyers can't leech so much off everyone else, would make it cheaper for everyone. Meaning more people could afford it, less people would be left out, and everyone would be happy. Well, not the trial lawyers who won't be able to sue a hospital for millions anymore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am all for socialism if it has a provision to buy back the (private, non-tax paying) Federal Reserve. Since 1913 this economy has been on the down and the rich are just fleecing US making them richer and even more powerful. Their wars need to stop also since it helps no-one but the rich also.

Marxism: We will dumb down the populace to give those in control more power. Our schools have been promoting this thru "change" and "reform" under the name of "progressive" with no responsibility. We must stop all exchange of information thru the Internet(s) and control all media.

When Stalin was hiding and Russia was in it's darkest days (nights) -It did take a Priest to rally the populace. -And Progressive education failed in Russia also (1918-1932).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@molenir

Of course you realize, that the first job offer overseas that the CEOs and all the execs get, they will take. Ah, but that doesn't matter. Retaining talented, qualified people, who know what they're doing, meh.

And what country on Earth would be willing to pay the salaries these CEOs expect?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jhk - No wealth = No jobs : I think we went through the Bill Gate story above. We are talking about Economic freedom and government intervention. Can the free market give better services than government? Should government be running healthcare? GM? Banks? Hold your mortgage? Pay your salary? Educate your children? Government, who are those guys anyways?

Under the principle of Subsidiarity (see above) the government may be taking on too much and we lose our freedoms. For example, education is the responsibility of the parents. Yet the government will tax you to support public schools. You have no choice. The money that you would have used for private schools goes to the public one by force. A loss of choice and freedom for the family, taken by government through economic means. There are alternatives such as homeschooling or just paying for private schools. However, there is no choice in education from the government and only the wealthy can pay for private schools. Vouchers would have increased competition to everyone's benefit. The way it is, education becomes a class system. Even Obama went to a private High School which one can infer would be better then a public one.

Health care is really something the government should ensure proper delivery of. As with education, it will turn into a class system. One for the average Joe and another for those who can pay. I heard France has such a two class system. Unless something like vouchers are given to allow choice and competition, we will have the same. Right now everyone does receive care in the US, even if they cannot pay. The same care as someone who has insurance. Why? It is just the way it is. There are horror stories but I can also give you many stories of people without insurance who are taken care of with the best care in the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2

But it is a gold standard that locks half of society out.

well of course that isn't accurate at all.

i was an uninsured american myself for quite a while. many of my friends were and still are. i know something about the subject. something needs to be done for sure. but what exactly? you still haven't explained why obama is opposed to tort reform.

there are a few things to keep in mind when you talk about health reform and the uninsured. while there are many uninsured americans many are uninsured by choice. that is they could afford to pay but don't want to. they think drinking out every night, buying a new car, clothes, stereos whatever are better ways to spend their cash. they take their chances. if they get sick they still get treated. then they can always bargain the price down. this cost gets passed on to folks who do have insurance. i've done this calculation myself. it's a way to beat the system.

poor people don't need insurance, the government already covers them.

then there are the people who want insurance but can't afford it. they should have an opportunity. but not a subsidy so they can buy their 60 inch tv.

obama wants to use this crisis to get more control over people's lives and choices. otherwise he would be getting to the heart of the matter, run away costs. simply insuring more people won't bring the costs down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is Obama hiding? What happened to all the blather about transparency?

"Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies. …"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wake up and recognize that socialized health care is the future for America and that it will happen.

We already have something akin to socialized care on our Indian reservations and - surely the Lefties here remember - at hospitals like Walter Reed.

Do a search yourself - the care on reservations is awful and we all heard how bad it was at W Reed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheGeneral,

Thanks. Not that it'll make a hoot of difference. When it comes to attacking to pillars of a system that guarantees the wealthy become wealthier to the detriment of all around them, there is no compromise. They simply cannot invisage a reality in which there really is such a thing as being too rich.

Dollars to donuts, before it's all said and done, the Average Joe is going to get sick of waiting for reason to take hold, pick up something heavy and go in swinging to take that 80% of the pie that the 8% of the population somehow thinks is their God-given right.

I'd just as soon that not happen, but it seems the intractible nature of the wealthy, at least in the US, makes it a foregone conclusion. Poop is going to hit the fan before too long and their aren't enough private security firms in the world to hold down the fort.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its just a matter of determining how much is excessive (Say more than 5 million in assets, or say more than 500 thousand a year).

Of course how these assets were accumulated as well as how they are being spent would also help determine the degree of antisocial behavior, but we can leave this up to the mental health professionals to figure out.

Also the use of offshore entities to minimize tax, or the act of short-selling for profit taking, could be seen as antisocial as well.

One path would be the mental health route, and the other would just be the criminal or civil route.

It would be a great opportunity for Lawyers, Forensic Accountants, and Mental Health Professionals.

Does anyone disagree?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hate the Reps, it's just warm air they are talking...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My friend here says I should point out. I am American.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes. I grew up in America and I have close friends in the medical community.

ok I agree it is the gold standard. But it is a gold standard that locks half of society out. And that is why it must change.

But you can have both a gold standard and a base line of socialized medicine that everyone can access. And we must do so. Obama's plan does not ignore this. It embraces this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2

have you had experience with the medical system in the us?

i've met many doctors here who consider it to be the gold standard. and when asked, they tell me it's the lawyers who are destroying the health care system in america.

our doctors are the best trained in the world. but a slip and fall lawyer can make more off one case then they make in a year.

yet obama refuses to do anything about it. defend that please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OneForAll. I believe that you can have economic freedom with social responsibility. This isn't Stalin, this isn't China. This is a lot of Europe and it works.

I truly believe a society can empower the gifted while protecting and caring for the weaker members of the community. That people can pursue and realize dreams while participating in programs that provide equality and support for others.

Socialized health care gives us a healthier society. Socialized higher education gives us a more educated population who can leverage and benefit from a free and open economy. And restrictions upon large corporations and their greed can empower smaller companies who are inherently more socially invested in their communities and usually more socially responsible to those communities.

My main point is that we can have both. This is the middle ground. A society that provides for those who need while empowering those who can. Why is that communism or socialism? This thinking is reflected in much of our American history. And it is the moral foundation that makes us the nation we are. We believe in helping others, we believe in equality, we believe in doing the right thing.

It is an irrational fear of socializing things that leads to this vitriolic combat of words. When in reality socializing necessary functions is something most of the capitalist nations do anyway. And that is all I am really suggesting.

As for corporate responsibility. I think business should be good citizens and that means showing greater care for their workers than they do today. Stock holders should help demand this too and see that benefiting society benefits them as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2

i fail to see where anyone is using the cold war fear mongering to attack obama. it seems it's you who are stuck with an outdated defense.

answer this question, why is obama opposed to tort reform? spare me the cold war is over routine. he's happy to cap everyone else, why not slip and fall lawyers?

i think people will begin to see his agenda more clearly over time. they may find it is not necessarily what they had in mind when they elected him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Teleprompter, come on. What dire consequences. You mean that many people now have affordable health care? That the poor also have access? Or that people can receive services they need/

The problem with your stance is this. If you have zero health care today, even socialized care like Japan with many issues becomes highly desirable. It is easy for those with health insurance to talk about the preservation of the current system, but for many change is needed just to assure that they can get the care they need.

Another point. HMO's regulated and harmed proper medical practices far more than any system in the UK or Canada. They dictated terms to doctors and hospitals and everyone went along with it. They had no other choice. And we've since seen many of them go public about the terrible things it made them do.

Now why then would a rational and well implemented socialized health care system be any harder to gain support for than the rigid HMO policies?

Wake up and recognize that socialized health care is the future for America and that it will happen. It has to to address our aging popultion, to provide health care for the vast legions of working poor and to support families. The UK or CA systems would be a great improvement over the lack of care many live with today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 as leader of the left - Thanks for your thoughts. Molenir as leader of the right - Thanks for your thoughts. Made for a good read. I hope a middle ground is found that works.

I agree with both sides, if that is possible. "What is moral?" I ask to both sides. Stalin saw his actions as moral for the good of the people with the resulting death of millions. Then we have the recent failure of the capital markets causing global misery for those who find themselves out of work and/or losing their retirements/benefits.

My Father once said that Communism without God will not work. Capitalism will not either. God! one says. Yes, because in the end it is the goodness of the human heart that makes life worth living. Allowing people the freedom to express this goodness is important. The principle of subsidiary... "Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority."...comes to mind. Where this smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority exists, is always difficult.

My personal feeling is that everything should have just gone bankrupted. All debts cleared. All the real capital and resources are there, it is just that everyone gets a clean slate to start again. Instead, Americans are still in debt and cannot be an engine to get the world economy rolling again. Government stepped in for more debt. This idea of socialism may just be a black hole for any wealth America had left when this crisis hit. This BRIC fiasco in Russia was just something to tell America that it better honor its debts. We are working for those who own the mortgage folks.

"There is no freedom without economic freedom." says one above. I agree. It would be nice to wave a wand and all remains the same except no debt. Then governments could be the ref and get out of the way. As Tkoind2 says there are many smart people out there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Socializing the system makes sense. It will happen sooner or later.

The social engineers of the Left just never get it.

You can't force doctors to practice your brand of medicine.

The consequences will be dire, as they have been for the UK and Canada.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Come on guys enough with the cold war fear mongering. It just does not hold water any more. So one by one.

Molenir: You lack faith in humanity don't you. It is a pretty dark world to think that people are only motivated by capitalism when clearly many people are motivated by higher values such as family, doing the right thing and helping others.

You are the one with a lack of grounding in reality. Reality is that 50mil Americans cannot afford health insurance. Many others cannot have access to higher education. And many have lost their careers to the current crisis with little hope of recoving it.

Reality on the ground for many many Americans is that capitalism has left them behind. Now I am not suggesting we toss out the existing system. I am suggesting that we fix the existing system. It is possible to have both. We can have socialized medicine and responsible business practices and capitalism at the same time. As I pointed out, many nations in Europe do this with great benefit to their societies.

You lack the vision to see what is possible due to your archane fears of a simple word "socialist". When in reality our nation already practices many socialistic approaches to problems that work well.

Realist: Time for some realism mate. You cannot expect miracles. Change and development of good results takes time. Give the man some time. Could you change the world for the better in just half a year? I don't think so. We have to work through the crisis step by step and recognize that this is a brand new challenge. I think Obama is doing a great job of starting the process. But patience and support are needed to achieve change.

If America is doomed. It is because of the short attention span and lack of practical patience that is required to realize fundamental change. "Stay the Course" and we can see things improve.

inkjet: I agree with you about doctors. But you need to marry this with socialized medicine that allows everyone access. You can keep your exclusive services as well. But set a base that everyone can access and afford. It is needed and it must be done.

As for polls. Polls don't scrare me. Change is hard and won't always be popular. So I expect polls to rise and fall. This is natural.

As for control of industry. What other options were there? GM kept making cars that didn't make sense. How much insight was required to see that people were buying Japanese because the cars made sense? GM could have done better and didn't. But it's collapse could have caused even greater problems if it had happened earlier when all else was sinking. I don't think Bush would have handled this any differently.

As for the pendulum. You have a lot more than the economy to be ashamed of. Iraq, the mishandling of Afghanistan and a long list of other poor policies. Obama may not stay in the honeymoon for long, but at least he is working on plans to address issues your party tried to sweep under the carpet. It takes a lot more to try to sort things than to pass them off as the GOP has done.

Ah-so. Finally a rational voice. Americans are too blinded by fear of socialism, unreasonable fear at that, to see that most of them need this more than they know. Americans want and need access to affordable health care. Socializing the system makes sense. It will happen sooner or later.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

also obama wants to exert control on the industry. as with the car industry, the bigger role the government has the more it can dictate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Surely a bit of "socialism" would help America's over-priced, divisive healthcare system.

i tell you what would help. tort reform. capping the amount you can get in a malpractice case.

doctors have to maintain outrageously high liability insurance. all doctors, good or bad. that considerable expense gets passed on to the patient.

also doctors over prescribe tests fearing if they miss something they could get sued. that alone drives up medical costs by 30% it's estimated.

yet obama refuses to considering capping these cases. why?

trial lawyers are a major special interest group in bed with the dems. also unions oppose these caps. do i need to say more?

obama has no problem capping in other areas. this shows me he's more interested in his special interest groups than in finding a proper solution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Surely a bit of "socialism" would help America's over-priced, divisive healthcare system.

If I were to choose a healthcare system from a "blind" position i.e. not knowing if I was rich or poor, healthy or unhealthy, then I would not choose that of the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i guess people like you are showing up in the poll i linked.

i'm not so pessimistic. there is bound to be a backlash against all this self righteous, hate filled intolerance. i doubt we have seen the person who can lift us out of that yet.

i'll happily go to either side of the isle if such a person shows up.

i voted for ralph nader so i'm no partisan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America I think has become a doomed society. The liberals have an agenda to silence all dissenting voices against their policies. Political Correctness sickness rules, and no-one need challenge that, or else they will face hate-filed diatribes. Obama is one big disappointment. I had such hopes for Smerica under his leadership, but his speeches are becoming stranger by the hour.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2

Change is here to stay.

anyone who has ever raised a baby knows change is always going to be part of life. wether it's diapers, new toys or a new spouse.

but will the 'obama change' always be here?

the polls seem to indicate a small subtle change that you may not like.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55H06I20090618

granted these numbers are not terrible for obama. but they do show a different trend beginning. people have always liked the 'abstract' obama more than his actual policies. if he doesn't produce postive results his numbers will drop, fast.

let's face it of all the issue the left hated bush for the one single one that got the republicans killed was the economy. of course any party in power during a collapse will suffer. but as heads clear more people will come to realize it wasn't really bush's fault. the entire world didn't see it coming. the same guys who are on obama's team now were willing participants who didn't see it coming. this fact will be made clear to more receptive ears. if obama doesn't deliver.

i say to my lefty friends, enjoy the view while you have it. the pendulum will swing. it always does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is not a socialist - I think he is a Communist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2

Change is here to stay.

I notice that like all of Obama's fawning admirers you never define "change" other than to proclaim that things you don't like - and more correctly don't understand - need to disappear, by gov't fiat if possible and by force if necessary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Capitalism will not work forever. It depends upon year on year growth which will be harder and harder to achieve. Social-Democracy makes sense as the next step as it is driven more by social needs and less by the desires of companies. We see this in many norther European nations and we will see more of this as nations evolve.

You sound like that communist writer. Whats his name. You're basically parroting his arguments, much of which have been discredited time and time again. The Ivory tower has a great view, but doesn't give much real world experience. When it comes down to it, capitalism works because it harnesses everyones own self interest. Socialism and Communism both fail because in the end they rely on enlightened leaders, who it turns out are as human, and as greedy as the next person. I hate to use this old statement, but its true. If you want to live in a society that enjoys that kind of life. Go visit there and stay. Why try to corrupt the society you're living in now so that it turns to crap? If the majority of people are happy living under capitalism, and quite frankly, you'll note how many people want to get into America, maybe theres something to that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Informed. Come on. Is Sweden fascist? Norway? Denmark? Most of Europe for that matter?

Look this isn't a A/B choice. Economies evolve and they do so by blending new ideas with old ones to create better ones to move forward. A lot of nations have had the good sense to work on balancing their societies. They have good health care systems that care for everyone and don't bankrupt families. They have good systems for the elderly. And good systems for people going through hard times. All of this is morally right, intelligent and productive to create a better society.

Why is that so scary? To be honest I think it is only scary because US propaganda has got the people most likely to benefit from these changes, scrared to death of them. Instead of fighting for things that would truly benefit their families like free higher education, socialized health care and a strong social safety net, these voters are sold the dream that anyone and everyone can be prosperous if they work hard. Despite the clear fact that the vast majority of Americans will live out their lives as workers on a salary and nothing more.

We need to change this thinking and get things moving to help the majority of Americans and the reality they live in every day.

You want fascism, I'll give you fascism. Fascism is a government that ignores the needs of the people. A government that would rather buy weapons that educate children. A government that will drop billions on an unwarranted war in Iraq instead of investing in social health care that people without insurance so desperately need. And a goverment that uses propaganda to make the working class afraid of systems that would very obviously improve their lives.

Thankfully we have some people in power now who are willing to take on these issues and help educate the masses. The right will be swept aside on this one because reality will outpace any propaganda and fear mongering you may come up with. Change is here to stay.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Walmart dropped all generic drugs to $4 for a 30 day supply a few years ago --> It's hard to beat that and most others CVS/Osco have done the same.

What looks bad: Many goto Canada/Mexico for cheap drugs that are not generic and the Gov. actually told them you shouldn't be doing that. Mailorder also. Many go overseas for medical procedures also.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good God! Is socialism such a dirty word for you Americans?

Yes, socialism is a dirty word to Amercians. It's just that much closer to fascism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OH NOES!

Republicans don't like President Obama!!!

I never thought I would see the day!....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain at 11:33 AM JST - 18th June

Great post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir. We have been rewarding people to be greedy even at the expense of our economy. And we reward people who cut thousands of jobs while they earn millions. This is not healthy.

Class conflict exists. You can try to ignore it all you want but the world is filled with it. It has never lost relevance. Only in the polical rhetoric and propaganda has it even slipped out of sight.

You think everyone just wants to make a buck. But I see a lot of people working hard for their communities, smart people taking lesser jobs because those jobs benefit other people and giving generously of themselves and what they have to help others.

You act like execs are the only smart people. Well newsflash, there are a lot of very capable and smart people out there who choose to do other things.

So you decide that the guy who can make the most money is the one we should admire the most. Because the hard working teacher has no value in your capitalist vision because he/she doesn't generate revenue for anyone. Yet education is the very soul of our nation's future. So how do you reconcile that?

Capitalism will not work forever. It depends upon year on year growth which will be harder and harder to achieve. Social-Democracy makes sense as the next step as it is driven more by social needs and less by the desires of companies. We see this in many norther European nations and we will see more of this as nations evolve.

Look, no one with any background in economics or politics takes seriously any argument about the failure of communism. Why? Because those of us with an education in this area know that communism was a lable for a system that was neither socialistic or communistic. Russia and China were state capitalist nations like many others around the world. The difference was their use of communism as propaganda to justify that state capital control.

No one is saying shift to communism or socialism. I am clearly saying we need to socialize things like health care, education and social safety nets. We need to reign in and control corporations. We need better regulations and consumer protections. We need better labor laws and restrictions upon income gaps at companies. And we need incentives for good citizen companies and penalties for bad citizen companies.

These things are changes that will help the future of our nation. Idol worship of execs is primative and backwards. There are a lot of very smart people out there doing other valued things. We need stop falling on our knees every time some CEO comes into a room. And start standing up to them and demanding a better and more balance future.

As I have said each post. Change is inevitable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2:"Too many of your right wingers look at execs like landed gentry you need to bow down to"

The wealthiest counties in America vote Democrat.It is now the party of the rich.

tkoind2: "If you love a feudal structure so much, go back in time and become a surf [it's serf,dude] for some lord."

Road to Serfdom is one of the most influential books in odern economics and gov't. You ought to have a read sometime.It describes exactly how totalitarians like Obama come to power.Without economic freedom there is no freedom.

tkoind2:"We have however seen very successful socialistic states in Europe who practice far better socialized forms of capitalims that are an obvious next step in the progression of economics."

Cradle to grave entitlement programs have left then with birthrates so low that countries like Sweden will cease to exist as we knew them.

I'd hardly call that success.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As for salaries. Man get off your knees and stop worshipping sports stars and executives. You want to hear about people doing amazing things? Talk to urban teachers working for 40K a year to educate the next generation. Or elder care people working til they drop to care for our aging population.

How many teachers are there? How many executives? How many teachers could do the job that the various exec do, managing the companies. There is a reason they make the big bucks. If the company is profitable, its a good reason. Trying the old class warfare argument is really pathetic and pointless. When it comes down to it, everyone wants to make the big money. What you are trying to do, is inflame the lowest instincts of people. The Green-eyed monster. Look at your solution. From your rhetoric, it sounds pretty much like communism. Lets see how well thats worked elsewhere. Yeah, not too well. Socialism? Hmm, look at how great the socialist economies are doing. France is the obvious target. Worker issues and a shrinking economy. Rather pathetic eh? Capitalism works. Far better then any other form of economy.

Progress means change and change now should be for the betterment of all people and not just the elite.

Change is not always for the better. You of all people should know that seeing how you pointed out the change to communism, and its attendant ills. You want the US to throw out the best, strongest economy, in favor of what has been proven, to be a badly managed government controlled economy. I think not. Regrettably, Obama seems to be in your camp. After 4 years of him, I can't imagine how long it will take, or if it will even be possible to undo the damage he is doing to the economy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir.

You are right, drugs do cost more in the US. This is a big problem for your average American and the very heart of why this problem needs to be solved. If subsidies are required to make medical innovations, then so be it. But the current situation cannot continue.

As for salaries. Man get off your knees and stop worshipping sports stars and executives. You want to hear about people doing amazing things? Talk to urban teachers working for 40K a year to educate the next generation. Or elder care people working til they drop to care for our aging population.

Too many of your right wingers look at execs like landed gentry you need to bow down to. But the fact is that the average working Joe and Jan do most of the hard work that generates those profits. The sales guys get the fame, but the back office hard working people do the real work.

If you love a feudal structure so much, go back in time and become a surf for some lord. The rest of us are tired of breaking our backs so a few rich guys can get a hell of a lot richer. Workers world wide want and expect their share and they are growing in the courage to demand it. Especially in light of the greed and mismanagement that led to this current crisis.

Look oil is in decline, the climate is warming, oceans rising, natural resources becoming scarce and global populations are huge. You cannot continue to consume and produce at the levels that have been. The planet cannot sustain it. And it shouldn't. We should be thinking about rational use of resources, sustainability and a system that rewards conservation over rabid expansion.

It is all good and well that capitalism has been the "best" system out there. But it has also been a very damaging and unfair system that has brought prosperity to some while essentially enslaving many others. It is a system that must evolve.

"in favor of a system that has been repeatedly proven to fail." I assume you are referring to "communism" which has been practiced in name but in reality is state controlled capitalism. There has never been a truly socialist or communist state so claiming that either have been tested is absurd. What has existed are totalitarian states with state controled capitalism which failed.

We have however seen very successful socialistic states in Europe who practice far better socialized forms of capitalims that are an obvious next step in the progression of economics. Systems with socialized health care, strong social safety nets, better education structures, more social accountability from companies and better labor practices.

We should learn from this and not just resign ourselves to the way things "have been." Progress means change and change now should be for the betterment of all people and not just the elite. It is time for less worship of the CEO in favor of more respect and support for the legions of working class people.

Change is inevitable. It can come as we have seen in the best nations on earth today. Or it can come in the form of upheaval. But it will come if we do not change. I say we evolve and get it right. Step by step and free of childish fears.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does anybody have a problem with what Bill Gates or Warren Buffet did?

what did they do?

for me it comes down to where the money is best used. gates and buffet can only spend a tiny portion of their money on themselves (kind of like what the president spends on himself). they place the vast majority of their money into productive hands (they invest it). they put it where it will grow. this is their expertise. these investments in turn provide the means for job creation and raising tax revenue.

you tax it and it gets swallowed up by the government, which creates no jobs (ok a few government jobs) but they create no wealth (ok they can print it) but no real wealth. and they certainly don't raise any tax revenue. they are also very wasteful. their expertise is taking wealth from those who know how to create it.

that's pretty simplified but that is why i favor lower taxes and smaller government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Socialized medicine works. We have dozens of examples around the world where drug companies still co-exist and get on with making new products.

This is because of the US market. Don't kid yourself. Do some research on the subject. Find out how much a drug costs in the US, then compare it to how much it costs elsewhere. Without exception, you will see the drug is frequently 20 to 30 times more expensive in the US.

As for exec. salaries and fleeing execs going abroad. What makes any exec worth 100 times the value of a teacher? Or 10 times that of the president? Compensation has gotten out of control and needs to be restricted.

Simple. Because thats what the market is. Why do you think salaries of sports heros are so high. Its not because they can do such amazing things.

The environment can no longer sustain rabid capitalism. And the world is changing to have greater expectations by workers globally. Change is coming. Better that we do so in a modestly socialize and evolutionary manner, than through upheaval and worker revolt.

How you figure? Because of an economic recession? Because Barney Franks refused to allow the rules to be changed when it would have made a difference? In comparison, if you stub your toe, do you cut it off? Thats really what you're talking about here. Capitalism is quite frankly the best system thats out there. It has brought about more prosperity, for more people, then any other economic system in history. Yes it needs to be managed better. Yes there needs to be oversight and rules, but we shouldn't just discard what has worked, in favor of a system that has been repeatedly proven to fail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well the only thing the government, or we, or society needs to monitor is the income gap problem.

Solve this, and solve most of the problems we read about in the newspapers.

Does anybody have a problem with what Bill Gates or Warren Buffet did? Who was number three, and what is he doing with billions of dollars? You would think anyone that hordes that much money would carry antisocial behaviors characteristic of a sociopath.

Any Mental Health Professionals or Lawyers looking for something to do?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir. Socialized medicine works. We have dozens of examples around the world where drug companies still co-exist and get on with making new products. So your hysteria over this plank simply does not hold water. Only Americans seem propagandized to the point that they cannot see the obvious benefits of socialized health care.

As for exec. salaries and fleeing execs going abroad. What makes any exec worth 100 times the value of a teacher? Or 10 times that of the president? Compensation has gotten out of control and needs to be restricted.

If you fear them running abroad, well.. Their employers need the US maket and cannot abandon it. So incentivize the companies to keep good domestic practices and to stay home. If they flee, tax the hell out of their products when they are imported. Next work with other countries to universally drive down excessive compensation.

All I hear from you is a lot of fear. Yet the facts remain that compensation has to change as does social responsibility. Regulation must become stronger to protect the larger economy from the mistakes of individual companies. And workers must unite to demand a bigger share of the pie. And they must use their political and consumer power to force their position.

The environment can no longer sustain rabid capitalism. And the world is changing to have greater expectations by workers globally. Change is coming. Better that we do so in a modestly socialize and evolutionary manner, than through upheaval and worker revolt.

Think about it. Change can be good. Forget your fears and think about solutions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Geez, it just sounds like they are criticizing Obama administration for holding a national welfare campaign just like Lyndon Johnson did in the 1960s.

and look what we got in the 70's. is it time to dust off the misery index?

under carter it was nearly 22% twice what it was under bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tokind, zucronium

Wow, you guys... Where to start. Tough to pick, I've rarely seen such a huge amount of lies, disinformation, and outright nonsense in one collection. Can't believe the work that must have gone into putting your posts together.

On a more punitive side, tax the hell out of executives to keep their compensation in line. No exec needs 150 million a year while the average worker in their company makes 50K a year.

Of course you realize, that the first job offer overseas that the CEOs and all the execs get, they will take. Ah, but that doesn't matter. Retaining talented, qualified people, who know what they're doing, meh.

Why not?!? If those same companies obtain benefits for doing so? It isn't so black and white with some tyrant government putting guns to the heads of industry. We have a long history of pressing companies into doing what the nation needs. Most of that happening through benefits to companies who help out and a lack of them for companies that don't.

Oh? Which companies? When, where? Laws are passed that encourage companies to do things, wars occured, and companies helped, because when it came right down to it, it was in their best interests, as well as that of their shareholders to do so. But lets talk about what specifically you're referring to. Drug Companies for example. Hillary tried that in the 90s. She decided that flu vaccines should be made available to all. Guess what happened... Within 3 years, every US manufacturer of flu vaccines was out of business, or had shifted their operations overseas. They simply couldn't make money. The way the Drug industry works, is the US is charged through the nose for the drugs, everywhere else in the world pays barely more then cost. Why? Because the other countries like Canada came to the drug makers and said, either sell it to us, at cost, or we make generic drugs and sell it for our cost. Thats pretty much the way the world operates. Now, you want to force drug companies to charge less in the US? They'll be out of business real quick.

You want to get into the question of insurance? They make big bucks, but they're also exposed to heavy losses. But they're like any business, they pass the costs to their consumers, which means once again rates go up. Which means people pay more for health insurance and health care. If you really wanted to do something about it, you'd impose a cap on damage awards, this would cut the losses of the insurance companies, and the rates would drop immediately. Not just the malpractice insurance rates, but the cost of basic health insurance as well. But your idol the Obamanation, doesn't want to do that. Nope, his answer is to nationize health care, make it so we have Canadas model. Drug companies would either have to be HEAVILY subsidized, or go out of business, insurance companies would be taken over by the government, and while good health care would be available, it wouldn't be immediate, it would be once you're wait time is over. You couldn't easily change doctors if you aren't satisfied with the one you get, etc... Do I really need to go on?

Oh, and Zurcronium. I love how you always laud Clinton, like he could do no wrong. He balanced the budget, he did all this great stuff. Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with it. Oh, but wait, he had a Republican congress, who at least until Bush 2 came in, were actually sticking with core Republican principles. At least for the most part. Guess they don't count. I mean, just because all the budgets he submitted to congress were vastly more then what was eventually passed. No, he gets all the credit, nary a Republican in sight. Sure, I grant you, Bush 2, was a lunatic on spending, and Republicans abandoned their core beliefs. But give them a little credit for balancing the budget. Cause if it wasn't for them, it wouldn't have happened.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good God! Is socialism such a dirty word for you Americans?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge:

"Then why the heck did you take [companies] over? Oh yeah, they're "too big to fail."

Your selective memory is showing again. Bush put forth the bailout plan because he, as well as Republican senators realized it was a necessity in order to avoid economic disaster. Usually, you’re very astute with your one-line zingers, but this comment is self-serving dishonesty at best.

Inkjet:

"i don't have the time to go into why that is so scary. try to figure it out for yourself."

Don't make a vague point then cop out of explaining yourself. Take your time to explain; We aren't going anywhere.

”the government can't punish companies into producing jobs or drug companies into developing drugs to save our asses. people do understand that and the polls are beginning to reflect it.”

What the hell are you going on about? 1) the government have yet to force any companies to produce anything, so the polls you claim are in response to that falacy are equally bogus. Making crap up isn’t an effective way of making your point.

Healthcare is not a commodity to be traded and sold to the highest bidder. It’s a human necessity that should be afforded to every single US citizen regardless of income. One way to mitigate the costs of advanced treatment is to incorporate relatively inexpensive preventative care, so that small problems don’t have time to become big problems.

That’s what HMOs were ostensibly supposed to provide, except the greed inherent in individual enterprise (a la capitalism), as opposed to enterprises controlled and regulated by the state (police, fire, military, infrastructure) virtually guaranteed that the cost of HMOs would spiral out of control (as they have) and provide sub-standard care (which they do), while stockholders casually shrug at the inherent wrongness of it all, pocket their dividends, and mumble something about "market forces" and bootstraps.

I’m all for capitalism. I like being paid for a job well done. I like taking that pay and using it buy nifty things like the computer I’m tapping out this message on, made by other people who are paid well for building a quality computer. But healthcare is NOT something that should be for profit. Period. We’re the wealthiest nation on earth with an abundance of pretty smart people. You’d think we’d be able to figure out some way to make it work in a way that benefits the most people.

I doubt very sincerely 50 million Americans without insurance, winging it in the hopes that nothing bad happens to them is not the image of a Great Society our forebearers had in mind.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The financial industry collapsed while Bush was still in office. The republicans forget bush and paulsen dumped billions into AIG, Citibank, BofA etc. They did this because they had to otherwise the whole economy would have collapsed.

So stop crying about a government takeover when in fact bush did what he did because he had to, and so has Obama since he has been in office. GM has been in failure mode for decades and it took the bush recession to push them over the edge.

The US is a mixed economy. Has been for years. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security all point to that. The growth of government under bush and reagan skyrocketed. Only Clinton in recent days balanced the US government budget by restraining growth of government and taxing the rich. So in fact if you want to point fingers to big government point it at the republicans. They say they hate government but in fact they love to make it bigger and bigger, like bush did with homeland security-the most massive agency ever.

Obama understands the concept of public goods and wants to protect consumers from rapacious business attacks. Like insurance companies rejecting policies once a claim is made as the headlines stated today in USA papers. You republicans want to defend that? Is that capitalism for you? You all happy 50 million have no insurance in the US and 20 million more are underinsured. That is what capitalism has created in the health industry and its a massive failure, an enron like failure, an AIG like failure.

Shame on you all for even repeating the lies of the rove/limbaugh lie factory to protect the profits of unethical and immoral companies that profit from neglecting the illness of US citizens who pay them for protection.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So what if it is an imperfect world. No one expects it to be perfect. But throughout time we have worked to make it better. From your attitude the founder fathers should have paid their taxes, shut up and delt with the oppression of the King. But they didn't. They took a radical approach and yielded a better system. We need to do the same.

Drug companies and corporations have been the enemy for a long time. And it isn't new for people to point that out. Where were you during all the previous conflicts over environment, labor, HMOs and health care. This battle has been here a long time. It just took a global meltdown for mainstream people to get more involved and to raise more voices.

"the government can't punish companies into producing jobs or drug companies into developing drugs to save our asses."

Why not?!? If those same companies obtain benefits for doing so? It isn't so black and white with some tyrant government putting guns to the heads of industry. We have a long history of pressing companies into doing what the nation needs. Most of that happening through benefits to companies who help out and a lack of them for companies that don't.

Part of the overall problem is that we place the interests of a wealthy few abou the welfare of the masses of society. Stock holders over workers and individual corporate interests over the welfare of society.

This has to change and the way to get that rolling is to regulate them to keep them in line with practices that protect our economy and our society. Incentivize them to be socially responsible in the communities they do business in. And give them benefits for putting workers higher on their list of priorities.

On a more punitive side, tax the hell out of executives to keep their compensation in line. No exec needs 150 million a year while the average worker in their company makes 50K a year. This is wrong and we need to make them feel it by taxing them so much that no one wants that paygrade. Close the loop holes and make companies rethink this. Japan has had a much smaller gap between worker and execs for decades and it works. It can and should work everywhere else.

Lets face it, without massive comp packages to one guy, a company can better pay 2,000 workers. Or offset losses to retain employees during down turns. They can and should be looking at it this way.

Society will never move forward if we say "Its imperfect, what can we do?" Sometimes we need to think way outside the box to realize the next step in our social evolution. It is time we started to think about alternative ways to run our economic systems so that more people benefit and not just a small percentage. Change may hurt, but it is how societies evolve. And long overdue for us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Barack Obama is nationalizing American industry and socializing medicine

Geez, it just sounds like they are criticizing Obama administration for holding a national welfare campaign just like Lyndon Johnson did in the 1960s.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why is it so hard for companies to be good citizens.

you can add that, why is it so hard for citizens to be good citizens?

it's an imperfect world. get used to it.

the left has done a great job painting corporations, drug companies, doctors and business in general as the big bad guys. this new populism has taken root. for now.

but with out those guys functioning freely and effectively we're all screwed. the government can't punish companies into producing jobs or drug companies into developing drugs to save our asses.

people do understand that and the polls are beginning to reflect it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Biden: "We get the hell, the heck out as quickly as we can."

Well, which is it, hell, or heck?

"As the president says, we don't want any part of running any of these companies"

Then why the heck did you take them over? Oh yeah, they're "too big to fail."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think we should socialize like our model to the north.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Inkjet I just don't agree with your lable of "scary".

What should be scary to us both is a world where companies do what they want with little or no regard to humanity. Wait... that is the world we live in for the most part.

Exploitation of labor: Our consumer goods produced by workers living under conditions that none of us would wish on our worst enemies. And for salaries that are poor even by global poor pay standards.

Risk taking and greed: The financial crisis is the most obvious example of this. Just look at the inherent nature of exotic products, credit default swaps etc... to see that greed drove these despite the risk to the global economy and the very real people who make up world.

Insecurity: Most workers out there in the world labor at the whim of the corporate world. Lack of long term job security undermines the fabric of our society and is a cause of much of our social ills. Communities often live and die by the presence of companies in their locations. When those companies pick up and leave suddenly to see cheaper labor or to appease stock holders, then communities are sometimes crushed. There are endless examples of communities that were once prosperous now cast into economic hardship for decades thanks to profits taking priority over people.

My point is this. As an American I am expected to obey the law, behave in a socially responsible manner and do no harm. Society expects that I morally respect communities values, participate in society as a good citizen and help contribute to the welfare of our community. As corporations are viewed as entities not dissimiliar in law to individuals, I think society should expect companies to follow the same guidelines they expect from individuals.

Companies should hold greater responsiblity for the communities they do business in. If they want to benefit from the labor, infrastructure and other aspects of a community, they should shoulder more accountability to the community.

Ameicans want companies to do more for their communities. They want job security, they want employees to be as valuable as shareholders and for the company to care about their interests and families with as much zeal as they pursue profits.

What we need to do is start voting with our wallets. Socially responsible companies should thrive because they have our support. Those who put workers and communities last should perish from lack of customers and lack of public support.

If that is scary, then you need to ask yourself why is it so hard for companies to be good citizens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And the Republicans' plan is.....?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I believe we need stronger regulation and stronger societal accountability for companies. They should serve society or not exist. Period.

and who decides who qualifies for that? you're a scary dude."

In the end it has to be the market. But money and power do drive things. Power...everyone will buy American cars...money...American company gets business and survives to make better cars and to pay its obligations (promised pensions and health care benefits). Just the market and GM cannot compete with its many obligations that newer companies do not have. Going bankrupt clears the slate. (But who pays now for the pensions and other obligation?)

How about Pharmaceuticals driving Doctors to sell their drugs? Power, money... pushing the market and costing us all a bundle. Is this ethical behavior? How about HMOs? When a company tells me they have a plan for me in Health care, I shutter. Cell phone plans, fine. Heath care plans, I question. Basic health care is a human right that society must work to improve.

It may seem wild at times in the USA, but I am very happy with the expression of freedoms. Unethical behavior will be named and shamed. When there is silence, beware.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

first of all i never suggested you let business run rampant.

but more to the point, you suggested something very different than preventing businesses from doing overt harm. you made a value judgement. you said they must serve society. what does that mean?

i don't have the time to go into why that is so scary. try to figure it out for yourself.

here's a hint. what would you think if the government had that power and you arch enemies the republicans were in office? scary right?

freedom to be different and disagree brother. it's what makes america great.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why is it scary to expect business, who benefit from society, to return respect and social responsibility to society? What is so terrifying about social accountability?

Look at some examples. Early industry in the US dumped massive waste and polluted our environment, then over the years we demanded social accountability and companies were forced to seek alternative solutions and to clean up. This benefitted society. But it also benefited companies who then had the technology they could sell to others. Win win.

Society does not exist solely to provide labor to industry. Industry is a part of the social fabric and accountable for their actions like any other entity. We control our government through elections, but we have no such power over industry. Even President Eisenhower was concerned that corporations would userp democratic power and have too much power within our society. His farewell speech warned of things we have seen come into being.

We should regulate companies in a way that forces them to be socially responsible. Better labor practices, better balances of pay for employees that closes some of the massive gap between workers and executives. Companies must have social accountability for the communities where they practice business. And from a tax perspective, they should not be allowed tax benefits for doing things that are counter to the welfare of their native country or community.

If you think this is scary, then maybe you are priviledged class who are the few beneficiaries of a system that allows business to run rampant. But for most of us we are workers who want to see companies that care about our communities, care about our country and reap the benefits of being good corporate citizens and not just giving it lip service.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe we need stronger regulation and stronger societal accountability for companies. They should serve society or not exist. Period.

and who decides who qualifies for that? you're a scary dude.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another example of just how out of touch the GOP are. They keep trying to scare people into submission. It worked for a while thanks to 911, but people are tired of this tactic.

Bottom line GOP slugs.

People want health care. If socializing it makes that happen, the so be it. They want good care at reasonable price. They can look across the border at Canada or across the Atlantic to the UK and see working systems. And they are asking "Why are we paying so much or going without when other nations seem to be getting it right?" And it is a rational question that the GOP are just afraid is being properly answered off their watch.

Socializing business: More like tossing business a line to keep them from drowning. This BTW did not start with Obama. It started with brother Bush. And just what is your alternative solution?

I believe we need stronger regulation and stronger societal accountability for companies. They should serve society or not exist. Period.

Education: The US should socialize higher education and guarantee free college education to anyone who qualifies via entrance exams. This is an investement that will raise up our society and assure that we remain competitive and as the leaders of all key fields. An educated population would be a better society. But I think the GOP fear this. Because an educated society would see through all the flag waving and fear mongering to see the truth of what this party represents. Money and moneyed people only.

So GOP. Shut up and get out of the way. You had eight years of absolute rule to get it right and you failed. Let someone with a plan get to work. We just are not buying your petty tactics any more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

from a recent wall street journal poll:

Nearly seven in 10 survey respondents said they had concerns about federal interventions into the economy, including Mr. Obama's decision to take an ownership stake in General Motors Corp., limits on executive compensation and the prospect of more government involvement in health care. The negative feeling toward the GM rescue was reflected elsewhere in the survey as well.

the pendulum will swing. it always does. enjoy the ride.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is the same bull they pulled 30-40 years ago. our schools are socialized. our police and fire force is socialized. Our post office system is socialized. We have many many many socialicst system in our country. It does not make us a socialicst country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Efficient government is an oxymoron. However, so is compassionate capitalism. Compassionate government? Efficient Capitalism? Yes, the first naive and has failed as in the Soviet Union. The second has failed as in the 1929 Great Depression and in recent events. Discretionary behavior of everyone (behavior when no one is watching) must be for the common good, if that is possible. It comes down to societal values. Corruption in any system creates all sorts of injustices.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why won't obama consider putting caps on malpractice awards? he doesn't seem to have a problem capping in other areas.

could it be the powerful interest groups that stand behind them are his supporters?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This quote says it all:

"Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University, said Republicans may be misreading how their evocations of “socialism” will resonate with the public . . . I really don’t think fear of socialism is gripping Americans by the throat . . . "

Ah, but if only Joe McCarthy were alive today. He'd set things right and get the ailing Republican Party back on track, reaping the benefits of a political and economic system that they enjoy getting rich off of, but twist, squirm, and wheedle with every accountant at their disposal to not pay taxes into.

Does it not strike anyone in the Republican Party that they are still known largely as the party of the rich, while the Democratic Party is known as the party that champions the poor? Considering there are far more non-wealthy Americans in the nation than wealthy, wondering if they’re going to have jobs and homes tomorrow, fear of socialism in the current economy is probably the LAST thing on most Americans’ minds.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Instead of socialized medicine how about funding innovation to make health care cheaper. A program for more GPs (General Practioners) and they would be protected from lawsuits (another incentive). Cheap diagnosis is the key, the specialists are already there.

I envision a mall kiosk that you can walk into and get scanned for $20-40. All your data is compared to others like you and the statistics can be used to help others and the art or even sold.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites