please excuse my typing as I’m holding an angry cat at the moment:
As someone who works for Kmart, no, Big Business does NOT treat the worker any better. My dad works for a funeral home owned by a big corporation and just got a royal screwing. Even though he was in the right, he didn’t have enough money to fight those bastards for it.
**
Excuse me? That is asinine, bigoted stupid, and just plain ignorant. Yeah, sure. All that stuff’s on the Republican agenda. You forgot about us eating babies.
I forgot, none of the Kennedy children ever had drug problems or anything. It’s strictly a Republican flaw.
**
And your post Stoidela is the definition of hateful bigoted ignorance.
**
Actually I am free to say whatever I like. It’s in that Bill of Rights you claim us Republicans would like to tear down. As for the rest of your hateful drivel, I can only ask if you’ve lost your mind?
[/quote]
**
And my Grandfather was effectively raised by the Salvation Army. That doesn’t mean that the Government should fund them. Perhaps if SS was designed responsibly we wouldn’t have this mess. Do you think Social Security is just this wonderful thing designed to help the elderly by our righteous and moral democratic leaders?
How naive.
The reason it exists is because at the time it was implemented it created a surplus that the government could spend. Revenue. That’s the bottom line. The Social Security benefits were the carrot that enabled Government to create a program to increase revenue. A responsible government would have invested the surplus as they recquire insurance companies to do in order to insure that there was enough able to meet future obligations. They would have done this before spending the excess balance of payments. Ignorance can’t be claimed either, because there were laws in place at the time preventing both businesses and insurance companies from raiding their retirement funds.
That is why there is a problem with SS. The government spent the money. They knew it was a problem when they did it, and they did it anyway because they knew it would take 40-50 years before the effects were felt. Bush didn’t make the problem.
BTW: If your post is any indication of your political leanings, than I’m very glad to belong to the party that doesn’t have you in it.
Guinnastia: Nearly 11 years ago, when I was employed by a small family-owned newspaper, I walked in to work on a bright January morning only to be told by the owner that he had to let me go that very day because he owed $100,000 to Social Security and had to make up the shortage somehow – letting me go was part of his solution. He hadn’t been making the payments to the SS program, incidentally causing problems for at least one worker close to retirement, and why he didn’t land in jail baffles me to this day. He then proceeded to cheat me out of the vacation pay he owed me, and, like your poor dad, I lacked the money to fight it in court.
Three years later I had another employer delay a promised raise by several weeks. Got it only when I was on the point of giving notice.
Two years after that I worked only two days for one prick who owned a small restaurant. I left because he was so rude and unpleasant and made no effort to train me to do the job properly.
An acquaintance of mine had a chance three years ago to get a job with a large corporation. The small business that employed him kept him by promising him a raise and by adding several benefits, including health insurance and 401K. To this day he has not received those benefits, one reason he is out looking for a new position.
A small company that employed me last year has virtually every one of its full-time employees out looking for work now. Why? It has refused to pay people promised wages and raises and has made no effort to clean up a chaotic workplace. (I must confess that I had no particular gripes with this company, but then again I left for personal reasons after only about a year).
Oh no, Guinastia, only those cads with big businesses would cheat a worker. Why, all small businesspeople are as pure as the driven snow.
And Here’s a link. If you don’t like this one, you can find about 50 more.
You’re kidding, right? You start a thread with the statement that “I don’t think I would be contradicted if I said ‘Bush is for big business.’” You follow with this post that effectively says, “Oh, yeah, and by the way, what exactly is this pro-business agenda that the Republicans have? I mean, since I’m against it and all.”
Do you just want to make sure that you have a single fact available should anyone ask you to actually state why nothing on earth would make you vote for Bush? FTR, I generally gather my facts before I form an opinion. Your method is much more convenient, though, so don’t let me sway you.
Gee, Scylla, I went after the Republicans and your (incorrect) portrayal of them, not you personally. Is your nastiness supposed to shed light on something besides your ability to be nasty? You like the word hateful a great deal, perhaps it is because you feel a personal connection with it.
Be sure and get back to me if you decide to debate issues and ideas.
stoid
First off, Don’t take what I say and try to relate it to somebody’s damn political agenda… what I say is what I say, if I claim to be ‘pro choice’ that doesn’t mean I want to kill babies, and if i say ‘anti-voucher’, that doesn’t mean I’m happy with our schools, and if I say ‘less military spending’, that doesn’t mean I think the military is just dandy the way it is right now.
With that out of the way, allow me to blow chunks on my keyboard at some of the stuff that was said previously…
I strongly believe that some things should be socialized, schools and health care definately. Yes, this means government regulations on health care, governmment health care plans…
What’s important is what those plans say. Things that should be included in any health care plan that aren’t always there:
My Insurance guy shouldn’t be able to argue with my doctor, about ANYTHING, any treatment, preventative care… anything. The role of health insurance is to pay for your care, not dictate it. It’s my belief that the democrats would do a better job of keeping it this way, feel free to argue.
This also means we have to keep a close eye on doctors, make sure that they are doing their job.
The argument was made that the government doesn’t spend it’s money as efficiently as private businesses, therefore the government should not be in charge of spending it… Did I see that right? We need to fix the way the government uses it’s money in these programs, not trash the entire program! This is similar to the school problem, a school isn’t spending it’s money wisely so the republican answer tends to be ‘take it’s money and give it to a private school’, instead of firing the guys who are blowing the money and fixing the school. Again feel free to argue. YES, this would require more government regulations, programs and BS. But I think it’s worth it.
“I trust the people”
I really get pukish when I hear this.
I don’t recal who regurgitated that one, but ALL I could think of was how closely it sounded to a George W. speech. W. is very good at making you think he likes you, and that he’s a nice guy, and I’ll give him that.
I guess my problem with that statement is when he says ‘I trust you’, YOU also includes blood sucking businesses ( and I know they aren’t all blood sucking ) that would screw me royaly if not for government regulations.
compassion… yet if you are unable to overcome the obsticles own, you get nothing except maybe a kick in the teeth from some angry stranger who passes by your cardboard box.
HRM… ranting raving, innaccurate statements… this post of mine turning into noose that hangs me… I better stop
-ps harold, please disregard all typos
“I stand by my misstatements” -danny boy (you know who)
Gee, Stoidela, you think I might be a Republican?
Do you have the slightest evidence to back up your ridiculous generalizations concerning Republicans, or do you confess to merely talking out your ass?
See prior post.
Stoidela:
Fine let’s discuss the issues.
You said:
**
Please show me how this is part of the Republican party platform or indicative of Republicans in general.
You are indicating that the Republican party in general is opposed to gay, religious, and reproductive rights. Do you have a cite of a study for this allegation? What is your basis. This is a strong generalization and either you will provide evidence to support it, or you should retract it. If you do neither, then you are just posting worthless blather.
**
Please make an attempt to support this insult, or else apologize. Let me show you what’s wrong with this quote: Let’s substitute something else for “Republicans.”
**
Get it?
**
Hopefully by now you get the picture.
Those are the “issues” that you’ve addressed. Do you care to support them, or would you like to withdraw them and apologize?
harsh language I used in regards to a political party platform and politicians of that party: hypocrites. Harsh language I used in reference to a claim you made about a party, and I assume, the politicians of that party: bullshit.
Language you used in referring to ME PERSONALLY and what I said:
hateful (twice)
bigoted (twice)
ignorant (twice)
asinine
drivel
naive
ridiculous
talking out my ass
worthless blather
And I’m supposed to apologize to YOU? I’m supposed to even engage in conversation with you?
You’re a pretty funny guy, Scylla! That’s a good one!
Check please…
stoid
Hmmm. No meat in that sandwich, I wouldn’t leave a tip.
Peyote-I never said they were great. However, my experience with small business men were better. Do the words Trust and Corporate Pigs mean anything to you?
BTW, Barry Goldwater maybe pro-choice, but that’s probably the only good thing about him…
Guinastasia: I am not a corporate stooge, but my experiences have been the exact opposite. I have been treated better by large corporations than small operations.
As to trust, we coyotes trust no one.
Holy cow! I thought walking into a thread entitled “Why vote for Bush?” might put me in a bad neighborhoold…But, I didn’t realize just how creepy it would get!
Okay, let’s start with health care—DoctorJ, ps_harold, and others already made a few nice points on this, but let me add a few more. One is on the issue of inefficiency and bureaucracy: When I was in Vancouver, we had a family friend that was a doctor. He said that his office of several doctors had a secretary who had to spend part of her time on insurance/reimbursement paperwork. In the U.S., he said that a similar sized operation would have to have a few secretaries devoted full-time to such paperwork. Boy, the efficiency of the private enterprise system in this case just boggles the mind! [At least it is a good employment program though! 
]
Another point is why, IMHO, health insurance is a system that the government ought to be involved in. Here it goes: When I go to buy a car, my interests and those of the car dealer are pretty well-aligned. Sure, he might want to get me to pay a little more and he might want to sell me a lemon (which is why some government intervention in the form of “lemon laws” can be justified). But, basically, our interests are pretty well-aligned—We both want me to walk out of there with a car I am happy with. This is why the private enterprise system works pretty well here.
Now, take health care. The insurance companies only want to insure me if I am not likely to get sick. I want to be insured if I am likely to get sick. If I do get sick, the insurance companies want to pay as little as possible for my treatment. I want to get the best treatment that I can. Our interests are not very well-aligned here. Admittedly, this doesn’t prove that the government must step in…You could argue that if no insurance company wants to cover me, I should just die on the street. But, if you believe that health care is something that is fundamentally important enough that people should not be left without it (i.e., that it is a right), then it is clear that considerable government involvement is needed.
Holy cow!!! That was the best laugh I had in weeks when I read this! Are you serious!!! Browne is actually proposing this!?! And I thought libertarians were for less government, but apparently they are for throwing tons of government money at companies that are notorious for squandering it!!! And this, on a hair-brained idea that (how should I put this kindly?), lacks a certain sense of legitimacy (or even reality) in scientific circles (because of the difficulty of doing this and the relative ease of effective countermeasures). [Not to say it can never, ever be done, but organizations like the American Physical Society argue that there are severe technical obstacles and it is unwise to attempt to deploy such a system unless it can truly be shown to be effective in realistic scenarios…which we ain’t even close to yet.]
Thank God someone is pointing this out! (High five back, Stoidela!) One of the things that really irks me about Republicans claiming the issue of “personal responsibility” is that the party in so many ways represents the antithesis of responsibility. I mean this is a party whose major appeal to voters is predicated on the idea of “lower taxes” for those who can well afford the taxes they are paying…that is, people taking less responsibility for their larger role in society. It is the party of appeals to greed…that we shouldn’t have to give up more money to the government, that we shouldn’t have to pay more for gasoline but instead continue raping the environment with our SUVs! This is responsibility!!! What the fuck!?! [I wrote an e-mail to my buddy Trent there in the Senate when he was pushing a bill to get rid of the 4.3 cent excise tax on gas in light of rising gas prices, suggesting that he entitle his bill “Welfare for SUV owners”. This to me was the ultimate antithesis of responsibility…People made their own free choice to buy SUVs (while they were being heavily subsidized to do so by the lack of taxes on gasoline in light of the huge externalities). And, now that the price of gas is going up a bit, we’re supposed to bail them out?!? Hello!!!]
Come on, Scylla…Next you will want cites for the law of gravity!!! It is so well-known that the Republican party as a whole is less pro-choice, more anti-gay, and more anti-separation-for-church-and-state that is it ludicrous to give you cites on this. Hell, I believe the “pro-life” position is still a plank in their platform, even if there has been an attempt to distance themselves from it in this election cycle. Sure, not every Republican agrees with this. But, the fact is that a Republican-controlled legislative/executive branch and Republican appointed judges are going to be, overall, much less pro-choice, much less accomodating on gay rights, and much more into prayer in schools, etc. And that is a generality you can take to the bank!
By the way, Scylla, I don’t quite understand your extreme sensitivity on the post from Stoidela. Okay, the statement may have been a bit broadbrushed, but geez, we liberals are sometimes painted on this message board as commie, pinko, and Soviet-socialism-loving. So, I hardly think you can take offense to a few unkind words about what the Republicans, at least as epitimized by Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Jesse Helms, and that ilk, represent. And, like it or not, those are the people that the party has chosen to put in positions of power! I don’t think Republicans are some sort of repressed minority that we have to be so careful not to say anything negative about [would that they were! ;)]
jshore:
I started to write a long post about how health insurance actually works (since any resemblance to truth in your last post seems attributable to coincidence.) Then I shook my head in wonderment about your statement that the gas tax primarily effects the wealthy (I can only assume that the proletariat in your world all ride bicycles or drive solar power vehicles.)
I thought about trying to correct your ignorance concerning taxation, capitalism, and basic economics, areas in which your premises are deeply and intrinsically flawed, and demonstrably wrong.
Then I read your support of Stoidela’s unfair characterizations, and I said screw it.
You have no idea, and are willfully ignorant of any viewpoint outside your own. I could respond by characterizing Democrats by applying the attributes of its most extreme and unworthy elements to the party in general. I could do this in the most prejudicial and offensive way possible, but I doubt it would get through to you that you are doing the same.
Jshore rocks.
The car dealer anaology is actually apt for health insurance as well. It’s just that when you are very likely to require medical care (say you have ulcerative colitis), you’re buying a Porsche. If you haven’t had the need to see a doctor in years, you’re buying a used Yugo. In each situtaion you’re asking for services that hold different values and ought to demand a different price. And let us not forget what insurance is–the mitigation of a largely UNKNOWN future risk. If you are uninsured and develop cancer, for example, to rail against health insurers for not signing you up is a real fundamental misunderstanding of what insurance is. Now, if what you want is to invent a new system that replaces insurance completely, that’s a different argument.
Which leads us to many of those who currently can’t get health insurance: our brothers and sisters who are gravely ill, those whose illnesses (and the care they’ll need) is a virtual certainty. Do we as a society have an obligation to help them? Yes. But this is a form of welfare, folks, it’s not insurance (even those who are healthy but out of work fit here, I think–it’s welfare, in this instance just not an insurability issue).
A private health insurer is no more obligated than the dot-com company down the street in contributing to this cause–because it’s not an insurance issue. I think when we attempt to lump all health issues together to support the need to scrap the entire system, we’re making an unwarranted leap. What most people here seem to think warrants the government’s involvement are issues that are, by definition, beyond the realm of insurance.
And, again, I strongly believe there is a role that society and government ought to play in caring for those unable to care for themselves. I’ll kick in my tax dollars gladly for a well-run program that addresses this need. I’ll vote for someone who comes up with a plausible plan (not just a promise to come up with one). I personally don’t need their help, though, thank you.
Yes, I generally like him too. Though unsupportable opinions based on ignorance of the subject matter, and unfair generalizations about entire political parties based on culling the worst extremism only, would suggest that what he rules in this instance, and what you seem to be the high priestess of, ain’t worth squat.
Okay, well, I admit that I oversimplified things a little rather than launching in to a whole diatribe on the transportation issue. I assume you’ll forgive me on that. Yes, it is true that the gas tax affects the whole spectrum of people and sales taxes of this sort are actually regressive in their net effect. But, then, why not offer some sort of assistance to those who need it rather than trying just lower the taxes for everyone, thereby reducing the cost of a good whose price is already highly subsidized because its full costs are not reflected in the price? This energy/transportation issue is a big can of worms…It’s just very out-of-whack at the moment IMHO.
Whatever! I would argue that some (many?) of our disagreements are not so much on facts and logic as on difference in values which we will probably make limited headway in trying to convince each other on. But, I am always willing to listen.
I am a little at a loss here about where you get offended by the characterization. Are you saying that Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, and Jesse Helms are “extreme and unworthy”? You won’t get an argument from me on that…But they are, I will remind you, the Senate Majority Leader, the House Majority Whip, and the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. DeLay’s web site notes that Majority Whip is “the third highest leadership post in the House Republican Conference.” His words, not mine. If the Republican party doesn’t want to be dominated by these people, it can choose not to be.
Are you offended by the characterization of the Republicans as claiming they are for personal responsibility but really appealing more to greed in much of their campaigning and, in many ways being against a sense of responsibility as I see it? Okay, I will try to clarify where I stand on this: I am not claiming that people who support and vote Republican are all greedy or that they don’t have a high sense of responsibility. I am just saying that I often see the campaigns of the Republicans not really appealing to that higher sense very much. I also think there are some philosophical differences about what constitutes “responsibility” and am arguing that those of us on the Left should try to take back this term and explain how the appeals made by the “Right” are not high on personal responsibility as we interpret the term.
Are you offended by my claim that “the fact is that a Republican-controlled legislative/executive branch and Republican appointed judges are going to be, overall, much less pro-choice, much less accomodating on gay rights, and much more into prayer in schools, etc.” If so, which part of this do you actually disagree with? I think the evidence here is so overwhelming as to be practically beyond debate, but if you want to show me otherwise, go ahead.
Look, I wish that the Republican party was dominated by people like Charles Mathias (I probably date myself here), Chafee, Jeffords, even Spector. [I even have quite a bit of respect for McCain, although I disagree with him strongly on most issues outside of campaign finance reform and tobacco.] But, unfortunately, these Republicans seem to be in the minority…and an increasingly-small minority at that, at least in the Congress and Senate.