One more reason to vote for Obama

[slyc_willie]

Excuse me. Rising real incomes for the top one percent, falling real incomes for everyone else. Not to mention all the people who can't get health insurance. That number gets bigger every year. And I seem to recall the unemployment numbers spiking during these last couple of weeks.

Is the glass half-empty, or half-full? I think that depends on whether your glass is fine crystal or a dixie cup.

These kinds of arguments always make me wonder as to their veracity. I don't know of a company that doesn't offer medical insurance after a certain length of time, be it six months or a year. The offered packages are sometimes steep, but that depends upon your elective choices (how much a deductible, etc.). I know people who make eight bucks an hour who have insurance.

It just makes me think that a lot of people who don't have insurance are those who bounce from job to job. Not all, I'm sure, but I'm willing to bet it is the case for many.

Of course, I would personally love to see national health care in the US. If for no other reason than limit malpractice lawsuits.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

If he (or Hillary) keep all the promises they've made to the unions, enviro-whackos and class-warriors you'll all be too busy dealing with the worldwide depression this generates to worry about irrelevent things like partisan revenge-fantasy investigations.

The worldwide depression is doing just fine under the Republicans.

 

[slyc_willie]

The worldwide depression is doing just fine under the Republicans.

I don't think it would get much better under the Democrats, if at all

Economics is a bigger issue than partisanship.

 

[Huckleman2000]

These kinds of arguments always make me wonder as to their veracity. I don't know of a company that doesn't offer medical insurance after a certain length of time, be it six months or a year. The offered packages are sometimes steep, but that depends upon your elective choices (how much a deductible, etc.). I know people who make eight bucks an hour who have insurance.

It just makes me think that a lot of people who don't have insurance are those who bounce from job to job. Not all, I'm sure, but I'm willing to bet it is the case for many.

Of course, I would personally love to see national health care in the US. If for no other reason than limit malpractice lawsuits.

So, people who "bounce from job to job" aren't worthy of health insurance? What if they're bouncing because of health concerns? What if, like me, they can afford reasonable health insurance rates, but can't obtain health insurance because of their history (which really isn't unusual for someone my age...).
[eta] And I'm 50. I expect that I've still got lots of good years left, with a little help from some preventative medicine - that I can't get! You'll all be sorry when I'm a dying, expensive charity case, 'cuz I'm gonna be a LOUD one!

 

[S-Des]

These kinds of arguments always make me wonder as to their veracity.

There are a lot, but mostly in the smaller companies. The biggest problem I've seen recently is the deductibles rising to astronomical rates (from a few hundred dollars to thousands, annually), while the fee for insurance doesn't change. As for people obtaining their own, I'm one of millions who could have afforded it, but chose to roll the dice and use the money for other things. Luckily, I managed to bumble my way through without screwing up my life, but others aren't as lucky. Hillary's idea of forced insurance is kind of appealing to me. When someone without insurance gets sick, the rest of us often get stuck with the bill. I can't stand it when people gamble with their lives, then expect everyone else to pick up the pieces (like we don't have our own difficulties).

 

[S-Des]

The worldwide depression is doing just fine under the Republicans.

I wasn't aware the Republicans controlled the governments of the rest of the world (in fact, I'm pretty sure they don't control ours).

 

[slyc_willie]

So, people who "bounce from job to job" aren't worthy of health insurance? What if they're bouncing because of health concerns? What if, like me, they can afford reasonable health insurance rates, but can't obtain health insurance because of their history (which really isn't unusual for someone my age...).

Obviously, you 'latched on' to one thing I said and applied it to my entire post. My point is made.

Please point out where I indicated people who may have to 'bounce' from job to job are unworthy of health insurance. And then express to me why an employer would feel obligated to grant health insurance to an as yet unproven employee who has only been with a company for a few months. We may not like it, but even a person's health is a matter of business.

And then note that I posted I would like to see national health care in America.

 

[slyc_willie]

There are a lot, but mostly in the smaller companies. The biggest problem I've seen recently is the deductibles rising to astronomical rates (from a few hundred dollars to thousands, annually), while the fee for insurance doesn't change. As for people obtaining their own, I'm one of millions who could have afforded it, but chose to roll the dice and use the money for other things. Luckily, I managed to bumble my way through without screwing up my life, but others aren't as lucky. Hillary's idea of forced insurance is kind of appealing to me. When someone without insurance gets sick, the rest of us often get stuck with the bill. I can't stand it when people gamble with their lives, then expect everyone else to pick up the pieces (like we don't have our own difficulties).

I went that route for a long time as well. Always figured I was in the pinnacle of health. That's us men, right?

The label of 'forced insurance' seems a tad argumentative. Is it really forced? Or is it just a harkening to a belief that we should all be looking out for one another?

OMG . . . does that make me socialist?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The Bush administration has suspended the right of habeus corpus in violation of the constitution. It has refused counsel to people accused of crimes in violation of the constitution. He took an oath to uphold the articles of the constitution. There was no declaration of war, no emergency powers granted. Where the fuck does he get off doing this? Denying constitutional rights to American citizens and foreign nationals on American soil? This is the President of the United States of America, not some fucking gang leader! What the fuck is wrong with you people!

Don't you know what's happened to your country over the past 8 years? Your mail's being read, your phones have been tapped, your internet messages intercepted! Your rights have been rescinded and your privacy usurped. Are you such fucking spineless weasels that you don't even care about this anymore? Have Bush and Cheney finally won?

I guess so. I guess they've got you right where they wanted you. All this bullshit about them having to do this to "protect" us, for our "national security". Having to resort to torture! In the United States of America! For what? For fucking what? Have they caught any terrorists? Stopped any attacks? Are we any safer after 500 BILLION dollars than we were on September 10, 2001? No, not a bit. The war in Iraq was a fraud. The War on Terror was a fraud. It was a cover to build up the power of the Imperial Presidency and change the balance of power guaranteed by the constitution.

We were never under any fucking threat! Wake the hell up! The whole War on Terror and invasion of Iraq were a fucking sham so they could coral you and turn you into a nation of castrated sheep and they've done it! They've fucking done it!

National security my ass!

Bush and Cheney both have committed enough high crimes and misdemeanors against the constitution to be drummed out of office but they won't be. They could be sent to prison but they won't be. But at least they should be investigated and their abuses made public so no one tries this shit again. This has been the worst, most transgressive presidency in this country's history and everyone in Washington knows it.

 

[S-Des]

And then express to me why an employer would feel obligated to grant health insurance to an as yet unproven employee who has only been with a company for a few months.

Well, they wouldn't. After all, we know that all employers are evil rich people, who desire to ground the poor under their boot. Don't you know anything about economics?

 

[slyc_willie]

Well, they wouldn't. After all, we know that all employers are evil rich people, who desire to ground the poor under their boot. Don't you know anything about economics?

Oh . . . right. What was I thinking?

I guess I should quit my job and deprive the 'evil, rich, corporate machine' the satisfaction of taking advantage of me.

Until I apply to the next evil, rich corporate machine . . . .

 

[slyc_willie]

The Bush administration has suspended the right of habeus corpus in violation of the constitution. It has refused counsel to people accused of crimes in violation of the constitution. He took an oath to uphold the articles of the constitution. There was no declaration of war, no emergency powers granted. Where the fuck does he get off doing this? Denying constitutional rights to American citizens and foreign nationals on American soil? This is the President of the United States of America, not some fucking gang leader! What the fuck is wrong with you people!

Don't you know what's happened to your country over the past 8 years? Your mail's being read, your phones have been tapped, your internet messages intercepted! Are you such fucking spineless weasels that you don't even care about this anymore? Have Bush and Cheney finally won?

I guess so. I guess they've got you right where they wanted you. All this bull shit about them having to do this to "protect" us, for our "national security". We were never under any fucking threat! Wake the hell up! The whole War on Terror and invasion of Iraq were a fucking sham so they could coral you and turn you into castrated sheep and they've done it! They've fucking done it!

Nope, there's never a threat to the US. Never one at all . . . we just go around bullying everyone.

Yeah, that's right.

 

[S-Des]

The Bush administration has suspended the right of habeus corpus in violation of the constitution. It has refused counsel to people accused of crimes in violation of the constitution. He took an oath to uphold the articles of the constitution. There was no declaration of war, no emergency powers granted. Where the fuck does he get off doing this? Denying constitutional rights to American citizens and foreign nationals on American soil? This is the President of the United States of America, not some fucking gang leader! What the fuck is wrong with you people!

Don't you know what's happened to your country over the past 8 years? Your mail's being read, your phones have been tapped, your internet messages intercepted! Are you such fucking spineless weasels that you don't even care about this anymore? Have Bush and Cheney finally won?

I guess so. I guess they've got you right where they wanted you. All this bull shit about them having to do this to "protect" us, for our "national security". We were never under any fucking threat! Wake the hell up! The whole War on Terror and invasion of Iraq were a fucking sham so they could coral you and turn you into castrated sheep and they've done it! They've fucking done it!

Bad day at work, Doc?

Sorry, nobody's reading my mail, they haven't intercepted a single phone call (although they're welcome to listen to my phone sex calls . . . maybe they'd learn something), and the last time I checked, there's no section in the Constitution entitled "Rights for foreign nationals being held on American soil". I'm not a spineless weasel, nor a fucking one.

BTW, when you say, "The whole War on Terror and invasion of Iraq were a fucking sham so they could coral you and turn you into castrated sheep and they've done it", I have to ask . . . Didn't you used to claim the war was declared to steal their oil and enrich Haliburton? Just askin'.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The Bush administration has suspended the right of habeus corpus in violation of the constitution. It has refused counsel to people accused of crimes in violation of the constitution. He took an oath to uphold the articles of the constitution. There was no declaration of war, no emergency powers granted. Where the fuck does he get off doing this? Denying constitutional rights to American citizens and foreign nationals on American soil? This is the President of the United States of America, not some fucking gang leader! What the fuck is wrong with you people!

Don't you know what's happened to your country over the past 8 years? Your mail's being read, your phones have been tapped, your internet messages intercepted! Are you such fucking spineless weasels that you don't even care about this anymore? Have Bush and Cheney finally won?

I guess so. I guess they've got you right where they wanted you. All this bullshit about them having to do this to "protect" us, for our "national security". Having to resort to torture! For what? For fucking what? Have they caught any terrorists? STopped any attacks? Are we any safer after 500 BILLION dollars than we were on September 10, 2001? No.

We were never under any fucking threat! Wake the hell up! The whole War on Terror and invasion of Iraq were a fucking sham so they could coral you and turn you into a nation of castrated sheep and they've done it! They've fucking done it!

National security my ass!

Oh, why should we care? There's going to be a depression if the Obama wins!

Go away, we have money to make!

BTW, when you say, "The whole War on Terror and invasion of Iraq were a fucking sham so they could coral you and turn you into castrated sheep and they've done it", I have to ask . . . Didn't you used to claim the war was declared to steal their oil and enrich Haliburton? Just askin'.

Haliburton is dining mighty fine on lamb. Castrated sheep go well with mint $auce.

 

[sr71plt]

So, people who "bounce from job to job" aren't worthy of health insurance? What if they're bouncing because of health concerns? What if, like me, they can afford reasonable health insurance rates, but can't obtain health insurance because of their history (which really isn't unusual for someone my age...).
[eta] And I'm 50. I expect that I've still got lots of good years left, with a little help from some preventative medicine - that I can't get! You'll all be sorry when I'm a dying, expensive charity case, 'cuz I'm gonna be a LOUD one!

I think you give up your basic argument too quickly. I'm not keeping track of statistics, but my local NBC station ran a segment today on a free clinic in town that has double the people walking through the door this year over last--people with jobs but who said their employer has dropped their health insurance or it's been priced beyond their means. I think you are probably right in your original statement and have given ground to Slyc too fast on this. I'd like to see some statistics on this before letting someone get away with just saying it ain't so.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Excuse me. Rising real incomes for the top one percent, falling real incomes for everyone else. Not to mention all the people who can't get health insurance. That number gets bigger every year. And I seem to recall the unemployment numbers spiking during these last couple of weeks.

Is the glass half-empty, or half-full? I think that depends on whether your glass is fine crystal or a dixie cup.

Cute, but wrong; real incomes have risen across the board. Faster at the high end than the middle, but risen nevertheless. And hundreds of millions in China, India and other places have moved from bare-subsistence level existance to the threshold of middle-class living standards - does that count for nothing?

The worldwide depression is doing just fine under the Republicans.

Interestingly, that's exactly what Stella said in resonse to the same post. To which I answered the following:

Me: Yes - the anamoly of a low-to-mid single digit unemployment rate for years on end, and rising real incomes for going on five years (now threatened by inflation generated by excessive money creation) is highly noticeable.

You confuse the zits on the face of this or any economy with the whole of the thing. Statements such as the one you just made indicate an absence of perspective. Or perhaps it's just political bias.

The inflation/dollar decline/energy price increase (all different faces of the same phenomenon - the Fed printing too many dollars for too long) is not a good thing, but (absent further policy blunders) this too will pass.

The really scary thing is the worldwide depression that will occurr if HilBama keep their promise to Union bosses to end the era of free trade expansion that for 20 years has been one of the primary causes of an unprecedented increase in prosperity in the US and all over the world. Standards of living have never been higher than they are today, here and most other places in the world.

So why all the whining? People feel more insecure as a result of changes in the economy. Some of these are related to the same free trade regime that has generated the prosperity, but much of it is due to massive increases in productivity (generated by technology and innovation) that are steadily reducing the number of manufacturing jobs not just in the US, but everywhere (including China). The world in which a high school grad (or less) could get a factory job and make $50K/year and more are gone.

There are new challenges and risks, but they should not blind us to the unprecedented advances of the past 25 years. It would be a tragedy to return to the dismal stagflation and shortages of the 1970s, and yet US politicians are rushing to adopt the very public policies that brought that about. Sadly, a new generation may have to learn the price of folly.

 

[slyc_willie]

I think you give up your basic argument too quickly. I'm not keeping track of statistics, but my local NBC station ran a segment today on a free clinic in town that has double the people walking through the door this year over last--people with jobs but who said their employer has dropped their health insurance or it's been priced beyond their means. I think you are probably right in your original statement and have given ground to Slyc too fast on this. I'd like to see some statistics on this before letting someone get away with just saying it ain't so.

I would, too.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Was the "right of habeus corpus" extended to German POWs held in the US during WWII?

I don't intend to get into this dispute, except that this question suggests that certain aspects if the issue may be subject to greater ambiguity than partisan voices would have one believe.


PS. A deadly rebuttal to that question would be "Congress declared war in WWII- as required under the Constitution!" But as I said in an earlier post, that train (extra-Constitutional war-making) left the station a long time ago, and it wasn't this prez who was driving the locomotive when it did.

 

[S-Des]

Haliburton is dining mighty fine on lamb. Castrated sheep go well with mint $auce.

I completely agree. Profiteering (especially among the well-connected) is out of control and I would be THRILLED if Obama said he was going to have the Justice Department vigorously prosecute anyone found guilty of it. And if it can be found that anyone in the current administration steered money towards friends, then I'd whole-heartedly cheer him on to prosecute them as well. I've never been a Bush fan, and think he's completely fubar'd any chance we had at peace in Iraq by his blunders (I've heard a number of experts on the region say that if it had been handled better from the start, we might be leaving by now and the Iraqis wouldn't have suffered so much). That said, I disagree that he's committed war crimes, and would be quite willing to bet a paycheck or two that in two years we won't be talking about this (no matter who is president).

If you like Obama's economic policies, that's a great reason to vote for him. If you're voting for him because you think he's going to "get Bush", I think you'll be sorely disappointed.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Well, they wouldn't. After all, we know that all employers are evil rich people, who desire to ground the poor under their boot. Don't you know anything about economics?

that's not it at all.
When I was 27, my girlfriend got pregnant unexpectedly, and we had insurance. We had jobs. We loved each other. It happens. It should happen. I love my son. He's a good, productive young adult now. He wants to be a teacher, and will be. He student-teaches now. I was productive while he was growing. His mother is very productive, responsible for the employment of thousands and billions of dollars in revenue.

Since we split, I've had trouble hanging onto work, partly due to health concerns.

Would we have decided to have our son, build the life we did, had we been forced to make decisions on the basis of health insurance companies' actuarial tables? Maybe. I don't know.

That's a world I don't think is fair or productive. It's a world I would think long and hard about bringing someone into, today.

Are we really so insular as to think only of ourselves in deciding public policy? That is the death of society, pretty much by definition.

 

[S-Des]

Are we really so insular as to think only of ourselves in deciding public policy? That is the death of society, pretty much by definition.

I think everyone (yourself included) thinks of policies based largely on how they affect them. I recall one young woman after a debate saying she was for Obama, because she was a college student, and "He will do the most for me." The mistake the Left makes is pretending that their concerns are more altruistic than anyone elses. I feel for anyone struggling, and have struggled most of my own life (although I rarely discuss that publicly). The question is, which policies will best address these problems. Once people get away from, "You disagree with me, therefore you want to starve children," things have the potential of getting better.

No matter what happens with health care, people will suffer. Some will find it unavailable, and others with money will always get what they need. I agree it has to change to make improvements in the system. But I disagree that the government taking it over will accomplish the most. That's the beautiful thing about our system. If you can convince more people you're right, you'll get the change you believe is best.

Then I'll get to complain about it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Cute, but wrong; real incomes have risen across the board. Faster at the high end than the middle, but risen nevertheless. And hundreds of millions in China, India and other places have moved from bare-subsistence level existance to the threshold of middle-class living standards - does that count for nothing?

So very much faster at the high end, that it's obscene-- even if it isn't illegal. So very much slower in the middle, that the middle class is shrinking and turning into the lower class while we watch. So non-existent on the lower levels that the poverty level is rising faster than the high-wage-earner's incomes. Puhleeze.

Interestingly, that's exactly what Stella said in resonse to the same post. To which I answered the following:

blahblahblahbullshitblah

Sorry, kid. That line stinks no matter how often you parrot it.

If you like Obama's economic policies, that's a great reason to vote for him. If you're voting for him because you think he's going to "get Bush", I think you'll be sorely disappointed.

I said one more reason. I will be campaigning to see Bush put on trial, no matter who takes office; I really, truly, honestly and without a doubt think it has to happen.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I think everyone (yourself included) thinks of policies based largely on how they affect them. I recall one young woman after a debate saying she was for Obama, because she was a college student, and "He will do the most for me." The mistake the Left makes is pretending that their concerns are more altruistic than anyone elses. [snip]

There may have been a time when that was a valid argument. However, it's pretty clear on a wide variety of independent variables, economic and "quality of life", that most of the US lags under Republican policies. The statistical average may rise, but that is due to a slighter fatter "long tail" in the curve, and the numerical truth is that more people's well-being stagnates or declines, while a comparatively few people get wealth enough to fuel fantasies that anyone can succeed given enough initiative.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I can't afford what the Democrats want to do. Its that simple. I can't afford the expansion of regulation, departments, bureaucracies, taxes, etc. I just can't. I'm not fine with working one out of every three days work-days just to pay Uncle Sam. I don't want my money going to a whole bunch of things.

I'm sure they'll cut down the military--Clinton did in the 90's, we'll see a replay of that. That'll save some money, but nowhere near as much as we're talking about spending. The 90's did not turn a profit for the American people, it just looked good on paper. That bubble, that bill, is coming due. Has been. We've seen those effects in the economy already.

I like Obama and I don't like McCain... but when McCain says "I'll veto every piece of pork barrel spending", I believe him--because he's old and crotchety and doesn't give a fuck what most anyone says. I won't be voting for him, his war position isn't agreeable to me, but if someone were to put a gun to my head and vote for either?

McCain is more likely to right some of our economic woes than Obama. Which is so messed up, because its far from his strong suit.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The dying middle class...

Versus

the rising one percent

I don't think McCain has a handle on this problem, Joe. I think, actually, he's lying to you.

It's not about cutting back the military, by the way. It's about halting this criminal war. And McCain kinda likes wars. It doesn't seem to matter much if you were lied to in order to get you to support it.