Unbelievable! YOU are on the hook for any Obamacare Insurance Losses...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

What a piece of horse excrement this legislation is!!! More and more of YOUR money goes down the tube with this social engineering welfare legislation. It IS WELFARE becuase it creates a dependency on another entity besisde you.

Here is the link... (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bailing-out-health-insurers-and-helping-obamacare_774167.html#)


Because insurance companies won’t bear the cost of their own losses—at least not more than about a quarter of them. The other three-quarters will be borne by American taxpayers.

Amazing! NOT!

[badger]

Aren't we on the hook for a lot of things that cost more than originally thought?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Yes, which is why we need government out of our lives... They are lying liars and we need to kick every stinking one out of office.

[KantoSooner]

Here's the thing on that: WE (the people) put each and every one of them in office...and continue to vote them (incumbents) back into office with metronome-like reliability. We have an unbelievably transparent system of government and certainly know, if we care to follow such things, when committee meetings, debate and votes will be held. We even have real-time access to most of that via a dedicated teevee network (CSpan) and to that which we don't, we have the congressional reporter which keeps most of the nations stenographers happily employed transcribing the goings on into written form which is available (for free, I believe) to anyone who asks for it.
So, one has to believe that:
1. The current state of affairs is not a surprise.
2. We want our elected officials to do, more or less, exactly what they're doing.
3. And, if any individual among us is not 'on board' with what's going down, they must accept that a majority of their fellow citizens are.

That being said, if you want to start by kicking the OK delegation out, I'll be right there with you. With only 1-2 exceptions, our beloved state has put nincompoops in office.

[okie52]

Well let's see....we have 7 members in our congressional delegation....which ones would you want to kick out and with whom would you replace them?

[TAFBSooner]

Here's the thing on that: WE (the people) put each and every one of them in office...and continue to vote them (incumbents) back into office with metronome-like reliability. We have an unbelievably transparent system of government and certainly know, if we care to follow such things, when committee meetings, debate and votes will be held. We even have real-time access to most of that via a dedicated teevee network (CSpan) and to that which we don't, we have the congressional reporter which keeps most of the nations stenographers happily employed transcribing the goings on into written form which is available (for free, I believe) to anyone who asks for it.
So, one has to believe that:
1. The current state of affairs is not a surprise.
2. We want our elected officials to do, more or less, exactly what they're doing.
3. And, if any individual among us is not 'on board' with what's going down, they must accept that a majority of their fellow citizens are.

That being said, if you want to start by kicking the OK delegation out, I'll be right there with you. With only 1-2 exceptions, our beloved state has put nincompoops in office.

I'm not "on board" with the NSA hoovering up all our metadata, and having access to the actual content for which the metadata is an index.

The surveillance state has been escalating under Democrats and Republicans, at least since Bush the Greater. Most members of Congress aren't allowed to review these programs. Those that do are prevented from reporting on what they know to the public.

Maybe a majority of Americans are OK with the government having access to all our communications, or maybe they're not. Most people on this site are very much against the government in other areas - do you favor the NSA's current scale of operations against American citizens? If most of you do, I'll try harder to accept the suggestion under number 3. above.

If, as I believe, the majority of you are against the NSA's current scale of operations, then if Kanto is right on point 2 above, we will see significant rollbacks in those operations, once the "responsive legislators" are elected this fall and enter office in January.

[badger]

Well let's see....we have 7 members in our congressional delegation....which ones would you want to kick out and with whom would you replace them?

Coburn's not up for re-election this year, so that's kind of moot. It will definitely be an issue in 2016, because Coburn said he's not going to seek another term. Inhofe, however... he's getting old (turns 80 in November) so it may be time for him to retire rather than die in office like some other Senators do.

It will be interesting to see who runs against our incumbent Congressmen. The second district (Muskogee area out east) has mostly been Democrat, aside from two (Coburn and incumbent Markwayne Mullin). Would ex-Congressman Brad Carson attempt another go, or does he have his eyes on Inhofe's Senate seat?

The fifth seat (Oklahoma City area) is generally an office of ambition --- two of the past three (Istook and Fallin) ran for governor and abandoned the office, one successful, one not. Will incumbent James Lankford go the same route, perhaps not governor, perhaps Senate or something else?

I don't think Cole or (fourth, Norman area) Lucas (third, out west) are going anywhere ever.

I am still amazed that the First (Tulsa area) ousted John Sullivan last go-around. I doubt we dump Bridenstine after one term, though.

[KantoSooner]

I'm not "on board" with the NSA hoovering up all our metadata, and having access to the actual content for which the metadata is an index.

The surveillance state has been escalating under Democrats and Republicans, at least since Bush the Greater. Most members of Congress aren't allowed to review these programs. Those that do are prevented from reporting on what they know to the public.

Maybe a majority of Americans are OK with the government having access to all our communications, or maybe they're not. Most people on this site are very much against the government in other areas - do you favor the NSA's current scale of operations against American citizens? If most of you do, I'll try harder to accept the suggestion under number 3. above.

If, as I believe, the majority of you are against the NSA's current scale of operations, then if Kanto is right on point 2 above, we will see significant rollbacks in those operations, once the "responsive legislators" are elected this fall and enter office in January.

As a rational response to ongoing threats? Yeah. Absolutely no problems with the NSA keeping or having access to phone numbers I call and that call me. Hell, for that matter, I couldn't care less if they want to listen in. I can hardly comprehend the horror of that job, however: listening to me make kissy noises to my GF or daughter and knowing that, tomorrow, you get to come in and do it all over again.

The NSA, CIA et al are made up of....our neighbors (mind you they'd be our smart neighbors, the ones who read newspapers and books rather than watching reality teevee, but the point holds.)

We need to have a national conversation, one more time for those who apparently weren't paying attention the last time around. Do we agree that there is a (or many) threat(s) to our nation out there in the world? Are there really bears in the forest....or has it all just been some pack of lies perpetuated by a cabal of our fellow citizens for some nefarious purpose? If so, what are we going to do about it? And will we deputize some of our fellows to go be specialists in that work?

I think that there are threats and that specialized agencies of the government are necessary and logical responses to such threats. And I also believe that much of what these agencies do must be secret. It is possible to disagree on these points honestly, but the issues are not new, they are not surprises and we've had national discussions about them over and over again. So, we should spare ourselves the moral outrage.

Ben Franklin is widely regarded as the father of America's intelligence services; and George Washington's talents as a general were far surpassed by his artistry as a spy master.

[Soonerjeepman]

I didn't vote for HIM...the leader..

[TAFBSooner]

As a rational response to ongoing threats? Yeah. Absolutely no problems with the NSA keeping or having access to phone numbers I call and that call me. Hell, for that matter, I couldn't care less if they want to listen in. I can hardly comprehend the horror of that job, however: listening to me make kissy noises to my GF or daughter and knowing that, tomorrow, you get to come in and do it all over again.

The NSA, CIA et al are made up of....our neighbors (mind you they'd be our smart neighbors, the ones who read newspapers and books rather than watching reality teevee, but the point holds.)

We need to have a national conversation, one more time for those who apparently weren't paying attention the last time around. Do we agree that there is a (or many) threat(s) to our nation out there in the world? Are there really bears in the forest....or has it all just been some pack of lies perpetuated by a cabal of our fellow citizens for some nefarious purpose? If so, what are we going to do about it? And will we deputize some of our fellows to go be specialists in that work?

I think that there are threats and that specialized agencies of the government are necessary and logical responses to such threats. And I also believe that much of what these agencies do must be secret. It is possible to disagree on these points honestly, but the issues are not new, they are not surprises and we've had national discussions about them over and over again. So, we should spare ourselves the moral outrage.

Ben Franklin is widely regarded as the father of America's intelligence services; and George Washington's talents as a general were far surpassed by his artistry as a spy master.

This is the first I've heard of Geo. Washington as a spymaster (I'm ordering the book), but I would ask this: did he direct his efforts against the people of the then-colonies, or did he target the actual foreign enemy?

Most of the terrorists arrested in this country since 9/11 were the targets of entrapment - de facto if not de jure - by the FBI. Most of the plots against airliners were stopped by passengers on the scene - not by the "security" apparatus. The 9/11 plot wouldn't have been stopped by more spying - the various agencies of the government had the information needed to stop the plot if they had shared it, or believed it, or if the Bush the Lesser administration hadn't made anti-terrorism a low priority (in foreign policy they were more concerned about the threat from China and the oil from Iraq).

[KantoSooner]

Big George ran his own network tagetting New York during the British occupation. One of the reasons he was able to get away with some troop redeployments that would have been irresponsible without 'inside' information.
And, yes, he ran intel ops in New Jersey to determine the loyalty of the locals. Greene ran similar ops in the Carolinas. Both executed civilians found to be aiding the enemy. Benedict Arnold's wife was briefly under threat of the gallows.

I'm curious as to the source of your information regarding the utter uselessness of our clandestine services. How would you know what they had or hadn't stopped? Apparently they are effective enough that bi-partisan committees in congress and every white house since 1947 at least have found their performance sufficient to keep them around. (and I'm likewise interested in your views regarding why every other nation on earth, from really bad to very libertarian have all had clandestine services. Wouldn't someone, somewhere along the way have figured out that they were uselss wastes of money?)

Still, your position is one that others have put forth in the past. "There is no threat serious enough for us to spend anything or sacrifice anything to address it. And, if one arises, we can, quick like, pull together a pick up team and whup their ferrin butts."

Me? I look at our military performance in, say, Korea and contrast it with performance in Gulf War I or II and tend to value a well practiced, professional force. And, likewise, feel that it's prudent to keep a trained force of people listening, and looking for threats that don't conveniently march up our gates waving flags and tooting on bugles.

[okiewaker]

The establishment, both sides, needs to go away or we will continue to have a ever growing and more powerful gov. It don't matter which side holds the reigns.

[KantoSooner]

And, what happens once we get rid of the bums?
Whence do we turn to find that group of perfect people who'll be universally acceptable and never do anything wrong?

[okie52]

Coburn's not up for re-election this year, so that's kind of moot. It will definitely be an issue in 2016, because Coburn said he's not going to seek another term. Inhofe, however... he's getting old (turns 80 in November) so it may be time for him to retire rather than die in office like some other Senators do.

It will be interesting to see who runs against our incumbent Congressmen. The second district (Muskogee area out east) has mostly been Democrat, aside from two (Coburn and incumbent Markwayne Mullin). Would ex-Congressman Brad Carson attempt another go, or does he have his eyes on Inhofe's Senate seat?

The fifth seat (Oklahoma City area) is generally an office of ambition --- two of the past three (Istook and Fallin) ran for governor and abandoned the office, one successful, one not. Will incumbent James Lankford go the same route, perhaps not governor, perhaps Senate or something else?

I don't think Cole or (fourth, Norman area) Lucas (third, out west) are going anywhere ever.

I am still amazed that the First (Tulsa area) ousted John Sullivan last go-around. I doubt we dump Bridenstine after one term, though.

Coburn may be forced to leave due to health reasons.

Lankford may cave on amnesty due to pressure from the baptists that are his main supporters....however, that vote may be delayed far enough into the year to get past pub primaries, otherwise Lankford would certainly face some stiff primary opponents.

Cole is basically a pub establishment rubber stamp...nice guy but I'm not sure he'd buck the pub establishment.

Lucas is being challenged by the conservatives this primary season (or at least he is a target).

Don't know much about the others...

but my question was really for Kanto-which members of the congressional delegation would he get rid of and why? And who would he replace them with?

[KantoSooner]

Frankly, I'd get rid of the bunch with the exception of Coburn and Cole. I didn't really like Dr. Tom's stances on many issues and I hadn't seen Cole do much of anything...and then I heard both interviewed and they are both quite knowledgeable on the Constitution and in general on the issues of the day. I was impressed.

As to where I'd go to replace the others, I'll be honest and say I don't know. I mean, I have friends and acquaintances who are bright, motivated and honest, but picking out my buddies and friends is no way to run a railroad. Given the requirement that pols be either enormously wealthy or full time fund raisers, I don't see the political parties as being especially good at selecting anything other than the brain dead folks we select now.

It's weak, but try to be active in your local party's affairs and maybe some influence can be exerted that way.

[okiewaker]

And, what happens once we get rid of the bums?
Whence do we turn to find that group of perfect people who'll be universally acceptable and never do anything wrong?

What happens is, we continue to elect tea party candidates who will help rid this country of slimy liberals and rinos. Then, we can get back to being the country we all know and love.

[TAFBSooner]

Big George ran his own network tagetting New York during the British occupation. One of the reasons he was able to get away with some troop redeployments that would have been irresponsible without 'inside' information.
And, yes, he ran intel ops in New Jersey to determine the loyalty of the locals. Greene ran similar ops in the Carolinas. Both executed civilians found to be aiding the enemy. Benedict Arnold's wife was briefly under threat of the gallows.

I'm curious as to the source of your information regarding the utter uselessness of our clandestine services. How would you know what they had or hadn't stopped? Apparently they are effective enough that bi-partisan committees in congress and every white house since 1947 at least have found their performance sufficient to keep them around. (and I'm likewise interested in your views regarding why every other nation on earth, from really bad to very libertarian have all had clandestine services. Wouldn't someone, somewhere along the way have figured out that they were uselss wastes of money?)

Still, your position is one that others have put forth in the past. "There is no threat serious enough for us to spend anything or sacrifice anything to address it. And, if one arises, we can, quick like, pull together a pick up team and whup their ferrin butts."

Me? I look at our military performance in, say, Korea and contrast it with performance in Gulf War I or II and tend to value a well practiced, professional force. And, likewise, feel that it's prudent to keep a trained force of people listening, and looking for threats that don't conveniently march up our gates waving flags and tooting on bugles.

First, you argue a bit with things I didn't say. We do need a professional military. In today's world, that need outweighs (in my opinion) the evils of standing armies as correctly diagnosed by the Founders and by Ike more recently. (digression: I wonder how much US history would have been changed if we had a significant standing army in 1860.) We also need prefessional intelligence services.

What I do believe: our intelligence services need to be focused on real threats, not on spying on every US citizen. Spying on US citizens is a threat to our freedom, and I believe that threat is much larger than the threat from terrorists.

Odds of a US citizen being killed by terrorists are about one in 20 million
http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should

FBI exhibiting Munchausen syndrome by proxy (creating "terrorists" so they can then nab them):
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You refer to Congress authorizing ever-greater levels of surveillance, and attribute it to a rational assessment of the threat and the fitness of metadata surveilance to counter that threat.
(1) You didn't actually use the words "rational" and "Congress" in the same paragraph, but once restated in that way the argument defeats itself.
(2) Congress was understandably driven by fear (of the then-unknown enemy and of fearful voters) when it first passed the so-called PATRIOT Act.
(3) The intel community withholds information and lies to Congress about the extent of its activities. How can Congress perform effective oversight of a government operation if members of that operation hide their activities?
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/how_james_clapper_will_get_away_with_perjury/

We already know that the FBI has used information obtained by spying on Americans to affect the political process:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/j-edgar-hoover-and-the-fbi-s-war-on-americans-civil-liberties.html

We fought a revolution against broad government snooping. The Founders wrote the fourth Amendment to prohibit broad government snooping. "The man whose conscience is clear need not fear the midnight knock at the gate" is a Chinese proverb. It's definitely un-American.

[okie52]

Frankly, I'd get rid of the bunch with the exception of Coburn and Cole. I didn't really like Dr. Tom's stances on many issues and I hadn't seen Cole do much of anything...and then I heard both interviewed and they are both quite knowledgeable on the Constitution and in general on the issues of the day. I was impressed.

As to where I'd go to replace the others, I'll be honest and say I don't know. I mean, I have friends and acquaintances who are bright, motivated and honest, but picking out my buddies and friends is no way to run a railroad. Given the requirement that pols be either enormously wealthy or full time fund raisers, I don't see the political parties as being especially good at selecting anything other than the brain dead folks we select now.

It's weak, but try to be active in your local party's affairs and maybe some influence can be exerted that way.

Generally this group votes for the issues I support....priority wise anyway. I'll wait to see how the reps do on immigration....particularly Lankford.

All of the congressional delegation has been good on energy....quite a bit different than having a dem guv and Lt guv tell Okies how Obama was the best choice for them.

[diverdog]

Yes, which is why we need government out of our lives... They are lying liars and we need to kick every stinking one out of office.

You do understand even under private insurance you are on the hook for losses? It is called shared risk.

[REDREX]

You do understand even under private insurance you are on the hook for losses? It is called shared risk.---Sure you are but the cost is up front ---you know what the cost will be

[KantoSooner]

TAFB, When I brought up the professional military dealio, I was not suggesting that you'd argued against one. To do so would be insane considering the horrendous casualties we've historically run up with conscript armies of terrified 18 year olds learning OJT. (The clown shows of the First Bull Run and virtually the entire North African Campaign in WWII show that pick up squads get slaughtered....every time.) My point was that if we are going to have intelligence services, they, too must be professional and on their game, all the time, not only when an opponent is kind enough to announce their malevolent intent.

Is the current raft of intelligence agency actions justifiable? Open to debate. You apparently feel not; I disagree.

As to your characterization of the American Revolution as being about prevention of government snooping, it is undeniable that that was part of it. But it was equally, or more, about a citizen's right to have a voice in said government. Our form of government was not designed to do nothing, else the founders would have simply opted for a state of anarchy and been done with it. Instead, we have a series of guidelilnes and a stipulated process for deciding what may be done within those guidelines. It is my view that current intelligence gathering is well within those guidelines.

[KantoSooner]

What happens is, we continue to elect tea party candidates who will help rid this country of slimy liberals and rinos. Then, we can get back to being the country we all know and love.

What happens if a group of citizens happens to disagree with you? Are they allowed to vote for candidates they like?

And,

What version of 'America' do you want to go 'back' to? Please pick out a historic period and a short list of key criteria of what was wonderful about it. I'm really eager to find out about those halcyon days of yore when all the men were handsome, all the women strong and square-jawed and all the children respectful of their elders and kind to small animals.

[Turd_Ferguson]

And,

What version of 'America' do you want to go 'back' to? Please pick out a historic period and a short list of key criteria of what was wonderful about it. I'm really eager to find out about those halcyon days of yore when all the men were handsome, all the women strong and square-jawed and all the children respectful of their elders and kind to small animals.

1975...except the women weren't square jawed, they washed dishes and made sammiches really well.

[KantoSooner]

Boogie Nights is your version of how America should be?

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Boogie Nights is 80s. I think he's thinking Saturday Night Fever.

[FaninAma]

Boogie Nights is your version of how America should be?
No, my vision of America is one in which we have a $17.3 trillion debt, 80% of black infants are born to single mothers, 50+ % of all infants are born to single mothers, US students rank 30th or below v. Other countries in academic achievement, the poverty rate has stayed at 16% for decades and is now on the rise, 40% of the country is on EBT support, the true unemployment rate is above 15% and has been for the past 5 years and the richest 1% own over half of our assets.

That's the version of what we should strive for as a country....right? How stupid the country was back in the 70's and earlier.....before we started down the progressive path toward paradise.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

You do understand even under private insurance you are on the hook for losses? It is called shared risk.
Nope, i did not authorize or expect the gubmint to bankroll 75% of losses to be paid by me. Once again the ******* in the chair unilaterally cooked the books and hid it from us. The leftist media was in on it as well. If we had known all this crap, the roar would have been deafening to kill this crap legislation.

[Ton Loc]

Nope, i did not authorize or expect the gubmint to bankroll 75% of losses to be paid by me. Once again the ******* in the chair unilaterally cooked the books and hid it from us. The leftist media was in on it as well. If we had known all this crap, the roar would have been deafening to kill this crap legislation.

I can't believe you are quite that surprised. Don't we pay for everything the government does? It's not like they make money...they just take ours.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I can't believe you are quite that surprised. Don't we pay for everything the government does? It's not like they make money...they just take ours.

And you're okay with that?

[Ton Loc]

And you're okay with that?

Nope, but I tend to place more value on things I can change and effect. Family, friends, work, kids tend to be more important than my feigning interest in what the government is currently screwing up.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, my vision of America is one in which we have a $17.3 trillion debt, 80% of black infants are born to single mothers, 50+ % of all infants are born to single mothers, US students rank 30th or below v. Other countries in academic achievement, the poverty rate has stayed at 16% for decades and is now on the rise, 40% of the country is on EBT support, the true unemployment rate is above 15% and has been for the past 5 years and the richest 1% own over half of our assets.

That's the version of what we should strive for as a country....right? How stupid the country was back in the 70's and earlier.....before we started down the progressive path toward paradise.Wonder how we ever devolved into a populace that would vote for what we now have! HOW have we become so stupid as to vote for the socialism and fascism that was easy to see coming?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Nope, i did not authorize or expect the gubmint to bankroll 75% of losses to be paid by me. Once again the ******* in the chair unilaterally cooked the books and hid it from us. The leftist media was in on it as well. If we had known all this crap, the roar would have been deafening to kill this crap legislation.Knowing the background and track records of Obama and Hillry, and the rest of the political democrats, it shouldn't have been difficult for even the minimally educated to not vote democrat...unless one is entitlement minded, and figures to be on the receiving end of such largess.

[KantoSooner]

No, my vision of America is one in which we have a $17.3 trillion debt, 80% of black infants are born to single mothers, 50+ % of all infants are born to single mothers, US students rank 30th or below v. Other countries in academic achievement, the poverty rate has stayed at 16% for decades and is now on the rise, 40% of the country is on EBT support, the true unemployment rate is above 15% and has been for the past 5 years and the richest 1% own over half of our assets.

That's the version of what we should strive for as a country....right? How stupid the country was back in the 70's and earlier.....before we started down the progressive path toward paradise.

Are we allowed to fix what's wrong without attempted a kneejerk 'return' to some utopia that never existed? Or would you prefer to live in permanent pursuit of a Potemkin Village?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Are we allowed to fix what's wrong without attempted a kneejerk 'return' to some utopia that never existed? Or would you prefer to live in permanent pursuit of a Potemkin Village?Hard to believe anyone sincerely believes socialized medicine is the correct solution, or any kind of solution except bad.:obama icon:

[KantoSooner]

<IN THE CENTER RING: RUSH, The half trick pony!>

When you take all market price/cost controls out of a system, you lose the ability to run that system under capitalist/market/supply-demand type mechanisms.

Install effective cost controls of some sort and I'll be all ideologically pure. Otherwise, I'm willing to check out what the Aussies, Taiwanese, Brits, Japanese, Germans, Swiss, French, Israelis, Canadians, or any other group of people have worked out and see if it won't work for us. (Oh, and by and large, the health systems in those countries are wildly popular, do a better job at protecting health than ours, at lower cost....and all would most likely fall within your definition of 'socialized medicine'.)

[Tear Down This Wall]

Wake up. It doesn't matter who is elected in Oklahoma, the 10th Amendment is dead.

The quicker Republicans realize this, the sooner they can adjust their lifestyles to Mexican-style, "democratic" socialism.

The game was over when Colorado, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia's demographics changed enough in the big cities to end any chance of there ever being another Republican president.

And, therefore, the federal judiciary is now the final arbiter of any legislation passed in conservative states (SEE recent gay marriage rulings by federal judges regarding Utah and Oklahoma). It's over.

We are on the slide downward. If you want to see how America will look from here on out, visiting Mexico, Venezuela...any Central or South American country where leaders are constantly elected to "punish the rich" for causing the poor to be poor.

The poor never get richer...or smarter. It will be the same here as it is in those countries. The demographics are already set.

[Sooner in Tampa]

The poor never get richer...or smarter. It will be the same here as it is in those countries. The demographics are already set.
How long has the War on Poverty lasted?

The government teat is large and getting larger...

[Tear Down This Wall]

How long has the War on Poverty lasted?

The government teat is large and getting larger...

50 years.

What gets larger and larger is the number of people in poverty. The number of wealthy stays about the same; the middle class is significantly lessened.

When I was in high school 30 years ago, all fast food restaurants were manned by high school kids and the manager was an adult "loser" who didn't go to college. Same as grocers. They were teeming with "sackers" and "stockers" who were high schoolers. The managers were, again, the "losers" who didn't go to college.

Come to 2014 and look at the picture. We've got the politicians demanding that McDonalds and Wal-Mart pay a "living wage" for jobs that require almost no skill. Jobs that were entry level and temporary 30 years ago. That is how far south the economy is now.

You have to wrap your head around the fact to no "empire" has lasted forever. We just happen to be living in the era where ours crumbles. And, those with the demographics numbers politically do not have the wherewithal to understand the damage they are wrought.

Sorry.

[diverdog]

---Sure you are but the cost is up front ---you know what the cost will be

For one year. You have no idea what your cost are the next year. If you do then you are a genius.

[Sooner in Tampa]

50 years.

What gets larger and larger is the number of people in poverty. The number of wealthy stays about the same; the middle class is significantly lessened.

Sorry.

Exactly!!! The War on Povery is a JOKE!!!! There is absolutely ZERO incentive to get off of welfare...none.

I have a great friend of mine who swears slavery is alive and well in Democratic party...IT'S WELFARE!!! He is black and he hates everything about the donks...they are trying to be everything to everyone and it's all about the hand outs...not the hand up!!

If JFK tried to give his speech today saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" can you imagine the backlash??

We have become a nation that is ruled by the urban cities and their morales and values...rural America is deep ****...we are losing our voice

This is a nation with a lot of lazy muther ****ers who refuse to work for anything and then bash the people that do work and make good money...if you are successful today...you must be an evil bastard that hates every minority and and probably kicks puppies...you selfish *******s

Thank you Obama for opening my eyes...you sir are a bully pulpit prick and by far the worst president in the history of this country...when it is all said and done...I doubt we will dig out of this hole we are in during my lifetime...Sad...

[FaninAma]

Are we allowed to fix what's wrong without attempted a kneejerk 'return' to some utopia that never existed? Or would you prefer to live in permanent pursuit of a Potemkin Village?
Do you see any attempt at fixing these things over the past 5 to 10 years?

EBT use:higher
Social Security Disability Enrollment: much higher
American Student Achievement: lower
Medicaid enrollment: much higher
National debt: much, much, much higher
percentage of births to single mothers: higher
Federal Government: much larger.

As the federal government gets larger the increase in the trends of the other negative developments increase.

Why does government get larger? Because, unlike during the previous decades you ridicule, there is a growing sentiment among the nation's population that they would rather have government take care of them instead of being responsible for themselves and their families.

[KantoSooner]

Start offering nuts and bolts solutions, Big Guy. I'm all ears, but all I hear so far is grousing and carping and quasi-millenial pining for a utopia that never existed.

[FaninAma]

Start offering nuts and bolts solutions, Big Guy. I'm all ears, but all I hear so far is grousing and carping and quasi-millenial pining for a utopia that never existed.
I have offered solutions before to wean people off dependence from the government but then you counter that I and others who want across the board entitlement program cuts and military cuts want to throw people in the streets to starve and wonder around homeless. Stopping the insanity of rewarding bad behavior over and over again would be a good start.

Or, we can continue down our current trajectory toward growing government, growing entitlements, growing dependence on government and stealing from future generations.

[KantoSooner]

Or look at other solutions. But don't let me distract you from your tautology.

[FaninAma]

Or look at other solutions. But don't let me distract you from your tautology.
So, what are your solutions? You saw what happened with the sequester. It was a very small effort to scale back spending yet the big government democrats and big governement republicans wouldn't even allow it to run its course over a year.

[KantoSooner]

Heh. I asked you first, ace.

Seriously, you're never going to get anything that lasts unless it's bipartisan. Raises the degree of difficulty tremendously, but the fact is that either side will try to block or dismantle what the other did unless they're all on board.

I'd like to revisit Bowles-Simpson as a starting point and that means that everybody has to give up something they really care about to get what we all really need.

So far, neither 'side' is interested in any compromise whatsoever, so we're doomed to get no progress. Until such time as the hardliners in both parties come to grips with the fact that they control, at best, 25-30% of the electorate and until such time as the more moderate come to grips with the fact that the hardliners are out of ideas and are simply waiting for the truck to go in the ditch so they can yell, "I told you so!", we are not going to see progress.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Ace, lol.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Are we allowed to fix what's wrong without attempted a kneejerk 'return' to some utopia that never existed? Or would you prefer to live in permanent pursuit of a Potemkin Village?
Call me Don Quixote, but I would like to have seen a far and honest debate of the merits and warts and then decide. But, alas, we got a one-sided shaft job and then everyone is supposed to be surprised when it turns out to be the turd it was always meant to be. Surprise, surprise, surprise!!!!

[KantoSooner]

We agree!
It would have been excellent to have asked such questions but neither political party really seemed to want the debate...or to even agree on the status quo. It was very disappointing. I have wondered why no one ever tried to present a national health system as a boon to private business and to American worker mobility/productivity.
Oh well, perhaps we get there ultimately.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Call me Don Quixote, but I would like to have seen a far and honest debate of the merits and warts and then decide. But, alas, we got a one-sided shaft job and then everyone is supposed to be surprised when it turns out to be the turd it was always meant to be. Surprise, surprise, surprise!!!!

It was never going to happen because the debate would have exposed the set up as unworkable pretty quickly. Democrats had to hammer it through because the risk management/finance facts were never going to be on their side.

I've stopped being shocked at how stupid people are, though. When the computer system Michelle Obama's college friend designed didn't work, I wasn't surprised. I haven't been surprised by any delay because the dolts who pushed the bill through did not understand insurance anyway.

The problem for Democrats is that they did the bill about 10-12 years too soon. Hence, their loss of the House the election after passing the bill. As it was, there were only slightly more stupid, lazy people than working people in America.

By 2020, 2024, it'll be all-bets-off...the stupid and lazy will far outnumber the working class and it won't matter what any bill says. They could begin to write them in crayon and won't matter.

The pipeline of true income redistribution and making all mediocre is well under way. It'll be set in stone within a decade by the judicial branch. Enough states already have stupid, lazy majorities is major cities to offset the working and ensure no more GOP presidents...and, hence, no GOP-appointed federal judicial seats.

We will be Soviet without a revolutionary shot having been fired.

[TAFBSooner]

I have offered solutions before to wean people off dependence from the government but then you counter that I and others who want across the board entitlement program cuts and military cuts want to throw people in the streets to starve and wonder around homeless. Stopping the insanity of rewarding bad behavior over and over again would be a good start.

Or, we can continue down our current trajectory toward growing government, growing entitlements, growing dependence on government and stealing from future generations.

Replace most of the welfare and unemployment insurance programs with a modern WPA. We would still be putting it on the cuff, but:

(1) as a country, we would be getting useful work for the money spent

(2) that money would recirculate, growing the economy so that we might actually pay our debt off

(3) we would be teaching people to work for a living instead of "paying them not to work"

[KantoSooner]

I'd like to see that. I'd also suggest that we consider a Universal National Service requirement for every kid between 18-20. You want to go into the military instead, fine, but it's a longer commit...and more pay, benefits, etc. But, that aside, take all your late teen people, bundle them up and use them to work in national parks, do grunt work on national construction projects or clerical in government offices or buidling and grounds maintenance around government property. Hell, there's lots of work to be done.
They live in barracks/camps, wear uniforms and get a SMALL stipend monthly.
At least at the age of 20, the ghetto kids have had a chance to get out for a while, the Hollywood kids have had to do real work, everybody's had two years of nutritious food and medical care and a space in which to adultify before moving on.
Gives everybody some equality and some stake in the society.
Provides employment for retired Drill Sergeants, too.

[SoonerorLater]

I'd like to see that. I'd also suggest that we consider a Universal National Service requirement for every kid between 18-20. You want to go into the military instead, fine, but it's a longer commit...and more pay, benefits, etc. But, that aside, take all your late teen people, bundle them up and use them to work in national parks, do grunt work on national construction projects or clerical in government offices or buidling and grounds maintenance around government property. Hell, there's lots of work to be done.
They live in barracks/camps, wear uniforms and get a SMALL stipend monthly.
At least at the age of 20, the ghetto kids have had a chance to get out for a while, the Hollywood kids have had to do real work, everybody's had two years of nutritious food and medical care and a space in which to adultify before moving on.
Gives everybody some equality and some stake in the society.
Provides employment for retired Drill Sergeants, too.

Think I'll have to give this one a big thumbs down.

[KantoSooner]

Okay. It's not like I thought it would actually get approved. Makes far too much sense for that to happen.

[TAFBSooner]

TAFB, When I brought up the professional military dealio, I was not suggesting that you'd argued against one. To do so would be insane considering the horrendous casualties we've historically run up with conscript armies of terrified 18 year olds learning OJT. (The clown shows of the First Bull Run and virtually the entire North African Campaign in WWII show that pick up squads get slaughtered....every time.) My point was that if we are going to have intelligence services, they, too must be professional . . .snip

I agree with your end result, but the argument is crucial, not insane. We are living in the middle of what the Founders (see below) and Ike (military industrial complex) warned us about. Weighing the very real cost to freedom posed by standing armies against the vulnerability posed by not having standing armies, I concur in the need for our standing army. But it’s not by a whole heck of a lot. And it leaves us with the need for eternal vigilance against the predations of the national security state and surveillance state. Boeing no more wants to give up its revenue stream than does Busch (see "legalization" thread).

For example, James Madison said:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Madison also noted that never-ending war tends to destroy both liberty and prosperity:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/the-founding-fathers-warned-against-standing-armies.html

(By the way - We : the people that founded this country :: the folks in Idiocracy : Us)

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/do_nsas_bulk_surveillance_programs_stop_terrorists

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/13/study_nsa_data_hoarding_doesnt_stop_terror_attacks/

[KantoSooner]

Few said things as well as Madison. And fair enough. But a few random points.
-War in the 18th century was a pretty finite thing. Are the threats against us today finite? Not saying that everyone needs to drop into a combat crouch 24/7, but are we ever out of some group's crosshairs?
-Are we not talking about 'right sizing' (to use a hated term)? Maybe we don't need 300 ships in the navy. That's not the same thing as not needing a navy.
-In intelligence work, there is gathering and there is analysis and there is a very tiny percentage of action (that is, quite rightly, mostly the job of the military and/or diplomatic corps...or, domestically, the FBI). On the technical gathering side, much can be done with technology and should be, and to some degree, it can be turned on and turned off at will. Human intelligence, however, takes decades or even generations to develop. (The old Czech saw that 'spycraft is learned at one's mother's knee' is appropos,) You can't turn it on when you need it. Since the traitor Frank Church disemboweled the CIA in the 1970's the US has been behind the curve in human intelligence.
Now is not the time to rein in our capabiilties, or our development of assets.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Think I'll have to give this one a big thumbs down.

Agree. Talk about Nanny State. Raise your kids, but turn them over to a government program from 18-20?

The poor already have the option to join to military to get out of the ghetto. It's how my dad and all of his brothers got out of Oakhurst. Back in the day, those in poverty didn't whine; they joined the military. My dad will tell you that joining the Air Force was the best thing that ever happened to him.

He ate better and slept better than he did at home, plus had a job. He shopped cheap on the base and saw parts of the world he'd have never otherwise seen as a poor kid from West Tulsa.

As far as "rich kids" working: what the hell business is it of the government what "rich kids" do from age 18-20? If their parent can afford to send them to college, fine. If they agree to support them in whatever they choose to do, if not college, fine. Either way, it's sure not the government's business to tell them what to do with their kids.

[KantoSooner]

What I'm trying to do is create a 'level playing field' start line. It gets harder and harder to call our economy fair and worthwhile for lower socio-economic folks if the game is obviously rigged from the get go. And it gets harder to generate social cohesion with less and less common experience.
Meh, it was an attempt.

[Turd_Ferguson]

What I'm trying to do is create a 'level playing field' start line. It gets harder and harder to call our economy fair and worthwhile for lower socio-economic folks if the game is obviously rigged from the get go. And it gets harder to generate social cohesion with less and less common experience.
Meh, it was an attempt.

So, punish the rich since it's not fair that only the poor have to do it?

[KantoSooner]

Nah, punish is way too hard a word. How about calling it a big hoedown where we can all get to know each other? If we're going to rely on some of us to go to war from time to time, and all of us to pay taxes, and on yet others to join PTA's and all the other civic organizations that make this place worth living in, it would be nice if we had some way to create a shared experience in life. We could go israeli and make everyone go do military training, and I'd be cool with that, but that's a lot of bodies, most of whom would be utterly uninterested, for the military to have to do something with for a couple of years.
Just thinking out loud.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Nah, punish is way too hard a word. How about calling it a big hoedown where we can all get to know each other? If we're going to rely on some of us to go to war from time to time, and all of us to pay taxes, and on yet others to join PTA's and all the other civic organizations that make this place worth living in, it would be nice if we had some way to create a shared experience in life. We could go israeli and make everyone go do military training, and I'd be cool with that, but that's a lot of bodies, most of whom would be utterly uninterested, for the military to have to do something with for a couple of years.
Just thinking out loud.

I think your logic is flawed but, that's just me.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think your logic is flawed but, that's just me.Placing such trust in government, and having the desire for the government to control everything, including economic activities that they are by law not allowed to be in, is what is so alien to you and me, and others here that would be considered conservatives.

Having that starting point of government possessing such power, instead of the individual rights we have historically lauded and enjoyed, is why Kanto, and other Liberals here, are at odds with workable solutions to solve our problems in accord with the ideas of freedom and the marketplace.

[KantoSooner]

Ah Rush, ever the one for labels he can hardly spell. 'Liberal'. Really Rushie? Why would a Liberal be concerned with securing the foundation of capitalism?
I'm sorry if that locked up your 64K logic circuitry.

[TAFBSooner]

It's fine to expose poor people to real work and a cross-section of society, because it's good for their souls. But it's nobody's business if the Paris Hiltons of the world never have to lift a finger or mingle with the middle class? I guess we don't care about their souls.

Meh.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Ah Rush, ever the one for labels he can hardly spell. 'Liberal'. Really Rushie? Why would a Liberal be concerned with securing the foundation of capitalism?
I'm sorry if that locked up your 64K logic circuitry.We were talking about Obamacare, and alternate ways to a good healthcare industry. You prefer the socialist approach, and yes, that is what liberals want. Are you denying? you didn't before.

[KantoSooner]

Ah, I see where you lost the trail. No, Rushie, we weren't. The comments had focused on a proposal I had floated regarding a Universal National Service program for young adults. Considering that, in the 40 years or so of my life that I've spent arguing in favor of capitalism, the most effective arguments against that economic/social system are those that address fairness, I think it's very important to make sure that those foundations are constantly shored up.
Thus I thought, and think, that common national experiences are important. Military service during WWII was one such experience and it bore fruit for the country for 50 years after the war was over and done.

As to healthcare. Once more, let me make it simple: are you willing to have a laissez faire healthcare system? I personally prefer to have licensed doctors, tested meds, and all the rest. Here's the rub, though, kiddo: once you put all those fetters on the market, you no longer have a 'free market' in any meaningful sense. Cost/price controls familiar to capitalists are no longer present. What you get is exactly what we have: concentration of supply and steadily rising prices without effective push back from the demand side.
Under those circumstances, I'm more than willing to consider any other solution that seems to work...as nationalized health care does in a variety of countries.

I'm willing to bet that even you can understand that. If it's hard, try printing my response, then find a quiet room, with good lighting and a ruler. Put the ruler under the first line of text and then slowly move it down the page. It's okay to move your lips when you come to the big words.

[TAFBSooner]

Ah, I see where you lost the trail. No, Rushie, we weren't. The comments had focused on a proposal I had floated regarding a Universal National Service program for young adults. Considering that, in the 40 years or so of my life that I've spent arguing in favor of capitalism, the most effective arguments against that economic/social system are those that address fairness, I think it's very important to make sure that those foundations are constantly shored up.
Thus I thought, and think, that common national experiences are important. Military service during WWII was one such experience and it bore fruit for the country for 50 years after the war was over and done.

As to healthcare. Once more, let me make it simple: are you willing to have a laissez faire healthcare system? I personally prefer to have licensed doctors, tested meds, and all the rest. Here's the rub, though, kiddo: once you put all those fetters on the market, you no longer have a 'free market' in any meaningful sense. Cost/price controls familiar to capitalists are no longer present. What you get is exactly what we have: concentration of supply and steadily rising prices without effective push back from the demand side.
Under those circumstances, I'm more than willing to consider any other solution that seems to work...as nationalized health care does in a variety of countries.

I'm willing to bet that even you can understand that. If it's hard, try printing my response, then find a quiet room, with good lighting and a ruler. Put the ruler under the first line of text and then slowly move it down the page. It's okay to move your lips when you come to the big words.

I don't think they can understand that. Purity-based conservatives have a one-drop rule when it comes to any idea that smacks of socialism.

As if any of the economic-theory labels completely describe any real-world polity.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Ah, I see where you lost the trail. No, Rushie, we weren't. The comments had focused on a proposal I had floated regarding a Universal National Service program for young adults. Considering that, in the 40 years or so of my life that I've spent arguing in favor of capitalism, the most effective arguments against that economic/social system are those that address fairness, I think it's very important to make sure that those foundations are constantly shored up.
Thus I thought, and think, that common national experiences are important. Military service during WWII was one such experience and it bore fruit for the country for 50 years after the war was over and done.

As to healthcare. Once more, let me make it simple: are you willing to have a laissez faire healthcare system? I personally prefer to have licensed doctors, tested meds, and all the rest. Here's the rub, though, kiddo: once you put all those fetters on the market, you no longer have a 'free market' in any meaningful sense. Cost/price controls familiar to capitalists are no longer present. What you get is exactly what we have: concentration of supply and steadily rising prices without effective push back from the demand side.
Under those circumstances, I'm more than willing to consider any other solution that seems to work...as nationalized health care does in a variety of countries.

I'm willing to bet that even you can understand that. If it's hard, try printing my response, then find a quiet room, with good lighting and a ruler. Put the ruler under the first line of text and then slowly move it down the page. It's okay to move your lips when you come to the big words.I know it's hard for socialists(even if they did advocate capitalism at one time, as you say you do)to refrain from playing the stupid card, but you have pulled out all the stops. That's an impressive display of arrogance, even for you. kudos, I suppose.

The subject of the thread is Obamacare and the chaos it brings. your posting on Universal national Service is interesting, but doesn't address the healthcare mess we have adopted over time, culminating in the latest fiasco, Obamacare. The government has too much power, now, and got to be that way by going outside the law, that limits those powers. With the media on its side, it's not a particularly optimistic forecast.

[KantoSooner]

I see you made it through, Rushie, and in record time, too. Kudos back. PM me with a mailing address for you and I'll send you some freshman poli sci texts. They're old, but really, 'socialism', 'communism', 'democracy', republicanism' et al haven't changed much over the years. Hell, I'll even throw in a copy of Edmund Burke's 'Reflections' so you can get a grip on what 'conservatism' is all about.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I see you made it through, Rushie, and in record time, too. Kudos back. PM me with a mailing address for you and I'll send you some freshman poli sci texts. They're old, but really, 'socialism', 'communism', 'democracy', republicanism' et al haven't changed much over the years. Hell, I'll even throw in a copy of Edmund Burke's 'Reflections' so you can get a grip on what 'conservatism' is all about.Oh, I'll be sure to do that. Hope you're arrogance isn't for real.

[KantoSooner]

It's a come and go thing. I use it when warranted.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It's a come and go thing. I use it when warranted.All Lefties play the stupid card. It's their most common hand.

It's unfortunate for all of us that so many place so much faith in the ability of the government to control our healthcare. Of course, democrats get lots of votes from those who don't even consider healthcare.

[KantoSooner]

I never knew Ann Coulter was a leftie, she'll be stunned to learn that, I'm sure.

Regarding healthcare, it's pretty easy to figure out why. The individual has no avenue to counter the bargaining power of the medical 'system'. You can't go to a competitve doctor or clinic or hospital: they are all charging off the same charge master list. If you can afford private insurance, you gain some leverage...but there's really very little competition between insurers and no motivation for them push the providers much at all.

Pretty much like any thing else, when the system itself is corrupt and there is no intra-system recourse, people look to whatever way they can find to improve their situation.

[TAFBSooner]

I see you made it through, Rushie, and in record time, too. Kudos back. PM me with a mailing address for you and I'll send you some freshman poli sci texts. They're old, but really, 'socialism', 'communism', 'democracy', republicanism' et al haven't changed much over the years. Hell, I'll even throw in a copy of Edmund Burke's 'Reflections' so you can get a grip on what 'conservatism' is all about.

Do any of them have a chapter on "mixed economy?" That's the one that's so hard for some people to grip.