Loading ...
Please Don’t Cave In To These… These… “PEOPLE” So Easily, Andy…
Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Dish has finally given up “the good fight”. For weeks and weeks this talented writer, slightly-right-of-center political pundit and “talking head” has been ridiculing the “far-right fringes” who’ve been screaming and screaming for even MORE proof President Barack Obama was born on U.S. soil at the time and date he and everybody else besides them, even on their own side of the political aisle, have been trying to offer their own personal validations to. Yes, even the hard-core G.O.P.’ers for the most part are finding themselves to be extremely embarrassed by the non-stop whining and insistance by those who still claim they want to see more proof President Obama isn’t an Islamic extremist member of the Taliban and/or al-Qaeda who was born somewhere in Saudi Arabia. Andy. Please. I respect you GREATLY, Sir, but I cannot believe you threw these folks a “bone”.
That’s right, Mr. Sullivan — it would have been much funner for us to keep these people going on and on with their laughable “crusade” than to throw them even ONE more bone. Et Tu, Andy? Then fall, GTL™ !
***
Other Bloggers Weigh In On The Andrew Sullivan Piece: Paul Campos of Lawyers, Guns and Money brings up the point that these conspiracy therorists would find a conspiracy behind their request being granted anyway, so just leave it alone; John Cole of Balloon Juice thinks it’s time for our good friend, Andy to take a two-week vacation…
I have just one thing to say……..IF…..he has a legitimate birth certificate….why not release it? Simple…just release it for all the world to see.
I saw an analysis of this debate by someone whom I think has it right.
Obama doesn’t want to release this information because it makes the right look like lunatic, fringe idiots…morons and retardos who have nothing to contribute to society in general for demanding information that every other candidate or president has readily released.
Hence because there is no legal reasons to do so the more he hides it the more the furor errupts into a full blown…….THE RIGHT ARE NUTS…….fiasco for the GOP.
The Obama Administration is arrogant bastards. The problem is that they fail to see the falling poll numbers. They are beginning to suffer from the same thing that Bush Administration suffered from…..failure to open the portholes of the Titantic to see that their ship was sinking.
Not that I really care, but it would be more interesting if he released his college records. I’m wondering if his grades were worse than the other dumb populists who have preceded him as president.
(sorry for this random thought GTL) I listened/watched the Bernadke Q&A on PBS the last couple of days. Right or wrong – He really seemed to know what he was talking about (of course he should as leader of the Fed) with out a telepromter. Of course, I don’t think a policy wonk like him (you know, someone who actually knows something) could ever get elected (from either party – left or right).
So Doomed, it’s a conspiracy to keep the conspiracy? Granted, I am a independent right wing nut job (and proud of not voting for O’Bomber or McCain), but also a consipiracy skeptic. Hard for me to believe 1, let alone 2 conspiracies.
Steve
Doomed: “Obama doesn’t want to release this information because it makes the right look like lunatic, fringe idiots…morons and retardos who have nothing to contribute to society in general for demanding information that every other candidate or president has readily released.”
Obama released the information, AND this makes the Right look like lunatic, fringe idiots … morons and retardos. So please, keep the issue alive. Party like it’s 1994 and you’ve got a special Whitewater prosecutor wasting $100 million in taxpayer money to dig up … nothing. Keep raising “questions” and “doubts.” This time around,it’s not working, though. The old playbook just doesn’t work anymore, and it just makes your team look like nuts.
Makes you wonder who the truly arrogant people really are.
Obama released the information, AND this makes the Right look like lunatic, fringe idiots … morons and retardos.
The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.
@Doomed: Impressive, but the fact that you took the time to learn this baffles me.
Straight from the Hawaii DOH.
Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.
So in other words the certificate of live birth that is posted on Obamas website, Factcheck.org and KOS do not matter. Simply because someone who was born in a foreign country could obtain one.
There are so many questions that the Obama administration needs to pony up for but by letting the left wingnuts defend against the right wingnuts then the truth may never emerge.
Besides a good conspiracy is always fun. After all look at all the conspiracies GWB and friends had to battle.
@Doomed: Still baffled you’re spending time on this.
Using the textbook definition of conspiracy, I think you mean to say “all the conspiracies GWB and friends had to engage in.” His administration did, after all, break the law repeatedly, only to produce poorly worded memos later on, and coercing a weak-kneed Republican Congress, later on retroactively making their actions legal. And now with a wuss for a president wanting to “move forward,” and a speaker of the House who said since 2006 that impeachment is “off the table,” we’ll probably never see justice done. See: outing of a CIA agent, torture, wiretapping, etc. etc.
There are no questions the Obama administration needs to pony up for. The President owes the citizens of the country many duties, but indulging the asinine whims of wingnuts who blindly hate his guts is not one of them. If you like, though, I’m sure he’ll mail all of you a nice hot steaming mug of STFU while he’s busy cleaning up the giant dump Bush took on the country for eight years.
But by all means, if asking these deep, penetrating questions as a citizen journalist makes you happy, keep on asking them. Just be sure to do it until the next election. I’d like to see more progressive Democrats get elected, and it’s this kind of BS that helps make that happen.
Bad Dog
I’m still baffled that you are willing to continue to discuss it. Incidently I think that you have not been in the blogsphere too long. We have evolved way past STFU and that sort of thing. We actually tolerate, listen to and try to analyze the BS coming from the other side.
We are beyong Bush is Hitler and stuff like that. He is no longer prez…means he cant declare martial law, take away all your freedoms, eavesdrop on your grandma and stuff like that.
SFTU? Really. Thats the best Obama can mail me? STFU?
Geeze I think Team Obama needs to fire you…..You just don’t have the intestinal fortitude to deal with WINGNUTS like me.
The time lines, places, actions, motives, when analyzed, support, and are consistent with, what is the answer to the Obama birth puzzle:
Obama’s grandmother is his mother and his mother is his sister.
Think about it. Review all the facts and claims.
@Doomed: You are certainly too tough for me, Doomed. Your inexhaustible wit, paranoid fantasies, raw delusions and outright wingnuttery are simply too powerful for a poor wide-eyed Joe like me simply trying to have his say on these big ol’ Internets. Shucks, don’t hurt me!
I’m willing to discuss it because I like giving right wingers a taste of their own medicine and watching their faces wince up into a big ol’ pout, just like you’re doing now. I had to deal with eight years of STFU, asinine BS, and outright stupidity from right wingers. It’s funny, though … I didn’t know the rules had changed. If you read the comments of right wingers on this blog, seems like the good old days to me. But either way, no, we don’t get to have a friendly debate about whether Obama is a citizen. We get big steaming mugs of STFU.
And one more thing, by saying we’re beyond Bush is Hitler, you mean we’re now into Obama is Hitler, right? (So much for your “tolerating” anything. Because I never heard anybody call Bush Hitler, although I will say he was a cartoonish attempt at a fascist, and yet I must hear some wingnut–and some of these morons are Congressmen–compare Obama to Hitler. I’m laughing as I remember Bill O’Liar on Faux News during last year’s election saying Obama is popular, makes good speeches and draws big crowds, and [cue scary organ music and thunder] so did Hitler! Oooooooo scary. (Ranks right up there with O’Liar saying of course Canada’s life expectancy is higher than Americans, after all, there are 10 times more Americans, so we have 10 times more deaths–he actually said this, and got paid millions to say it.) I didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to deal with him, either. In fact, he made me puke.
As for Bush taking away my freedoms, wiretap innocent American citizens, etc. ad nauseum, oh, he already did that. The damage is done. So we’ll be discussing Bush’s legacy of horror for years to come.
Think you can handle it with a TEAM OBAMA member like me?
Doomed- I’ve got to say, Bad dog has really stirred things up, coming on to our liberal blog and spewing liberalism!
Bad dog- I’m not asking you for facts on this one, just a clarification of your theory. What do you mean by the Iraq war “for oil”. Do you mean to protect the price of oil going either up or down? Do you mean for the purpose of taking the oil Iraq has for the U.S. Do you just mean to stablize the region to protect the oil trade? I can believe Bush invaded Iraq for exactly why he said he did, or I can entertain all kinds of other theories like he believed he was on some type of divine quest or trying to out do his father somehow. I can’t see him doing it “for oil” , because it seems to me the war had so little effect, either positive or negative on the price or availability of oil.
@Mike 300: The main reason for the war, Bush said, was the imminent danger posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD), even though UN weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD. Some spokespeople for the Administration also said Iraq was harboring and supporting Al-Qaeda, but there was no evidence of that, and even Bush later admitted there was no link, even though Fox News pushed it so hard even today some half of Americans believe Iraq was behind 9/11. The neocons in the Administration pushed the idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East, a notion extinguished over time as the U.S. realized to its dismay, that this would destabilize the region (after all, notice we haven’t asked our allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, to democratize; the country would become another Iran in a minute.) That left human rights abuses, which is absurd on its face. Picture Bush giving a crap enough about brown people halfway around the world that he’d be willing to commit trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to rescue them from oppression, while ignoring brutal dictators in countries we’re friends with or have no significant natural resources or markets we’re interested in. Can you picture it? I didn’t think so. That leaves OIL.
This is not some nefarious thing. This is simple geopolitics. Oil is a finite resource and we are running out of it. He who controls oil has power and wealth. Iraq has the world’s second largest oil reserves. And we’re going to need energy if we’re going to beat our real enemy (that we keep finding ourselves in bed with), China, and maintain global hegemony. Since Bush didn’t believe in sissy stuff like using energy more efficiently or renewable energy, the U.S. was going to secure more oil.
In fact, if the war wasn’t secretly about oil, as Paul Wolfowitz admitted frankly and refreshingly at one point, I have to wonder about the naive-te and sanity of Bush’s government even more than I do now. But of course they had a plan, and the plan focused on oil.
Think about it. Why are we still there after all these years? Didn’t we win the war? So why did we blow trillions on an occupation the Iraqis didn’t want nor the American people? Do you think it’s because we “owe” something to the Iraqi people? The U.S. doesn’t make strategic decisions because it owes anybody anything, I assure you. Is it because we’re at war with Al-Qaeda? No. We blow money maintaining forces in more than 700 military bases in dozens of countries around the world; we can fight al-Qaeda anywhere we choose, and besides, we already know they’re mostly in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
I’ll tell you the answer. We’re there because we are never leaving. This is why Obama said the war was wrong, and we should leave, but is now planning to leave 50,000 troops in the country. We are going to leave a large force there to keep our boot on the jugular of the world’s largest oil-producing region. Anything else is naive-te or nonsense.
Paul O’Neill, Bush’s Treasury Secretary, said after leaving the Administration that the war was about oil. He says part of the planning included dividing up Iraq’s oil resources:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
In Woodward’s book lavishing praise on the Bush Administration, officials openly admitted that after 9/11 Rumsfeld immediately made a case for invading Iraq (as he was a member of the Project for a New American Century neocon think tank, which advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and installment of a friendly ruler).
In 2002, Cheney met with the heads of energy companies and one of the things they talked about was Iraq’s oil resources, as discovered in documents obtained by Judicial Watch after an FOIA lawsuit:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml
Here’s Greenspan acknowledging the war is about oil. The money quote: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline
And you know what, Mike? I don’t care if it was about oil. The first Gulf War was also about oil. (Do you really think Bush’s dad gave a crap about brown people in Kuwait? Didn’t think so.) What I DO care about was Bush exploited the American people and our rage over 9/11 to cynically steer the country into war against a country that posed no real threat to us, leading to catastrophic cost and derailing our effort to get Bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda, all so some we could grab some oil–all courtesy of bad policy, lies, propaganda and “news” outlets like Fox News.
That, Mike, really, really pissed me off.
Ok- So it would be fair to say, your perspective isn’t that the U.S. invaded to physically cart off oil to the U.S. without paying for it. It was more to establish a land based military presence to be able to exert power/influence over the whole oil producing region. Is that essentially your position?
@Mike 300: Yes, that and to gradually have the country privatize its oil resources and sell them off to foreign corporations, basically what we’ve been doing to countries around the world for decades.
Take Bolivia, for instance. We had the World Bank give them a loan–and without credit these countries would implode–but they had to slash social services and sell off their public industries and utilities at fire sale prices to corporations like Bechtel (Rumsfeld’s old company). In the case of Bolivia, Bechtel ended up owning the entire country’s oil supply. It’s no joke. The people couldn’t even collect rainwater legally. So of course unfettered capitalism being what it is, what do you think happened? Water service degraded due to lack of maintenance (cutting costs), while prices increased (they had an unregulated monopoly). This happened during the Clinton years, mind you, which shows you how ridiculously enamored our country became with “free” trade and unfettered capitalism even then. Eventually, the people revolted and the government had to tear up its contract with Bechtel. But the people don’t always win. Social unrest is predictable in situations like this and usually met with brutal force.
We did this to Bolivia and many other countries and it didn’t even make The New York Times, and you think we wouldn’t do the same to Iraq’s oil resources owned by the Iraqi government? Do you know how money that oil is worth? It’s like liquid gold. Every Bush policy favored the rich and big business. The Iraq War was all about oil–which country would control it, and which elites would make money off it.
Even now Iraq’s energy resources are being slowly privatized. Here’s an interesting item:
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3957
As for me, I’d like for the U.S. not to conduct foreign policy this way using the World Bank. The reason is the same as Ron Paul would give. When we meddle, it usually comes back to haunt us. Our history with Iraq goes back to getting Saddam installed in the first place. We armed him, including WMD, in the 80s during its war with Iran. Then we fought him, bombed him for a decade, and fought him again, and because our troops were on Saudi soil, Bin Laden turned against us and hit the WTC on 9/11. How much money do you think we spent on all this? Do you think it was worth it? What have we really received for the money? Who really benefits? It ain’t you and me, I’ll tell you that.
P.S. I made an error earlier saying Iraq has the world’s second largest oil reserves. They have the third largest.
@Mike: One more correction: I made a typo when I said Bechtel bought Bolivia’s OIL supply. They bought the company’s WATER supply. (I’m tired; time for bed.) By the way, these same people are advocating that all the commons in the US–such as water–be similarly deregulated. Then you’ll pay more for water, just as you probably pay more for electricity because of deregulation of the power industry.
@Doomed: You are certainly too tough for me, Doomed. Your inexhaustible wit, paranoid fantasies, raw delusions and outright wingnuttery are simply too powerful for a poor wide-eyed Joe like me simply trying to have his say on these big ol’ Internets. Shucks, don’t hurt me!
Now see no one wants to hurt you Dawg….Around these parts we can actually have a conversation that doesnt come to blows or require me to beat the snot out of you cause you are insulting something I say.
No one wants to hurt you Dawg. I suggest that perhaps you are just too high strung.
As the good Doc Holiday once said……..”I’m your Huckleberry.”
oh by the way DAWG
If your posts are more then a couple sentences I quit reading them.
Sorry….but most liberals bore me. I only read the first sentence to realize they are just spewing Obama/Democratic/MichaelMoore/NannyPelosi/Moveon.org talking points and well
Ive already read them before.
@Doomed, who says: “If your posts are more then a couple sentences I quit reading them. Sorry….but most liberals bore me.”
No apologies necessary. I’m not here to entertain you, so I don’t care if I bore you. My advice is not to read those posts.
“Around these parts we can actually have a conversation that doesnt come to blows or require me to beat the snot out of you cause you are insulting something I say.”
Looks to me like the comments board was dominated by right wingers before I showed up, and GTL is too nice for his own good, so it wouldn’t surprise me that you all found something to agree about. Before I started commenting, I read comment after comment: Obama’s a communist, Pelosi’s a socialist, liberal stereotypes are evil, our guns are going to be taken away any minute now, etc. etc. Not boring at all, I’m sure, since the repetition of the usual right wing talking points reinforced your prejudices.
Speaking of talking points, when I’m having an actual rational debate (you miss those, because they sometimes require lengthy reading) with one of this site’s residents, I provide links to sources. They’re not talking points, they’re opinions based on facts. Maybe you interpret them as talking points because that’s how you define all information. I don’t know. I’m guessing that because almost all I’ve heard on this site is simply more noise in the right wing media echo chamber.
Snot intact. How about that.
Mike re #11: I agree. I hate to say it but lately there have been more conservatives here at GTL’s blog than liberals. That’s one reason why I strayed over to the Kos for a while (sorry GTL), but they kicked me out after two posts. Dissent is not permitted by Comrade Kos.
Personally, Bad Dog has been keeping me quite entertained with his ultra-liberal and ultra-pro-Obama positions. I wouldn’t be surprised if he were a card carrying member of ACORN. And I have to agree with Doomed that some of his posts are excruciatingly long. But then so are mine, so I can’t really complain about that.
Here is the really weird part. I agree with Bad Dog on some of the points he made here. (1) “Oil is a finite resource and we are running out of it. He who controls oil has power and wealth.” No question about it, this is true. At first, we might think that drilling in ANWR or off the U.S. shore might be a good substitute for Mid-East oil. But if you think about it, we (the U.S., as in We The People for whom I speak) are better off if we bleed the Mid-East dry before tapping further into our own oil resources.
But it is not just in the U.S.’s best interest to stabilize the mid-east oil supply, it is in the best interest of the rest of the world too. Even the few countries who are self-sufficient with their own oil benefit from the stability provided in the rest of the world.
Of course there is another error; “So why did we blow trillions on an occupation the Iraqis didn’t want…”, actually, we haven’t reached the one trillion mark yet , much less plural ‘trillions”.
But the statement; (2) “We are going to leave a large force there to keep our boot on the jugular of the world’s largest oil-producing region.” Is also true, and as well we should. We need to keep a volatile area under control in order to protect our interests and the interests of our allies. The more troops and equipment we can keep in the area the better. And don’t overlook the proximity to Iran. Iran is the single most destabilizing force in the area. We will eventually have to deal with them militarily. Hopefully, that day is far down the road, but it is coming.
Sounds like a few of us have been drinking some GTL summit beer. If we can only continue to keep it this civil as we try to eviscerate each other.
Bad dog-classic issues of public versus private ownership. Of course IMO you are wrong, but I believe we have some agreement. Yes, the U.S., Bolivia, and everywhere else does need a government to pass and enforce laws to keep rich people from abusing poor people. Anti-trust laws, anti-discrimination, and reluctantly I’ll admit SOME regulation. But that being said, no where in their enforcement do they need to aquire and decide who gets what. In the real world, sadly this happens all the time, the politicians take wealth and power from one set of rich people and give it to the politican’s rich friends. If the government would downsize into only regulating and enforcing and cut their distibuting business, I believe we would all be better off. I’m not against a safety net, I get the idea behind food stamps and medicaid (State run medicaid not to be confused with Fed run medicare- a difference I didn’t know myself til recently) and free public education, I just believe we have gone way too far. Perhaps we as a nation don’t have the toughness to cut back on current entitlements but the last thing we need is more, new entitlements.
An example of private vs. public given by an economics professor friend of mine. Given all the chickens we kill everyday, why aren’t they becoming as scarce as American Bald Eagles? The reason is people that kill them and sell them also own them and make a profit. Because they own them, they ensure they don’t run out by protecting and raising them, they don’t need the government to tell them not to kill them all, they would go out of business if they did. What if all chickens were out in the wild, owned by the public at large? Well then we’d need a bunch of government agents marching around making sure people didn’t hunt, capture, and kill too many chickens.
There are definately limits to privatization. I don’t want private police officers making a profit on the number of murder cases they solve but even some African countries have found private ownership of elephants with some Ivory harvesting permitted has worked better than a total ban on killing of elephants.
@FanDB: I’m not pro-Obama. He’s just the better choice and at least he’s competent. It’s like having a choice of having your kneecaps broken or seeing your family run over by a steamroller before you’re killed by being dropped in acid. I’d rather have broken knees.
Regarding ACORN, see, here is yet another example of a rightie talking point. Reading your posts, one would think you were talking about the SPECTER of James Bond novels rather than an organization with the below mission statement:
“ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country. Since 1970, ACORN has been building community organizations that are committed to social and economic justice, and won victories on thousands of issues of concern to our members, through direct action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation. ACORN helps those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in our democratic system.” From their website.
ACORN had a problem with a guy in one of its chapters last year registering “Mickey Mouse” and other people WHO WOULD NEVER VOTE BECAUSE THEIR FICTITIOUS, because the vote registers were paid per registration (a bad system, but hey, it’s capitalism). Of course the right wing media freaked out, wet its pants, declared the sky was falling, and shrieked like a little girl. And now I have to hear ACORN, ACORN, ACORN from people like you forever.
The sad truth is that the Republicans engaged in voter fraud last year. In a Southern state, they sent out notices to blacks reminding them to vote on the wrong date. In a Western state, they asked people to sign a petition for a liberal cause but the form had them registering for the GOP. These were ACTUAL instances of voter fraud, reported by the media, but did not enter your consciousness because it didn’t enter the echo chamber. (If you want citations, I’ll do the research for you.)
I AM a card carrying member of the ACLU, though. That you can definitely pin on me. Bizarrely, right winger hate the ACLU, even though it’s dedicated to a strict defense of all Constitutional rights. But since right wingers are closet fascists, of course they wouldn’t like that.
Once again, have an original thought and say something real, and it might be interesting to see what happens. I already know you’re smart enough to do it. Give it a shot. This is a genuine appeal, not a snark.
@FanDB: Regarding oil, ANWR isn’t worth the cost. There’s not enough oil there to satisfy our growing appetite (or the world’s, as it’s not OUR oil, it would be the oil companies’ oil, meaning ANWR’s production would be must as much China’s as ours). We have to start switching to renewable energy to reduce carbon emissions, avoid the worst effects of Peak Oil, and get us out of Middle East politics for good and tell them good riddance to boot.
As for “bleeding the Middle East dry first,” it doesn’t work like that. The reason we love ME oil is because it’s the good stuff. Oil is a substance that ranges from a gas to a solid, and ME oil is light sweet crude, meaning it’s very cheap and easy to refine and turn into high-quality, premium products. Lower-grade oil is turned into commercial products such as asphalt for roads.
Here’s one of your neocon doozies: “But it is not just in the U.S.’s best interest to stabilize the mid-east oil supply, it is in the best interest of the rest of the world too.”
The invasion of Iraq did not stabilize the ME. In fact, it destabilized it. We had Saudi Arabia crapping its pants. That country is just a few steps away from becoming another aggressive theocracy.
You say: “Of course there is another error; “So why did we blow trillions on an occupation the Iraqis didn’t want…”, actually, we haven’t reached the one trillion mark yet , much less plural ‘trillions”.”
The cost is trillions when you look at past expenditures plus all of present and future costs associated with the war, such as future VA benefits to veterans wounded in the fighting, etc. The last study I saw put the price tag at $2 trillion, and that was years ago.
“But the statement; (2) “We are going to leave a large force there to keep our boot on the jugular of the world’s largest oil-producing region.” Is also true, and as well we should. We need to keep a volatile area under control in order to protect our interests and the interests of our allies. The more troops and equipment we can keep in the area the better.”
Or we could avoid the massive cost of all this by reducing our dependence on oil, and actually save money while reducing our exposure to Muslim extremism.
You say: “And don’t overlook the proximity to Iran. Iran is the single most destabilizing force in the area. We will eventually have to deal with them militarily. Hopefully, that day is far down the road, but it is coming.”
Uh, sure, okay, Napoleon.
Just what we need. More trillions spent on wars we don’t have to fight. But spend money on providing healthcare for Americans? Aiiiiieeeeeeeeeee!
You’re a crackup, dude.
@Mike300: First, to clarify one point, FanDB said, “Of course there is another error; “So why did we blow trillions on an occupation the Iraqis didn’t want…”, actually, we haven’t reached the one trillion mark yet , much less plural ‘trillions”.”
Actually, FanDB is in error, or rather he is limiting his assessment to past spending. The cost is trillions when you look at past expenditures plus all of present and future costs associated with the war, such as future VA benefits to veterans wounded in the fighting, etc. The last study I saw put the price tag at $2 trillion, and that was years ago.
Regarding issues of public versus private ownership, actually we are in agreement. You are for anti-trust laws, anti-discimination laws, policies that prevent exploitation of the poor and middle class by the rich, and some regulation. We may disagree on how much is needed, but we’re in the same ballpark. This is because we both understand that corporations can be trusted about as much as we can trust government–in other words, not much.
Your friends on this site are not going to be happy hearing you say these things!
But while government is at least designed to serve the public good (via social programs), corporations don’t care about the public good, which is why they do not pay the cost of their externalities willingly. If their economic activity killed all the wild chickens in your example, then chickens would go extinct. It doesn’t matter to them. All that matters to them is the quarterly balance sheet. It’s an argument I hear often in economics–if there’s money to be had in preserving whales, they will be preserved. And I admit that if that can work, I’ll all for it, like your elephant/ivory harvesting example. But it doesn’t work generally. If there’s a buck to be made in killing the last whale, somebody will do it unless those whales are protected by government. Whales and eagles aren’t chickens. They can’t be domesticated.
When you say you wish the government would only regulate and enforce and cut its distributing business, do you mean you wish Medicare and Social Social Security were eliminated? Since NASA, R&D and other programs are not enforcement and regulatory bodies, would you eliminate them too? I mean, NASA gave us VCRS and video cameras. R&D gave us the Internet, computers, RADAR and many other technological marvels that have helped keep us prosperous. And Social Security and Medicare keep your parents from starving, while preserving the middle class.
So I guess we disagree there, although you do generally recognize the need for a safety net. If there were no safety net, believe me, the people would eventually rise up until they got one. That’s how we got one in the first place. The American people demanded it, not some liberal cabal.
You say: “I just believe we have gone way too far. Perhaps we as a nation don’t have the toughness to cut back on current entitlements but the last thing we need is more, new entitlements.”
I generally agree, but believe offering a public option in healthcare will improve the efficiency of the healthcare system, reduce costs and increase choice. That’s what Nobel-prize-winning economists have said, anyhow. Right now, private insurers have virtual monopolies by region, and are squeezing consumers without adding value.
Privatization works with wildlife too. Here is the link:http://www.emagazine.com/view/?246&printview
@Mike 300: It looks like this program is working, which is good enough for me as I believe in fact-based decision-making, not ideology. One thing, though. It’s not privatization. The government–in this case, local government, or the People–owns the rights to hunting the animals and regulates hunting through licensing fees. In fact, this article could be considered an argument for government regulation of private enterprise, not the private sector being trusted with the Commons.
Almost had a heart attack seeing this quote, which is actually from Chris Wallace from Fox News.
“What if a bunch of people decided the Earth is flat, we’re now going to report that story and let people vent on that? That’s what news organizations are about, is debunking and editing and deciding what’s relevant and what’s worth talking about, and what isn’t, and clearly the birth certificate story isn’t worth talking about because it isn’t true – but some people will do something for ratings every time.”
Based on polling, the birther belief is primarily a Southern phenomenon. I wonder what that tells you …