[GeneV]

Now!

_______________

By the way, I love your collection of Pentax print ads!

So put another way, what does your perfect world look like? Can you identify the point at which country turned sickly?

[Rico]

So there are no conservative voices on these issues in the Democratic Party? Somehow, I have the feeling that there aren't many Republicans who fit your definition of "conservative," either.

BTW, the Democratic caucus had a supermajority for about 3 months, Another Inconvenient Truth: The Democrats Only Had A Super-Majority For About Three Months | DRUDGE RETORT , and even during that period, the number of actual Democrats was only 58, not the 60 needed to pass without compromise outside the party. Democrats' Senate Supermajority Not As Strong As Advertised | Fox News Even Fox News admitted that supermajority was not what people say it was.

GeneV please this is just getting old. There was a super majority held by the Democratic Party to pass what ever they wanted. And they did. You keep putting up labels like conservative to apply it to Democrats. In the end Democrats passed Obamacare. Saying Lieberman doesn't count as a Democrat or Bernie Sanders who is exactly what the Democratic Party has become is like saying fish are opposed to water.

[Rico]

Obviously our ideas of reality or at least our ideas of definitions of one or more concepts differ . (It would be interesting to hear your definition of 'marxist' or 'marxism'.)

I don't think my definition would mean anything to you. You already have a definition of your own. You guys are all educated up about it already. What else would there be for me to explain.

[betaPhoto]

So put another way, what does your perfect world look like? Can you identify the point at which country turned sickly?

A tough question, and probably best dealt with in a thread of its own. But I would hazard a guess, with the 3 advents of a private national bank.

Also, a perfect world seems ever elusive.

[Nesster]

A tough question, and probably best dealt with in a thread of its own. But I would hazard a guess, with the 3 advents of a private national bank.

Also, a perfect world seems ever elusive.

History of central banking in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please identify the item in the wiki article

[betaPhoto]

History of central banking in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please identify the item in the wiki article

Hazard a guess... meaning, I don't know if I have the answer...

but, the point at which the 3rd national bank bacame the Federal Reserve System.

[GeneV]

GeneV please this is just getting old. There was a super majority held by the Democratic Party to pass what ever they wanted. And they did. You keep putting up labels like conservative to apply it to Democrats. In the end Democrats passed Obamacare. Saying Lieberman doesn't count as a Democrat or Bernie Sanders who is exactly what the Democratic Party has become is like saying fish are opposed to water.

This is getting old if you repeat the same old inaccuracies. Sen. Lieberman was one of the prime obstructions to the passage of a healthcare act in the form proposed by the President. Lieberman's wife lobbies for pharmacy and healthcare companies. Dems have virtually no hold on him and opposed him in his last election, Reality is reality.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 01-17-2012 at 01:09 PM.

[betaPhoto]

This is getting old if you repeat the same old inaccuracies. Lieberman was one of the prime obstructions to the passage of a healthcare act with a public option or extending Medicare. Dems have virtually no hold on him and opposed him in his last election, Reality is reality.

Sorry about another repeat:

... Not a single Republican voted for the plan...

I think that sums it up Gene, as good or bad as it is, ObamaCare is a Democrat plan. And has the full support of Obama. That's just the way it is.

[GeneV]

Sorry about another repeat:


I think that sums it up Gene, as good or bad as it is, ObamaCare is a Democrat plan. And has the full support of Obama. That's just the way it is.

The point is, it is not the plan the President proposed. That's just the way it is. I really don't care whether you choose to call this compromise a "Democrat Plan." That is not significant in the context that the super majority was mentioned. So call it "Blue Dog" care or Liebercare, but it is not really Obama care.

[Rico]

This is getting old if you repeat the same old inaccuracies. Sen. Lieberman was one of the prime obstructions to the passage of a healthcare act in the form proposed by the President. Lieberman's wife lobbies for pharmacy and healthcare companies. Dems have virtually no hold on him and opposed him in his last election, Reality is reality.

GeneV the reality is that Obamacare was passed by the Democratic Party because they controlled both House of Congress and the White House. Splitting hairs on whether or not they had a super majority because you think the Democrats had no hold over Leiberman makes no difference. In the end the Democrats were able to pass what ever legislation they wanted during the healthcare debate and they did. That's the reality.

[mikemike]

Sorry about another repeat:


I think that sums it up Gene, as good or bad as it is, ObamaCare is a Democrat plan. And has the full support of Obama. That's just the way it is.

Now look what the republicans made the democrats do!!!

All obamacare does is put the uninsured poor and middle class cattle on a conveyor belt to get slaughtered by the health insurance companies that they so despise.

[Nesster]

In the end the Democrats were able to pass what ever legislation they managed to get the votes for during the healthcare debate and they did. That's the reality.

I corrected your statement But it is true: this is the Democrats plan and legistlation, for better or for worse. The usual course of these things is well under way: the challenges in the courts, the punishment of the actors, and the eventual fine tuning for the thing to (we hope) work better. The fact that nearly the same plan was previously a Republican plan has nothing to do with the results, nor does it have anything to do with the vehement opposition from Republicans now.

Perhaps the Republicans never intended for their plan to become reality, or perhaps there are other political issues involved. The bottom line is, whatever the past history, it is now Obama's bill, and a bill that several presidents from both parties had tried to enact in one form or another.

The other fact, the other reality, is this: unless something is/was done about it, medical costs were / are draining us financially. Your raises and mine over the last decade (in part) were eaten by rising medical costs. Your government and mine is spending an ever increasing amount on medical expenses, with no help in sight. Within our economic / political landscape, what was done is probably the best (or worst) we can expect. It is yet to be seen if there will be any break in the CBO projections of future expense, however.

The third reality is that the fact that other countries have largely solved this problem has little impact on US politics, or on what a good chunk of the US population thinks the problem actually is.

[Nesster]

Hazard a guess... meaning, I don't know if I have the answer...

but, the point at which the 3rd national bank bacame the Federal Reserve System.

Then that would be 1913.

Reading (what used to be) conservative Republican scholars, there were good reasons to institute the Fed Reserve: banking panics and so on. We probably would not be economically where we are (good and bad) without the Fed.

The gold bugs these days point to 1972 when we went off the gold standard...

One reasonable way to read the history is that each bit of legistlation addressed some problem that became systematically threatening to the then current economic set up, and each legistlation, New Deal included, was enacted to prop up capitalism and the security of the country.

[jolepp]

I don't think my definition would mean anything to you. You already have a definition of your own. You guys are all educated up about it already. What else would there be for me to explain.

Actually. I'd really like to know what you 'not liberal' people over there mean when you use the words marxism, communism or socialism. As it is, I'm tempted to conclude that - for you - these are just derogatory words without further meaning.

[jogiba]

Full of it is your middle name jogida. Keep up the good work.

President Obama's own words reveal him as a neo-marxist.

Starting with his 20 year membership in Trinity United Church headed by Reverend Wright. Trinity Church as run by Reverend Wright was a Black Liberation Theology church. The foundation of the church was rooted in marxist ideologies.

During the 2008 campaign stating to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around. That is fundamentally marxist.

Once elected President Obama made his intentions clear by how he fundamentally wanted to change the United States by doing away with the business cycle. This is fundamentally marxist ideology to strip the free market of its power of innovation. Stalin did this with his five year plans.

President Obama has said that the United States needs to be more like Communist China which would mean the United States becoming well more like a marxist state were the state controls the means of production.

On the campaign trail President Obama continually speaks class warfare. This is fundamentally marxist ideology.

President Obama = neo-marxist.

Keep digging, your getting deeper. Rush Limpdick should give you a medal for memorizing his talking points.