Barney Frank to Protester: "On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

Why? What purpose would that have in the discussion on health care?

Not trying to go farther off topic, but since some people seem obsessed with Barney Frank's sex life...here's an article explaining what all the fuss was about...and how small a scandal it really was, especially in the world of Washington DC scandals...and remember, this incident happened in the 1980's.

On a scale of 1 to HUD, Frank's transgression is a low single digit: there is no suggestion that he used his public office for personal gain....

While the House could censure Frank or reprimand him, colleagues and constituents so far have been generally sympathetic. The scandal does not involve seducing a minor, as it does with Lukens, or adultery, since Frank is single. It is an incident from a past secret life that has come back to haunt a legislator who is widely respected....

While university professors and college students might be expected to tolerate Frank's affair, when he returned to his district it was a largely working-class crowd that cheered him at a parade through Fall River soon after the story broke.

A Skeleton in Barney's Closet

while i agree that what he said is funny and probably well deserved, he isnt a late night talk show host.

just tell the woman that you are not going to waste your time answering the question and move on to the next person.... dont equate her mental capacity to a table.... (again though, that was funny).

being one of if not "thee" greatest nations on earth, it seems strange that we come off as a bunch of fools being led by a bunch of fools.

Neither this woman (Nazi policy lady) or Frank contributed ANYTHING to the health care discussion.

Furthermore, Frank's statements were totally childish and worse lacking in intelligence and grace.

I'd be embarrassed if my representative spoke in such a manner to anyone regardless of what that person has said. Have we really become a nation of children?

Just ask intelligent questions and maybe we will have a discussion.

Furthermore, Frank's statements were totally childish and worse lacking in intelligence and grace.

I'm sorry, but go up to a Jewish person and tell them that they're supporting Nazism and expect them not to have a reaction. It's not ok to do it, and to be honest the best idea was to get her to sit down. I don't know if you've ever seen comedians dealing with hecklers, but if they don't put them in their place it ruins the show. Sometimes things have more than one application, and here I think Mr. Frank was completely justified.

I agree with this author who says this about Frank's response to this person...

There was no defensiveness, and no anger, just someone who knows what he's talking about making someone who doesn't look like a fool.

How It's Done

The ignorance and unmitigated gall of these protesters has reached new lows! There is a saying that goes,.." there is a thin line between genius and insanity"...well it is painfully obvious that not a single solitary anti -health care protester has even broken mean room temperature in regards to IQ and have just foregone that and jumped hook line and sinker into the realm of insanity! Facts and truth mean NOTHING to these twits! Remember, these are the people who Sarah Palin called the Real America! Again she has proven how delusional both she and these people are. Barney once again has shown his tact and diplomacy when dealing with those who believe in lies and fals GOP propaganda. You GO Barney!!

Ha. I am not a supporter of government run health care and I will tell you why with just two very important reasons.

1. Majority of surgeons, doctors, and physicians do not support government run health care due to the incredibly low coverage it would provide for citizens (my own grandmother, who lived to be 97 and only recently passed peacefully, wouldn't have received care when she had gotten sick the first and only time because of her age, she fully recovered by the way)

2. When asked by reporters if he would use the same health coverage as his people Obama dodged the question and went on and on about how this will help America. If he, congress, senate, and all government officials don't use this healthcare why the hell should I?

Does that make me a twit dear? If so I'd really appreciate why other than the fact that I don't agree with the anointed one.

James

What does Obama's health care choices have to do with reform? No one is going to be forced into any coverage they don't want.

How can you make such a claim? You seem to be quite aware of how governments work (and do not work). How can you be so confident that this will not evolve into elimination of choice? People like Elephantgirl (and me) do not accept the words of politicians but rather look at motivation and historical precedent. I for one see very clear political logic and it leads first to evolving single-payer through forced attrition of competitors, then to nationalized healthcare (control of providers) and ultimately totalitarianism (100% statism). We need to stop this polyp while it is benign.

Elephantgirl, you lie, and badly, like most ignorant rightwing facist fools.

My mother is a nurse and has been active in the MNA for FIFTY YEARS, and they have ALWAYS supported, as has ANA, a public insurance program for EVERYONE.

Elephantgirl:

As others have said, your comments in #1 are unfounded lies.

As for #2, this one really irritates me in its stupidity. I've heard this one many times before. The President has a personal physician available around-the-clock. He also has acces to Walter Reed and Bethesda at a moment's notice for anything that might happen. He gets these things because he is the leader of the free world.

Nobody is going to get the Presidential healthcare package unless they become the leader of the free world. Can we please leave this absurd, idiotic talking point alone and have a rational discussion about health care for the rest of us?

Jawill #2.16

"Commentary: Why the doctor won't see you now" (CNN)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/20/pho.doctor.shortage/index.html

One more reason why universal health care is NOT a good idea. There are better ways to make health care available to more people - they're cheaper, and they don't end up denying the rest of the country reasonable access to physicians. And don't say, "What's YOUR plan" - I will not respond. I'm tired of trying to teach idiots who refuse to learn. I've put my plan out there again and again - and you bright lights can't say anything against it so you ignore it just like the Dems are ignoring the Republican plans in Congress.

I'd say the Obama "plan" is a bad idea, but like the liar and political bully he is, he isn't committing to a plan - at least publicly. There are at least FIVE "plans" currently before the House, and like all slimy politicians Obama is waiting to see which way the wind blows before he commits. All I know is the Congress, the Pelosicrats, are committed to screwing the public any way they can. They've already bankrupted the nation - now they want to drive us so deep into the ground, we won't have ANY of the good life we saw under the Constitutional Republic we used to have.

The next move is for the Pelosicrats and the Waxmanites, oh... and Harry Reid, is to use the "nuclear option" which is a cute way to say, "We're going to disenfranchise over half of the people in America with a political trick, and shove this thing that the people do NOT want down their throats."

Welcome to the "change" you dummies voted for. Now you have to hope it doesn't kill you before the next election when you'll probably make another equally stupid decision.

1. Unfounded and false.

How?

Elephantgirl, you lie, and badly, like most ignorant rightwing facist fools.

Again, how sir? While you're at it, why don't you tell me why it is that I am a fascist for disagreeing with the president.

My mother is a nurse and has been active in the MNA for FIFTY YEARS, and they have ALWAYS supported, as has ANA, a public insurance program for EVERYONE.

Sir, my aunt was chief of nursing staff at Hackensack Hospital (a magnet hospital when she worked there, something she was personally responsible for achieving) and she herself has never supported government run healthcare. While nursing is an honorable profession, as you can see I stated doctors, surgeons, and physicians. Nursing is another topic entirely and one that I did not invite discussion on.

As for #2, this one really irritates me in its stupidity. I've heard this one many times before. The President has a personal physician available around-the-clock. He also has acces to Walter Reed and Bethesda at a moment's notice for anything that might happen. He gets these things because he is the leader of the free world

Right. I don't know if you know this dear but the free world is run by the people, for the people, and of the people. Therefore, Obama is the people just like you and me. Sure, he has a job that is more important, but he is people nonetheless. Besides, my point wasn't that we should devalue his healthcare, but simply that if it's so good for us to use, his people, why is that he himself declined to use it. I don't know about you but I don't like the idea of a president saying that his job and standing in this country is too important to risk but he'll let us, the people, take the fall. Finally dear, wether indirectly or directly, you yourself just spoke of this healthcare packages inadequacy by stating how absurd it would be for the president to use it.

Nobody is going to get the Presidential healthcare package unless they become the leader of the free world.

fyi. I said also in my post that other government officials, congress, and the senate should have to use this too. The president was not the only one I mentioned. Next time if you comment on my post, at least have the brains to read it all first.

Can we please leave this absurd, idiotic talking point alone and have a rational discussion about health care for the rest of us?

For the rest of us? I'd like to consider myself equal in my healthcare needs with the president ,despite the contrasts between his job and mine, in a country that states equality in its constitution. More importantly, a country whose independence was fought for and motivated primarily on the idea that one man does not have more power or more standing above the people.

this one really irritates me in its stupidity

Oh honey, the only stupidity I see here is yours. Next time you comment, try to make your argument a little more sound. You can leave the stupidity at home thanks : )!

Finally, as an american citizen I have a right to oppose what the government suggests, as do you. Up until the lat line above I don't recall calling anyone's opinion here stupid so kids, let's play nice from now on huh?

- let this be a warning to everyone else, if you decide to try and upset my arguments at least elaborate in your comments. Also, if you call me a liar and stupid, check to make sure your own hands are clean first (that's for you Jawill11).

Oh... as to Obama having to use the same system that the people do - I think the people would benefit tremendously if Obama had to sit in a doctor's waiting room for a week or so (take a number) - while he was sitting there, he wouldn't be doing the kind of stupid stuff he's doing now!

We can have a reasonable discussion about the health care bills. That has nothing to do with the health care that the president receives. I will stand by my opinion that to think the sitting President should not have a level of health care above the average citizen is stupid. That has nothing to do with how good the public option is for average people. The only two reasons for criticizing the President's health care is to think that he should have no special care available, or to think that every citizen should have access to a personal physician and priority availability at Walter Reed and Bethesda. I won't apologize for thinking that both of those opinions are foolish.

For the record, you specifically mentioned Obama supposedly dodging a question about him taking public health care. The next sentence brought in Congress, but the topic was initiated by the question to Obama.

Also, there is another level of stupidity to that argument because it fundementally misrepresents the public option. Namely, the option part. Congress currently has a variety of plans to choose from. If the public option were to become available to anybody, which it won't anyway, they would have a choice between the same options plus a public option. Hence, they would be free to choose the public option, just like the rest of us would be free to choose the public option. Sounds like them taking what they're giving us to me.

The irritating part of that loaded question is the insinuation that something is being forced on the people by a group that has opted themselves out. That is insurance industry propaganda. Like I said, it is a public option, not a public coverage mandate. Nothing is being forced on anybody. Those with insurance will still have their insurance. The question is sneaky and strawman-esque from start to finish.

I'm quite confident in my clean hands when it comes to calling out that loaded bit of propaganda. If you don't want to be called out, make an argument based on facts and reason instead of strawmen and talking points.

I totally agree with Rep/ Frank. Someone finally stood up to one of these idiots. I wish more of the representatives stood up to these right wing nut losers. I don't even see why the Congress bothers to have the Town Hall meetings anymore;I don't remember georgewbush having any such Town Hall Meetings in the 8 years he stole the White House.

These are the losers from the Presidential election of 2008 attempting to get a "do-over". These losers are not interested in the Health Care Reform Platform of ANY kind. They merely want to protest the win of President Barack Obama! And since they could not yell and scream because of the election the night they LOST, they are using these Town Hall Meetings as their locale to protest the election. This is why no matter what they hear that proves certain right wing-nut statements are lies, they still choose not to believe the truth. They know the truth- and that is what makes them afraid.

Talk about your angry white men. I'm sick of them; good riddance to bad rubbish!

Barney is the idiot here by his own words you cannot trust him

Brought a smile to my face, his words did.

I laughed so hard when he asked her, what planet she spent most of her time on, that I burned myself with the curlers.

Actually, I thought it was extremely insulting,

to dining room tables.

I like your appreciation for good furniture!

And your source for this accusation?

Mine for ACORN is Rotten Acorn

I shouldn't even respond since you are wildly off topic...but I have to counter the lies and misinformation. Your source (rottenacorn) is a front for a lobbyist named Rick Berman who has been fighting Acorn for years on minimum-wage issues. As the attached article shows, he was profiled by 60 Minutes under the title "Dr. Evil"...that's how honest and trustworthy he is not.

ACORN Ad Funded by Anti-Minimum Wage Group

The idea that ACORN activities have ever resulted in voter fraud has been debunked multiple times....here are a few...

The Truth About Acorn

The Republican Voter Fraud Hoax

Nutty Attacks on Acorn

Okay - now that that lie has been disposed of...let's get back to Barney Frank...isn't he great???!!!

I agree, we should be back on topic. But lets be fair here, my source was definately biased, but no less biased than any of yours.

The Truth About Acorn Do you really think ACORN is going to post ANYTHING on their own website stating that they are involved in voter fraud?

The Republican Voter Fraud Hoax A article by a left wing Brad Friedman, with an obvious bias based on his writings.

Nutty Attacks on Acorn Found on Think Progress, funded by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, another "progressive" source.

But to continue this would only lead further off topic as you stated.

_______________________________________________________________

And no Barney Frank is not wonderful. I agree that he handled the "shout down" attempts by protesters properly, but based upon his answers, or non answers, I felt he was making more of an attempt to be witty than actually answering the honest questions by his constituents. Whether he likes the question or not, or how it is posed, those asking questions deserve honest answers.

I think too many, both Republicans and Democrats, have been getting a bit to snarky about the whole health care issue and treating those that either agree or disagree with less than respect. If they are intentionally trying to disrupt the proceedings they should be removed, but they seem to be confusing true anger with intentionally trying to disrupt proceedings.

a bit to snarky

Flat out despicable lies and snarkiness are not the same thing. The people screaming about "death panels" and "Heil Hitler" and carrying guns to town halls are not even in the same class as Barney Frank wittily putting down a conspiracy theorist

Well I tried to to be nice, you go ahead and stay angry. The people screaming about death panels were not at his town hall meeting, the people with firearms were not at his town hall meeting, were they? You wanted to get back on topic about Barney Frank so I did, and you decided to get back off of Barney Frank (no pun intended, even though it would have made a great pun) and bring into play all the other issues from all the other town hall meetings. I thought we were talking about just his.

I tried to state the attitudes that have been taken by both sides have been reprehensible, and you opted to ignore that fact. But based on what you just said I would venture to guess that you feel the left has been more than kind to those that are upset in the town hall meetings. Lumping anybody that is upset over the whole health care issue in with those that choose to just disrupt things. Lumping all together so that anyone that may choose to disagree is labeled and disregarded, as they have been.

"I never asked you to trust the government. The government is not your mother or father, or your doctor...No one should ever trust the government, people should use their rights as citizens."

These people were exercising their rights, and Frank chose to mock them instead of answering their questions because he seems to feel that he is above them, he is not, none of them are. If he wants to have meetings where all he does is answer questions from those that support him he should make that clear, if not, he best be prepared for EVERYONE that may attend, and that includes people that may be angry and disagree with him completely.

(See, this is why I dont play nice)

I felt he was making more of an attempt to be witty than actually answering the honest questions by his constituents

These people were exercising their rights, and Frank chose to mock them instead of answering their questions

If you think that asking Frank how he can support Nazi policies is an honest question deserving a serious answer, then there can be no rational discussion. There is no serious answer to a question like that and it was not an honest question. It's the dimwitted wingnut version of "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Personally, I do find myself superior to those who call Obama a supporter of nazi policies.

Just as I do with those who claim the world is run by the elite circle-jerks called Bohemian Grove, NWO, or Skull & Bones.

And let's not even get into those who believe in lizard alien overlords.

And let's not even get into those who believe in lizard alien overlords.

SHHHHH! they'll hear you......

Well in that case, "trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table."

I will agree with Barney Frank on that notion. Gosh, and we wonder why the right is getting so upset with the dismissive left, Lord knows it could not have anything to do with their "I am better than you, smarter than you, and much more informed than you" attitudes, could it?.

Personally, I do find myself superior to those who call Obama a supporter of nazi policies

And I find myself to be superior to those that called Bush's policies those of the Nazi's, so I guess that makes us equals, doesnt it?

And we are not playing the tit for tat game and the topic isn't Barney Frank. Leave our tits alone. Besides, the rest of us had to persevere through 8 years of Bush, and you guys are throwing a tantrum and yelling the sky is falling like Chicken Little after just 8 months. I am not a Barney Frank fan but on this occasion he is 100% on target.

And I disrespect anyone using a Nazi parallel for anything. That has been incredibly overused to the max. It has become a cheap trick in debates.

What is the main topic here? Trying to discuss something with a nutbasketcase waving an Obama-Hitler make over picture in the air is like trying to discuss something with a dining room table. Seems to me that many right wing Republicans are not at town hall meetings for quality open discussions about health care, they are there to disrupt and compromise the discussion with this type of BS. That is not a statement that I am superior, it is a statement of irritation at a fanatic disruptor waving a Hitler-Obama picture.

So maybe you are demonstrating this very same thing for us?

Gosh, and we wonder why the right is getting so upset with the dismissive left, Lord knows it could not have anything to do with their "I am better than you, smarter than you, and much more informed than you" attitudes, could it?.

To state such a thing against all conservatives, generalizing, would be idiotic. There are many independents who are economic conservatives while social progressives, or visa versa, and are perhaps more than qualified for a true debate upon the pressing matters in our public forum. However, I will not stand by and state that such ridiculous rhetoric should be quelled in some form of cordial manner when they present something as preposterous as "Hitler = Obama".

And, why, yes, I wouldn't compare Bush to a nazi, I would just call him incompetent and being lead by those around him with personal interests versus the people.

Please save your "perservered" speech for someone that cares. The left whined and sniveled the entire eight years Bush was in office, from the point that he won the first election until, well, they are still whining about him.

The left has likened Bush and some of the American soldiers to nazi's, and that is on the floor of Congress. Dont tell me that civility should be maintained for the Democrats when they were anything but civil for the past eight years.

And I could not give a rat @!$%# if you will not stand by, then dont, get out there and stop us! And if I am demonstrating this very same thing, then address me at the town hall meetings. If people get mad and angry at the bull@!$%# the left is pulling the left labels them as whackjobs.

You keep harping about it is only 8 months into the four years, yet regardless of who caused the economic crisis, and I will even give it to you that Bush caused it so that we dont get sidetracked, Obama is trying to push through more radical changes in the first eight months than any other president in recent history. People in this country are afraid of the results when nobody can give them straight answers on the outcome of this bill. People that have health insurance are afraid of the results of this bill and the left is trying to radicalize them for being so because of a few honest to goodness nutjobs that are holding signs. You talk about not generalizing yet you do just that when you talk about the conservatives that are at these town hall meetings that are trying to get straight answers and are no longer accepting the circle-speak from the politicians. This does not mean that they accept it from Bush, it just means that they are actively not accepting it now!

You know, the left used to stand for something, they used to stand for "questioning authority" they used to stand for fighting for what you believe in at all cost. Now they are in power and quite frankly they are nothing more than a bunch of spineless cowards that can not stand up to the same things they have advocated doing against the establishment for so many years.

Suddenly the left feels that public officials should be treated with respect when they were anything but respectful the past eight years. Protecting the homeless, the jobless, those that have nothing is a good business to be in nowadays, Obama will make sure you always have plenty to do!

Yea,and so Frank set the lady straight (although her mind is so polluted with delusions that she will probably never really be set straight). You ask a stupid and incendiary question like she did while holding a poster that likens someone who is clearly not a Nazi with a Nazi, well then you get treated like an idiot.

Barney is another insolent politician that needs to be removed.

Boxer might be out in 2011.

Boxer might be out in 2011.

As a Californian, I don't think Carly will be able to touch Boxer's seat. Once the public sees that Fiorina missed voting time and again, they will wonder why they should elect anyone who avoids her civic duties.

You have to earn and give respect to get it. Saying "I'm the decider" and "so what" and "stuff happens" shows a level of disdain deserving of derision.
********************************************************************************************************
Let's see, Obama when faced with an opinion that differed from his offered up this, "I won."

It's pretty much in the same vein as "I'm the decider", so I guess his statement shows a level of disdain deserving of derision.

James,

Actually you are incorrect, the statement "I am the decider" was referencing the call for Rumsfeld resignation and Bush defending him, after listening to others, and then making the decision because the fact is he IS the one that makes the decision not everyone else that is trying to tell hiom what to do. He was the "decider".

So you see, you can spin all day but when it comes right down to it, each side is going to view the others point of view different than the other side wants them to when they do not agree. I will not argue that the Democrats felt like the Republicans would not listen to them for 8 years, but people in this country voted for a slogan "Change" and the Democrats are slamming that door shut with statements like "we won" in an effort to shut up the opposition.

The left unwillingness to explain themselves to the common man is exemplified in this quote by Pelosi.

"Very exciting, very exciting for the American people, because now we can get things done without explaining process," Pelosi told CNN's Candy Crowley.

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/28/pelosi-now-we-dont-have-to-explain-process/

So you see, I think that people are frustrated and upset because the people of this country feel the Democrats are trying to put one over on them. And the people that are at these town hall meetings that are getting irate are not all Republicans, a large portion are also Democrats that are not happy with their own leadership. Do you think the Democrats poll numbers are dropping because they are only asking Republicans what they think?

It is unfortunate that Republicans can't put their country first.

Put your flag away Yankee Doodle, that ship does not float here. When the Republicans pulled that @!$%# in 2003 the left screamed bloody murder that if you were not with the Republicans you were against them.

Why dont you just admit the left is just upset that the Republicans wont put the Democrats agenda first over the country?

Democrats that are not happy with their own leadership

The democrats that are not happy with their own leadership are not agreeing with the town hall screamers...they are angry that the Democratic leadership is continuing to try bipartisanship when it is clear from the Republican lies and propoganda that there will be no bipartisanship...it's the Republican way or no way as far as Republicans are concerned. Democrats want their leadership to stand up to the Republicans and pass health care reform with a public option...that's why they were elected by a majority.

Also please define "everyone", I do not remember "everyone" calling for his resignation only those that disagreed with him, which was not everyone.

And to be fair, I am not a Rumsfeld fan, I thought he should resign also.

A reasonable discussion that ended when you made the comment that Republicans wont put their country first. Because the Republicans and conservatives disagree that the idea of a national health care program is not putting their country first is ludicris. As a Republican that is an out and out insult, the equivalent of saying that the Democrats want to put the health care bill through with the intent of destroying capitalism in this country.

People are happy with it? Ever use the VA? Ever ask the elderly how they are doing when it comes to medicine or rent when they are on Medicare? The only ones that seem to be happy with the health care programs are those that are on Medicaid since they are paying for practically nothing. Yet those that have earned it by either serving or those that are no longer able to earn suffer in systems that is pathetically managed.

redsfan. . . that was hilarious. . . you would vote for him ha ha ha . . .

http://larouchepac.com/

Go to this website, take a look a the picture of Obama with the Hitler Moustache, then take a look at who the website belongs to. It belongs to LEFT WING EXTREMISTS!

When the people screaming "Nazi" are using the exact same methods and arguments as the Republican politicians, it's really ridiculous to call them anything but what they are.

LaRouche ran a ridiculous presidential campaign as a Democrat years ago. Therefore, swastika-waving activists are Democratic activists. It is, of course, a cheap and lazy argument, even for the Weekly Standard. Tom Schaller made the strong case that McCormack "ought to take down that post, and then apologize to his readers publicly."

McCormack has to realize how wrong this is. As David Weigel explained, "This is misleading. The LaRouche cultists oppose Obama's plan because they think he's trying to euthanize old people and the infirm. They oppose it for one of the reasons that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) oppose it, and they're providing a lot of the 'research' for this smear. Instead of grappling with this or rebutting the smear, McCormack smears Democrats, who have repeatedly purged these conspiracy theorists from their party."

They're Not Dems

Sorry, does not work. They are anything but supporters of the Republicans. Sorry, they are yours, enjoy. I appreaciate you trying to show that they are not fans of Obama's but I think we saw that already, but hey, thanks for cementing that.

And once again, sorry, the Republicans did not invent the scare tactics and use of the term Nazi as a adjective to villainize their opponents.

But then again, you are a Reds fan, you have proven that you are supporter of losers.

Ah yes just as I suspected, people like Want Me to Play Nice think of politics the way they think about sports. I'm so glad I have nothing to do with the pointlessness of being a sports fan.

but if there is a public option, doesn't that require people to trust the goverment to run it properly?

No. If you don't like the public option (and my guess is that it will be pretty basic) you can just continue to purchase your health insurance from a private corporation. Blue Cross isn't going anywhere.

No one in their right mind should trust any entity large enough to run a health insurance operation. I tend to trust the government more than say Keiser-Permenete, At least the government has some accountability to the people who use the plan.

No one in their right mind should trust any entity large enough to run a health insurance operation. I tend to trust the government more than say Keiser-Permenete, At least the government has some accountability to the people who use the plan.

Personally I dont like kaiser in California, reminds me of the clincs I had to go to in the U.K. however there are millions of people in the state who have had kaiser since they were born and have stayed with it. In fact many in the govt have used Kaiser as an example of how a single payer system should work, they own their own hosptials, their doctors are on salary etc. Strange you would pick on Kaiser, seems they should know a bit more about running an operation than a govt employee.

My post made no claim at all about how good or bad Kaiser may be, I've never used them. I trust them less than the government. Neither will be accountable to me personally, they're much to large for that, but the government at least have some accountability to their constituents, and hence clients. Kaiser only has to keep employers contracting with them.

No. If you don't like the public option (and my guess is that it will be pretty basic) you can just continue to purchase your health insurance from a private corporation. Blue Cross isn't going anywhere

and that has NOTHING to do with my question. I am aware of this fact.

My point was that you have to put some faith and trust in the governement to run THEIR program correctly, not waste taxpayer dollars, run efficiently, etc.

We need to make sure that people come before paper.

and which goverment agency have you dealt with that doesn't require miles of red tape and forms? and when has the govt every really cared about the people beyond getting a vote from them?

Any program the government starts requires some trust. hell look at the CARS program. People trusted they could get their new cars quickly without issue and a big check. That was the intention of the program and people trusted it. How's that working out?

People trusted the govt to run social security and then money was put into the general fund and people that never paid in got benefits...now it's almost bankrupt. govt broke the trust the people had.

Time and time again, the govt proves it can not be trusted to run things properly so why should health care be any different. I think these people asked a very valid question. I don't want to the government to be perfect as that is not possible but they should be held to some standard and also be judged by thier past actions and ability to run things.

Profchaos:

I understand your point, but it does not require trust, it requires transparency and oversight. We have the ability to provided oversight with government programs much more so than the dealings of private companies. If we don't like the way the program is running, we can petition or representatives to fix it. You can see with this debate how difficult that is to do with a broken private system. They are making tons of money, so they think it is working out great and are fighting tooth and nail to preserve the status quo.

As for the red tape, there is gov't red tape because of its inherent bureaucracy. There is far more red tape with private insurers because they want it to be difficult. It is in their best interest to make it as hard as possible to file a claim and receive a benefit. That's a big difference in the type of red tape and I'll choose the gov't red tape over the private, disingenuous red tape any day.

My point was that you have to put some faith and trust in the governement to run THEIR program correctly, not waste taxpayer dollars, run efficiently, etc.

Do you trust the government to run the armed forces efficiently? The cost of defense dwarfs that of any public insurance plan.You can probably fund a public health plan with the change you'd find between the cushions of the Pentagon couches.

Even the government doesn't trust the government. The auditing laws are byzantine because there is a need for insight and oversight in government operations. Fraud and abuse are a lot easier to pull off in a private company.

buckeye-

but if there is a public option, doesn't that require people to trust the goverment to run it properly?

No. If you don't like the public option (and my guess is that it will be pretty basic) you can just continue to purchase your health insurance from a private corporation. Blue Cross isn't going anywhere

One problem with this statement is that that there is nothing and no one that guarantees I can continue as I have been. When Hawaii attempted a similar program, business found it expedient - and cheaper - to simply let health insurance drop in favor of it. Since most "insured" are due to employment, this is a major threat. It is also a handy excuse: the blame can be laid at the feet of "business".

And YES - public option does require you to trust government. While citizens have recourse, through votes, with their elected; we do not have such an ability with the bureaucracy, once unleashed.

Public option supposes to cut overhead, thus saving money - but government has it's own share of "overhead", without the fear of losing business - and going out of business - due to bad decisions.

Barney's statement of trust in government is right - so we cannot trust the Public Option

Do you trust the government to run the armed forces efficiently?

It requires a turst that is no longer there (if it ever was)

They don't run the armed forces efficiently which is yet another example of how the government runs things in general.

why would it be any different with health care?

But, you can trust an insurance company which has no accountability to the insured whatsoever?

I think you can trust the management of the Armed Forces certainly more than mercenary groups like Blackwater.

The public option is just that: AN OPTION. You don't have to join. You can continue to funnel your money into the 'For profit' insurance companies just like you do now if you don't like it. They aren't going to cover illegals, they aren't going to kill grandma, they aren't going to make it your only choice for health care. You are being duped by the insurance companies that absolutely under no circumstances want competition.

Look at it this way. The more people in a coverage plan the cheaper it is. Hence the name 'Group Rates'. If there is a national plan, (like medicare, which, if they made available to everyone this whole mess would go away) you have millions of people paying in, so the cost itself goes down. Thereby creating competition with the insurance companies. So even if you don't join, your regular insurance would go down because the insurance companies know that if they don't increase coverage and lower rates that people will just join the public plan. Everybody wins except the insurance companies that are ripping us off for insane profits.

One problem with this statement is that that there is nothing and no one that guarantees I can continue as I have been.

You don't have that guarantee now. Just about the only guarantee you have is that next year with your current carrier you will (a) pay more for your health insurance and/or (b) get less coverage. That trend, my friend, has been monotonic for decades.

People find out the hard way, every day, that having health insurance doesn't even guarantee that they won't be driven into bankruptcy by medical bills!

So no, Congress can't magically create guarantees binding on an institution that, itself, is devoid of guarantees.

good one!

ahahahahah!

no.

<points at Nofluer> Oh look it's the crazy lady that doesn't know what a Nazi is. I guess she should have stuck around during History class or at least picked up a book.

James #6.7

It's after lunch sleepy time. I thought you were *advocating* that we abolish taxes, then saying we couldn't attack you personally... took me a few minutes to see it ...

;-D

While you're at it, looks like 6.5 could go too...

Yes, please remove the bigoted comments James.

everybody else can get the public option ( if they go through with it) so why won't he take it?

And he will have the same choices everyone else will have

Okay he will have the same choices as everyone else, but will everyone else have the same choice as him? I think not. Which is why he didn't respond.

I notice you didn't bother to respond to the second part of my statement. That's okay, I understand.

Except the whole "Barney Frank caused Fannie/Freddie" is a crock of poopey-doo too...

Moore's claim echoes a broader conservative myth that Frank is responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis because he fought efforts to strengthen congressional oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, Frank has supported legislation to strengthen oversight over Fannie and Freddie, both as ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee and as chairman.

Barney Frank -- Fannie/Freddie

And before you say "Media Matters is a left-wing site"...look at their sources...they are all actual primary sources...not rumours or opinions...facts...facts...try it...you'll like it.

Bawney Fwank

Why is it that people insist on attacking someone for a speech impediment, or other disability?

The level of maturity of some posters. Hell, I bet you go to the special olympics and make fun of all the tards, don't you?

And, just so everyone knows, Barney Frank has openly stated several times that a single payer, public option is the best way to go.

Alan:

The level of maturity of some posters. Hell, I bet you go to the special olympics and make fun of all the tards, don't you?

I think you showed your true level of maturity as well as your lack of humanitarianism and intelligence with this statement. Tards? Now that is beyond infantile. Seems you should take some time looking in the mirror.

redsfan,

Thanks for the link!

Evil1,

I'm fairly certain Alan was using sarcasm. He's criticizing your "Bawney" remark.

Evil1, it seems you have assumed a name that reflects the nature of your heart and soul.

abolish taxes:

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it! I in all reality could care less what your opinion is of me. As for my making fun of Bawney, it is just a response to his abusive remarks to anyone that asks him a question that he does not like, does not want to answer or cannot answer (at least truthfully or factually). He in reality reaps what he sows! I will not mince words about him. I find him to be and out and out repugnant hypocrite and pathological liar. I think he is a waste of space and air, is repulsive and is a poor example of a human being. He is a self-serving blowhard who doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself! That is my opinion and I should probably resolve to the fact that you also do not care about it. Now on another note, if you truly believe what your vine name states (abolish taxes) we may have more in common than you think, but if you truly support Bawney and his agenda you should really change your vine name because in all reality it would be a true oxymoron. Have a good one!

You ask an abusive question and you deserve to get an abusive answer. Likening someone who would have been killed by Nazis to the leader of the Nazis and then asking another person who would have been killed by the Nazis why he supports the the Nazi policies of the first person that you disingenuously defamed as Nazi is abusive as well as ignorant. Frank had every right to to belittle someone who would suggest that he as a jewish man is in cahoots with Nazis. Why can't you guys drop the ignorant mischaracterizations of people as nazis and take this debate out of the gutter?

And by the way, I don't have to be a democrat to see who the crazy people are in this situation.

Why can't you guys drop the ignorant mischaracterizations of people as nazis and take this debate out of the gutter?

Perhaps because that would require using facts? (I'm guesssing.)

abolish taxes;

Yeah, OK, I see your point. Why not apply for a job with Obama as a tap dancing, fact avoiding, never answer the question or give any substance to your responses press secretary. You are typical of the left when they cannot accept what is said to them and have no answer, they attack. In my post I (at least for someone who is and adult) feel I did not attack you in any way, I gave my opinion and stated you had a right to yours. Nice response, but I expected as much! Again, at least you have given me the comic relief that I have come to expect from individuals of your stature and intelligence. Thanks. LMAO!!

I'm sorry Evil1, how did I attack you? I simply stated that if you go around calling people Nazis who clearly aren't Nazis you are probably going to get a response that is an insult to some degree. As for my intelligence, you don't graduate from William and Mary with a 4.0 without a respectable amount of intelligence.

abolish taxes:

Where did I call anyone a Nazi? Prove it!! You sir are totally delusional! I have no idea of what you are referring to regarding any of my posts as to calling anyone a Nazi. Again, you must be trying to justify your own accusations without the proof of facts and reality. Glad you are still around for comic relief. I wish the moderators would address your unsubstantiated accusations regarding the content of my posts, but I doubt if it will happen as they more than likely will support your lame and ridiculous responses. Again, thanks for the comic relief, I can always expect it from the left as that is all they have to offer. LMAO!!!

James Andre:

Again I ask where I stated anyone in any of my posts was a Nazi or referred to anyone as such? And please tell me where I violated the CoH. Maybe Tyler can step in and clarify the matter for us all. Seems you are being very thin skinned in this matter and you cannot seem to support your accusations. Where did I go around the bend? Please prove any of your accusations about my posts. Also, if I have violated the CoH in any way (considering you and abolish taxes haven't) either prove it to me or have Tyler do so. I think you are trying to make a confrontation where one doesn't exist in and attempt to support your unsubstantiatied claims. Please show me proof. Thanks.

James Andre:

You stated in post #7.18:

First, abolish taxes wasn't referring to you when they mentioned the Nazis.

abolish taxes stated in post #7.16:

I'm sorry Evil1, how did I attack you? I simply stated that if you go around calling people Nazis who clearly aren't Nazis you are probably going to get a response that is an insult to some degree. As for my intelligence,

Seems to me that he was referring to me, then again I don't think like a clouded liberal so maybe you can explain to me how he was not referring to me. I would really appreciate it if you can explain to me how you came to that conclusion. Again I ask, where in any of my posts did I refer to anyone or call anyone a Nazi? I would find it enlightening it if you could show to me and prove your disparaging remarks. Thanks. Oh, also, abolish taxes, anyone who has to claim their GPA is perfect in hopes that someone may believe it is pretty much making claims to boost their own ego. I know it's sad, but it happens on a daily basis and is currently being proved by our liar in chief. But hey, whatever floats your boat and makes you feel good in your own mind, everyone is allowed to their own fantasies as long as they can admit they are fantasies.

Yeah. The economy taking a dive was entirely because of Barney, Freddie, and Fannie. Right.

Nothing to do with cutting taxes and increasing spending while at the same time scaring everyone with terrorism causing them to travel and spend less.

uh what? Barney, Dodd and others were warned in 2005 that the housing bubble was going to burst becasue there were people getting loans for houses who could not pay for it. What did they do? They ignored it, and in the case of Chris Dodd, we know why - he was getting deals from one of the prime lenders who went belly up.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18921.html

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/02/timeline-bush-mccain-warned-dems-of.html

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/related/8h3vu/youtube_barney_frank_in_2005_what_housing_bubble/

Nothing to do with cutting taxes and increasing spending while at the same time scaring everyone with terrorism causing them to travel and spend less.

so you are saying that when taxes were cut in 2001 and more people had more money in there paycheck, that caused our economy to hit the brakes? That doesn't even make sense. The economy was just beginning to boom and jobs were added from 2003 and on. In addition, tax revenues increased.

I will agree with you that Bush was TOO big of a spender - something I didn't agree with was his unfettered spending - that offset the gains that would have been made by the tax cuts alone and increased the deficit.

Scaring them with terorism? Did you forget about 9/11? That was real, and of course, there was fear after that...which has gradually subsided.

The fear people have now is of our economy and where we are headed with a quadrupling of the deficit in less than a year. Of course consumer confidence is down - nobody is sure where we are headed and everybody is tight with their money because people are getting laid off right and left, they also know this current spending is unsustainable.

Of course, the current President didn't help the situation right after he came into office and he said our economy was in a "catastrophic state" "the worst since the great depression" and all the other terms he used. Was that supposed to somehow inspire confidence in our economy? Of course, I know we all know he had to say that to pass the massive Porkulous bill ( 9000+ earmarks) which the people overwhelmingly rejected.

That last about travel - people have been traveling and spending money until the end of 2007, when the predicted wheels in the mortgage arena started coming off - I don't know what you are talking about there.

And, James Andre, this IS the classic political tactics of the Nazis.

And for all those rightwing facists out there, if you really want to historically compare the tactics of the repubs, the policies of shrubboy, the continuing tactics of REAL Nazis showing up with GUNS at these meetings (like little SA thugs - an actual Nazi tactic used to break up meetings of political opponents in 1920's and early 30's), the Big Lie BS (read Mein kampf on the art of propoganda, as well as the level of contempt held by the 'leadership' class for the idiot masses on which such tacics are used.

I'm sorry, but any comparison with the current behavior of these THUGS, is a PERFECT MATCH for the complete set of tactics the Nazis used in the 1920's and early 30's to attack their opponents.

And, I predict, and will back it with $1000, that very soon one of these Nazis IS going to shoot somebody and complete the list of facist political tactics of fear and intimidation.

And, it's time for the Left to fight back.

James Andre:

I again refer to abolish taxes post #7.16 (in case you previously missed it or just chose to ignore it):

I'm sorry Evil1, how did I attack you? I simply stated that if you go around calling people Nazis who clearly aren't Nazis you are probably going to get a response that is an insult to some degree. As for my intelligence,

If this does not infer that I called someone a Nazi then I suggest abolished taxes take a course in writing and common use of the English language as the use of the term you in the above post would be, from standard English writing practices, referring to me. Possibly he should have referenced the woman in the article rather than infer or attempt to infer that it was me who was going around calling people Nazis! So either admit that it was a mistake in grammar (from a self-proclaimed, highly intelligent individual) or and attack against me stating I am calling people Nazis! Just because I do not like Bawney does not mean I am calling people Nazis! I will be more than happy to reel it in when you either admit to this or show that you are being a hypocrite just to support a fellow Lefty. Thanks.

Ah yes, I often stood there on the side of the track and yelled to my brother Jeff as he was running, "com'on tard, you can do it".

Nah, I was being sarcastic, I just prefer to not point out the obvious. And by the way, in serious (non sarcastic) conversation the only one that I refer to as retarded (hindered) is myself.

LOL Evil1, I am talking about the lady in the article with the poster of Obama made to look like Hitler and asks the stupid question as to why Frank supports Nazi policies. I was using the "you" in the general sense of "if someone" which is completely proper. I'm staying on topic about the article buddy.

What a bunch of hypocrites!! LOL, I will leave you to your self centered, self serving, ridiculous, self supporting discussion as it is impossible to carry on a factual realistic conversation with individuals who will not take responsibility for their actions and refuse to address the issues they themselves bring to the table. Now I fully understand why you support Obama, you are all one in the same. Make statements then when you are called on them you either ignore the truth or make excuses and tap dance around the reality of the issue. You individuals truly are comic relief, you are legends in your own minds and from your posts they are very small legends at that. The only one who I have seen recently that fabricates more BS and tap dances better is press secretary Gibbs, now he is hilarious not just comic relief. Keep working at it, you may raise yourself to his level if you keep practicing. (Oh, and the use of you by me is the proper usage, try looking up correct grammar usage or consult and English grammar major). What hypocrisy, ROTFLMAO!

Evil1, what don't you understand about the English language? Using the word "you" in the general sense is a common practice. I hold a literature degree from the College of William and Mary, so I know this very well. It seems you have a comprehension problem and you also want to make everything about yourself. Stop being so paranoid.

Also, your sentence telling me to consult an English grammar major contains two sentences that are improperly separated by a comma instead of a period. It also contains a mispelling.

(Oh, and the use of you by me is the proper usage, try looking up correct grammar usage or consult and English grammar major). What hypocrisy, ROTFLMAO!

Now, that's ironic.

Here is a lesson for you on the generic use of the word you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

You are so off base, Nofluer, that it is quite sad and pathetic. Actually, my degree and the hard work that it required helped me acquire get success in life. Obviously, you have some kind of hang-up about those who you feel went to a better school than yourself, based on your Ivy league school bashing. It shows that you are quite insecure and immature as well.

Nofluer #7.31 - that most certainly is a personal (and very ignorant, snobbish) attack.

my degree and the hard work that it required helped me acquire get success in life.

And you learned your lessons so WELL too!!! I'm impressed with your command of the... ummm English (?) language and sentence structure!

Kate - only the well to do can be snobs.

The rest of us have to suffer and settle for being "quite sad and pathetic." {sigh} Though small and mostly inconsequential, still, it's a cross we must bear.

Abolish Taxes:

Twist it anyway you want to and keep tap dancing. YOU know exactly what you meant in your post and you got called on it! Any credibility you may have had with me is gone as you are and out and out hypocrite. If I decide not to ignore you I will just continue to read your posts for the comic relief that they are. As I stated earlier, you truly are a legend in your own mind, your posts and hypocritical tap dancing are true examples of the higher education being taught at William and Mary and they are more than likely proud of you! Again, I find you entertaining yet extremely annoying due to your inability to take responsibility for your actions. I have 8 year old nephews that show more responsibility and fortitude than you do. LMAO!

Too many Marys, not enough Williams. Classic Lou Holtz line, although only a jerk coach would say such a thing.

As hilarious as your rants are to read Nofluer, I have to go make my $125/hour.

Yea and the typo in my above post was meant to be the word "great" and not "get." oh well.............................

Tyler,

How does that work for jfxgillis. He can make personal attacks, apparently with your blessing.

So that the rest of you know, I have made numerous complaints to the vine (and Tyler in particular) regarding personal attacks made against me by jfxgillis. Neither Tyler, or the vine have done anything about it. I guess if Tyler doesn't like you, you get suspended, if he does like you, he ignores your infractions. Is that right Tyler?

James, and the rest on this thread, I do apologize to you for being off topic. Just had to make that point.

I know you are asking nofluer but wanted to put my two cents in.

it's both.

Obvioulsy the people taking advantage share some of the blame and are the problem.

But the govt also is to blame for creating the program and not realizing that this would happen (we are gonna give away free money - only the people that need it will sign up... right??), making it too easy for people to take advantage, not properly funding the programs, not policing the program correctly and on and on and on.

making it too easy for people to take advantage, not properly funding the programs, not policing the program correctly

If those things are happening in a gov't program, they are easy fixes to make it run better. They are not examples of how the program itself cannot work. That is like saying that my car is broken because I left the doors unlocked and someone stole the radio.

Spox #9

Welfare is not an appropriate function of government.

Tax freedom day came on August 14th this year. That means every dime you earned from January 1 to August 14th was taken by the government. That's 62.5% of your earnings. 62.5% of every day you worked went to the government.

The more you empower government, the less power you have as a citizen over your own life. Soon, if the government takes over health care, about 17% of the economy will move into that government total, since it's currently private enterprise. Then that percentage will go up to 79.5% of your earnings. Not long after that the government will take the rest and tell you what you need to stay alive.

Hope you like beans and moldy flat bread.

NOBODY "needs" that much government... except mentally retarded people and idiots.

(I'm betting you didn't realise that the government took that much, did you.)

If those things are happening in a gov't program, they are easy fixes to make it run better

first... its not IF these things are happening. They ARE happening.

second. these programs have only gotten worse. if they were easy to fix the programs would be getting better. but the government sucks are managing programs as is shown by welfare, medicare, social security, post office....

the programs in thier purest form could work but they never stay that way and even at thier inception are prone to be attacked by those who will take full advantage and find the loopholes.

if they were easy to fix the programs would be getting better.

They would be easy to fix if there weren't elected politicians sabatoging the system. It's hard to make repairs to a program when one side of the argument is not interested in fixing anything. Their goal is to mismanage or ignore it until it is so broken they can point to it and say, "see how poorly the government runs things?"

We can see that with the health care debate. There are repairs to Medicare in the bills, but one side is yelling about killing Grandma and scaring seniors about seeing their doctors and losing coverage. It's hard to negotiate with an industry-paid stooge for common sense repairs to a program.

Nofluer:

And that day becomes later each and every year which shows the out of control growth of our Government. At the rate they are increasing spending and enlarging the size of the government (over 40 Czars to date at a salary of $176,500.00 per year) someday it may well be January 1 to November 30th to cover our contribution. Or, if left up to the powers to be we will give them all of our income and in turn they will tell us where we can live, what type of house we can have, what we can drive, where we can travel to and where we will work (or not, as is the case with many of their current constituents). We won't have to think at all, we will become zombie like, chanting, brain dead followers, wait........, oh, never mind they wouldn't understand.

We won't have to think at all, we will become zombie like, chanting, brain dead followers

You guys are already like that if you think that Obama is Hitler and Frank is his Nazi follower.

I have read the Constitution. General Welfare (there are 2 clauses) does not equal: Housing assistance, food assistance, heating assistance, cash assistance, government run healthcare.

Why do so many people interpret it this way when that was not the Founders intent? It boggles the mind.

Why do so many people interpret it this way when that was not the Founders intent? It boggles the mind.

That you believe that you know the founders' intent boggles the mind.

It says, first, to PROMOTE the general welfare - not to PROVIDE it.

Secondly, the GENERAL welfare consists of those things that establish an environment that allows civilized discourse and economic activity to happen. Things like the supervision of REAL interstate commerce, like the coinage of money, like the establishment of the courts and the recognition of individual rights in the face of government encroachment on the rights of the people, etc. Remember the phrase is in the preamble - so it is an introductory statement of what the following document is supposed to be about, not a specific enumeration of those things - that comes later.

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

KATE #9.12

"Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."

(Above from Federalist #41 James Madison)

http://www.libertynet.org/edcivic/genwelf.html

Art 1, sec 8 begins with the general:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Then moves on to the specific that the general refers to:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

And THAT is what the original framers of the Constitution MEANT by the term "General Welfare. I don't see "Provide health care for all" or "provide for the individual welfare" in there anywhere. The very idea of supporting individuals of the nation with support at the expense of the tax payers would have been repugnant to the Framers.

Every argument I've seen over the meaning behind "General Welfare" has reminded me of the never-ending battles between various segments of Christianity over trinity or faith versus works or women's place in the church or ... pick one.

Each side argues that she (or he) alone is the final authority of what it really means. My answer to each is this: get over yourself!

Call me a bleeding-heart-liberal-hippy whatever and tell me to go stand in a corner and sing Kumbaya if it makes you happy, but why get bogged down in an argument that is never going to end? Agree to disagree and move on already!

Health care reform is going to happen whether or not everyone agrees that the constitution requires it, allows it or forbids it. What has not been decided is what it will look like, what it will cost, how it will be paid for.

Kate #9.17

Call me a bleeding-heart-liberal-hippy whatever and tell me to go stand in a corner and sing Kumbaya if it makes you happy,

Gee... I've never done that before. Sounds like fun! ;-D

What you seem to be saying is that the US Constitution has already been raped and left bleeding in an alley, so what's to stop a subsequent mugger from stealing its purse? I agree. Bush 43 did major damage to the document and the nation, and Obama is continuing the assault by continuing the Bush policies and by expanding government waaaay beyond Constitutional limits.

And maybe that's why people are going to tea parties and yelling at the people in Congress who passed the crap like the USA Patriot Act and FISA and the Military Commissions Act - and the congress critters now can't understand why the people are getting a bit short tempered with them and yelling at them - and the universal Health Care as envisioned by Obama is just another step towards the cliff of a totalitarian State.

Or a shorter version... well, DUH! Ya THINK? ;-D

What you seem to be saying is that the US Constitution has already been raped and left bleeding in an alley, so what's to stop a subsequent mugger from stealing its purse?

That wasn't what I was saying.

If what you're saying:

Bush 43 did major damage to the document and the nation, and

people believe that

Obama is continuing the assault by continuing the Bush policies and by expanding government waaaay beyond Constitutional limits.

Then perhaps

And maybe that's why people are going to tea parties and yelling at the people in Congress who passed the crap like the USA Patriot Act and FISA and the Military Commissions Act - and the congress critters now can't understand why the people are getting a bit short tempered with them and yelling at them - and the universal Health Care as envisioned by Obama is just another step towards the cliff of a totalitarian State.

So is the Obama administration (and health care reform) supposed to be like the second husband that suffers for the misdeeds of the abusive first husband?

Kate #9.20

Nah. More like the woman with REALLY bad taste in men who picks two abusers in a row. Obama's abuser #2.

Perhaps you're suffering from premature something; you've already decided husband #2 is an abuser but the bruises from husband #1 haven't healed yet.

... the bruises from husband #1 haven't healed yet.

Well how can you tell? The bruises from #2 are deeper and larger than the ones from #1... and there are more of them!!! And they just keep on coming!!!

Really Nofluer? Let's see. How many American troops died under Bush's administration because he wanted us all to believe that we had to invade Iraq and then because he didn't have a post war plan in place?

Desertgirl,

Yours is a question I have often asked myself as well.

Good to see I am not alone in this.

It is disheartening to see how many people fall on the other side.

abolish #9.2

Right off hand I don't know - but I'm betting the number will be beat by the time NObama gets the remaining troops out of Iraq (where he's allowing them to be penned for slaughter) and Afghanistan where the warlords and the government are beginning to be unhappy at us being there at the same time the US is increasing the number of troops there.

Oh... wait. That can't be true! Obama promised to get us out of BOTH places, didn't he - I believe he said "within a year" of becoming president? How do you remove troops by increasing them?

And he closed GITMO too. Good move, Mr President!

And now he wants to get a universal government (citizen) paid health plan passed into law that will kill a LOT more people than Bush did.

And as to your reference to Bush - what the @!$%# does Bush have to do with the argument at hand - moron!

Well Nofluer, you clearly aren't being rational, because the rate at which American troops died under Bush is clearly unsurpassed. And, a health care system that includes all of the uninsured we have today will clearly save more lives for they will have access to live saving health care. Also, you have to be kidding me about what Bush has to do with the argument at hand when the argument was about whether or not "husband #1" (Bush) was worse than "husband #2" (Obama). Can you try being rational please and not accuse others of being morons when you are the one that is being moronic?

the rate at which American troops died under Bush is clearly unsurpassed

Actually, though any is too many, the RATE of loss was quite low. We lost more in Vietnam in one year than they lost in Iraq in six. But then we had Democrats in charge of Washington DC until Nixon got us out. The troops in Iraq had a Republican administration.

And then the Dems under Ford disrespected our sacrifices by stabbing the South Vietnamese in the back, withdrawing funding (while the Soviets were keeping THEIR part of the Paris Peace Accords and providing $1 BN a year funding to the North). So the NVA ran over the soldiers in the South and killed a few millions of the South Vietnamese - both soldiers and civilians - I believe those deaths should be laid at the doorstep of Mr Biden - the current Vice President - since he was one of the traitors who voted to breach the American obligations under the Paris Peace Accords and cut off the funding in his first term in the Senate.

Oh... and uninsured does not equal no health care. Any one of those uninsured can show up at any hospital ER and get health care. Free. I know a woman in her early '50s who didn't have health insurance or money, but she DID get angioplasty and a subsequent a 5 vessel by-pass operation (total cost of over $100,000) and is doing quite well today, thank you.

If it's not an emergency procedure then they do not do the procedure. And, who do you think is paying for the people that go to the ER and are overcharged as it is now anyway? Health care reform and insurance for all is the best way to keep costs down in the long run. The system you just described is not an efficient way to manage health care.

And when I say "people that go to the ER" I mean people that don't pay the bill because of their income. The correct answer is we pay for it; and we pay way too much because of the insurance companies who have allowed the hospitals to overcharge them for services.

Take "Obama" out of your statement and it would be a real guess what "side" you're on.

"Facts" with support and refute both sides. So far, the only facts provided are government's say-so.

Scienceguy,

The problem is that the most vocal opponents of the reform legislation really do not care whether what they are espousing is factually correct.

And where exactly did you derive that little factual tidbit.

Obama is FOR a single-payer healthcare system. He is on tape saying so. For him to say that he is not, is a lie. That is a fact.

He also said that we could not get there right away. Which would lead one to surmise that any plan he puts forth would have to objective of moving the public to a single-payer plan, eventually. That is speculation, but based on a realistic assumption.

EVERY single-payer healthcare system in the world rations care. That is also a fact.

If I don't want the Government to completely control the availability and distribution of healthcare, it has nothing to do with whether or not I like Obama. I think that is a cop out for a weak argument. Like calling the opposition racist, it forces them to defend their motives instead of you defending your position.

Nice debate trick, but it's B.S.

How's this. If Obama isn't really trying to move us to a single-payer system, it would be a simple matter to include language in the law (like: "At no time will there be more than two thirds of the population enrolled in the public option") that would forbid that from occurring. If there is no intent to ration health care, then put specific language in the law that forbids it (like: No service or procedure available to any person under this system may be denied to any other person under this system.")

You see what I mean. Obama or the Congress can put a great number of these protests aside, if they would be specific about their intentions.

I believe they won't put such language into the law because their true intent is to move to the single-payer which they know will result in rationing. They could certainly prove me wrong and I hope they will.

EVERY single-payer healthcare system in the world rations care. That is also a fact.

Do you contend that the existing health care system in the U.S. does not ration care?

No, I contend that under the present system if the care is denied, you have other options, like paying for it yourself. In a Government single-payer plan, if the care is denied, you have no options. You're S.O.L.

Don't know about you, but I like having options, particularly in those cases where the outcome may mean my severe suffering and/or death.

Perhaps you feel differently?

HAHAHAHAHA, OH wait, I just realized that you were being serious.

Rareety, that really sucks that if you are denied treatment that you won't be able to even have the option of paying for it yourself. Can you point me to the link where that is covered concerning a single payer system?

Can you point me to the link where that is covered concerning a single payer system?

Yes, I'd like to see that, too. It sounds like more "death panel" "be afraid" "terminate granny" scare bullsh*t to me.

Nooooo, come on. You know that they would never put that explicitly in the bill. Nobody would go for that! You first have to have a more innocuous plan like the "Public Option". They can claim it is harmless, won't force you off of your private insurance. Then the government can gradually shift more and more people to the public plan until there is just no reason to have private insurers anymore. Then it will be the people's choice, instead of the Government forcing it on us. It is sooo much easier that way, right? Even Barney admits his eventual goal is single-payer. We know the President is for it, he said so.

Ponder the words "Single Payer". That would mean that nobody else can pay. Doesn't matter how much money you have, you can't pay, because nobody can take your money; hence the term "Single-Payer". Kinda like, let's see......the U.K. a prime example. Brits can't pay for care themselves in the U.K., so they come here.

The interesting question is, where do we go to pay for the care we can't get in the U.S. I guess Mexico and several other non-socialist third world countries will still be available. Can't vouch for the quality of the care you'll get though.

Be careful what you wish for....

In Germany, they told the Jews they were going to take showers. Turns out they were gas chambers, they lied.

Guess how many would have gone willingly if they knew they were going to die. Sooo much easier when people do things willingly. No loud yelling, just walk right in.

And so it will be for us. We will believe what we are told and just walk right in to socialized medicine whistling a tune as we go. When all the other options are gone, you'll have nowhere to run.

So, if I am too understand you correctly, with a single payer system, like the ones in European countries, when a wealthy person goes to a doctor on the free insurance program and wants/needs a procedure, the government can and does refuse said procedure. Then that wealthy person, who can afford said procedure, just get's up, puts on his coat, and holding hat in hand with head down, sulking, meanders home to await his untimely death because he is not allowed to pay for his own procedure?

@!$%#, sign me up, we need a lot less rich people in the world! Sorry Rareety, I gotta agree with Kate on this one.

Is it just me or does it sound like some home-made hats need reinforcement?

O.K., you two go ahead and hit the showers. Personally, I'm waiting to see the water run, first.

Good luck.

TiG.

Our current politicians clearly are motivated for political gain

That is a circular argument. That's like saying capitalists are motivated by monetary gain. Well, duh!

And, it isn't just the current politicians who are motivated by political gain. Every single politician from the ancient Greeks to today (and that includes the idiot Tea Baggers, Birthers, and Health Care Reform opponents) has been and is motivated by political gain. It is the nature and definition of politics.

To say that politicians are motivated by political gain is not mutually exclusive of having good laws and policies enacted and enforced by the government.

A well informed and empowered citizenry is responsible for ensuring that what the politicians do is in their best interest. In that case, a politician will be motivated to do what is in the best interest of the people in order to keep their job.

The way that system is corrupted is by the influx of special interest money and the dumbing down of the people. That combo has been on display in the health care protesters, spouting out disinformation handed down from the health care special interests.

A good way to solve that problem once and for all is public financing of elections.

James #11.1

Do you really believe that the FDA doesn't have good intentions? Do you really think they are unconcerned with the safety of our food and drugs? Or the NTSB or FAA? How comfortable would you be flying commercial if those organizations didn't exist? How safe would you be on the highways if the amount of sleep and the use of drugs by truckers wasn't being regulated?

FDA - Thalidomide is one of the the worst examples. Other drugs have been removed recently after they killed people. Drugs are now routinely approved without appropriate testing, and with acceptance of testing that is conducted and controlled by the drug companies - which frequently has false results.

FDA - food - they don't inspect much of anything. You're delusional if you think the FDA is out there inspecting your food. The reason you don't have massive instances of food poisoning is because it's in the industry's best interest to provide good edible food - or they're out of business. To operate the FDA in an efficient manner would be so expensive that you couldn't afford to buy food. So it's a sham - produced by public pressure because of the public's mistaken belief that government is the answer to their problems. So the government creates a board, which sets "standards" which they then tell the producers about (which is funny because the producers are already probably exceeding them), and then hire "inspectors" who conduct random spot checks so the people will think they are actually doing something.

You really should look into how your government really works. Tell ya what - take the amount of food that is required on a daily basis for 300,000,000 people, then see how many State and Federal food inspectors there are. Then tell us that the inspectors are REALLY doing the job you thought they were ...

NTSB - doesn't have enough inspectors to be effective, and allows airliners and other mass transit entities to run their own show without requiring compliance with maintenance schedules and safety warnings. It's all about making money, and the NTSB doesn't get in the way. We now have trucks on our highways that come from Mexico and Canada, with drivers that couldn't pass US standards and who ignore the rules. The NTSB doesn't keep the highways or railways safe - they just add to the cost of doing business and let the pressure of operations control the safety of the transportation system (A broken system doesn't run - or make money - so the industry has to keep it maintained to keep it running. I call this Natural/Systemic regulation - it's the regulation that comes from the nature of the industry and that cannot be avoided if you want to keep making money. Maintenance is an expense of doing business. The government has absolutely nothing to do with Natural regulation - but they want you to give them credit for keeping the system running.)

FAA - same as above. On a critical safety warnings on certain aircraft, the FAA allowed the airlines to keep putting off the required checks until there was an incident and the fact became public knowledge. THEN the airlines had to comply. Many examples of this sort of thing.

The government is not about "good intent" - it's about power and greed and corruption because that is how mankind is made... it's our nature. Any system that ignores man's nature will not be beneficial to the people, any system that ignores mankind's nature will be subverted by it. Our government is trusted by the people. As Barney Frank said, you should NOT trust your government!!!

Without these government agencies to give the companies cover when things go wrong, the companies would have to tend to these issues themselves. Companies that did not do so would fail because they'd hurt people and the people who ran those companies would not be trusted to do so again. So in the market place, you either perform or you're gone. Presently the government allows such people to stay by giving them cover.

A regulated free market is the best control method available. Government is needed, but nowhere near the amount we currently have. I'd guess that you could cut 90% of government out and most people wouldn't notice its absense. The less government the better.

LasVegasRocks

I said:

Our current politicians clearly are motivated for political gain

You replied:

That is a circular argument. That's like saying capitalists are motivated by monetary gain. Well, duh!

So in spite of an out-of-context snipe, you agree with me that politicians are NOT motivated to do the work of 'we the people' but rather to pursue political gain.

James Andre

... and I think you are afraid to admit what you really want: no government at all.

I cannot imagine the stereotype you have in your mind to come up with a conclusion like that.

No, our government is mostly good intent.

There are plenty of people in government who have good intent. It is not the people or even individual agencies - it is the very nature of government. Government is a necessity because we need a broad scope mechanism to maintain order, represent and defend our nation, etc. But government is historically something that must be controlled. If it is allowed to amass too much power it WILL and HAS controlled the very people it is supposed to serve.

That is not an argument for no government, James, it is an exclamation point to Nofluer's comments that we cannot be so naive as to think government is our friend. It is not. It is an important and necessary mechanism whose power must remain limited. It is we the people who must hold the true power.

James

If your relationship with government is not constructive, but contentious, why not abolish it?

Do you not see that one can desire government while being against government amassing too much power? But since you approach this in a binary fashion, do you recognize the need to limit the powers of government or do you believe the more statism the better?

It is a question of limiting scope and power - keeping the power in the hands of we the people.

James

Interesting. I would have thought that as a rational progressive, but anarchist at heart, you would seek to keep government focused on the job of maintaining order (regulation, etc.), defense, diplomacy, etc. That is, to limit government to truly do only what it must do. That is where I am.

I think a key part of our different views is this. I believe that when it comes to promoting the interests of mankind we the people should employ government as our agent. This means, make law, regulate. Government does not have to execute to promote the interests of mankind. It leads, it regulates.

For healthcare, the current hot topic and certainly in play at Frank's town hall (to give a nod to the topic of your article), I seek government to become an effective regulator of the healthcare industry. If it has the solutions for our problems, it can effect those solutions in its natural role rather than step into the private sector or, worse, grow another major bureaucratic arm and further solidify its power over we the people. Effective regulation does not exist today in healthcare (it is too lax in some areas and horribly burdensome in others) - we should be pushing government to fix its own mess before granting it the right to take over healthcare (or even begin the process as it currently seeks).

In short, Government has already far exceeded its role as I see it. We should be resisting additional government growth with all of our might and force government to remain as a regulator (law maker, enforcer) rather than an executor (a producer).

The 'good of the people' does not have to mean 'provided by government'. How about 'effectively regulated by government for the good of the people'?

TiG.

So in spite of an out-of-context snipe, you agree with me that politicians are NOT motivated to do the work of 'we the people' but rather to pursue political gain.

"out-of-context snipe" - no, just making sure you understand the phrase “Our current politicians clearly are motivated for political gain” is pointless. How can I argue that politicians are not politicians seeking political gain? That is what they do. Period.

This is just like Birthers are only interested in conspiracies, Tea Baggers only interested in attacking any program or policy of the Obama Administration, and opponents of Health Care Reform are interested in keeping directors, managers of insurance companies in business and stock-holders of same in the money. They have no interest in anything else.

LVR

Just making sure I understand? ...

Damn, LVR, the statement 'Our current politicians clearly are motivated for political gain.' includes the word 'clearly' as an emphasis of the obviousness of the statement.

Can we now stop wasting time on this?

James

It seems that a public option may be the best choice to keep the general market free and avoid over-regulation.

Now this really confuses me. I understand part of your point - the public option theoretically serves as an exemplar that forces competition by offering low cost health insurance (ahh ... but how?). I agree with you that low-price, decent quality competitors do force competition.. But who says the government is a competitor? The government can at any point in time subsidize the public option - thus the public option is a super competitor that can consume the market (become the monopoly for health insurance - single payer). But worse, I expect the goverment option to not be competitive on equal terms. It will either cut quality to lower costs or be forced into higher costs. If that happens you can be certain that the entity will be subsidized and with that we have the end of the free market brought about by a fake competitor that never was able to compete but sucking all the air from the market by entirely unsustainable prices enabled by tax dollars.

I also wonder how appropriate it is to rely on the private sector for something as important as health care. Regulation could improve things, but even today we hear stories of people who win against mistreatment, but are already dead.

It is NOT appropriate to rely on the private sector to do anything but pursue profit. Corporations are very effective machines that we can manipulate. Establish a properly regulated market and as long as the machines can find at least a 5%-10% profit (i.e. a business case exists) you will have competition. With competition comes choice and fair prices with good quality. The government is in this game regardless. I want government to stay in its role as regulator and not cross over into the private market (per above). Government should establish the rules of the game but never play in the game it regulates. Its job is hard enough ensuring regulation provides a competitive free market.

That's just it. I don't think government must maintain order. In the long run I don't see any federal conception of order as sustainable. But since we have chosen it, I say 'in for a penny, in for a pound.'

Regardless, I do not see how increasingly more powerful government supports the agenda of an anarchist. Anarchy is much more closely aligned with Marxism (which loosely might be summarized as structured anarchy - people directly in control of everything). Anarchism is the polar opposite of Totalitarianism. The growth of an increasingly powerful government should be anathematic to you. That is, unless you seek this growth to trigger revolution (encouraging anarchy).

James

The public option will not be subsidized. Individuals may be, but controls will and should be built in. The public option is one component of an approach that will lower costs. It will not do it on its own.

I would never makes such a statement. It is unjustified wishful thinking.

But the level of power is irrelevant; the fact is there is a government. The horse is out of the barn.

This I cannot seem to grasp. Why would you not seek to reverse a trend towards the polar opposite of your beliefs? Is it a defeatist attitude? Truly, I don't get it.

We must seek to have a constructive and flexible relationship with government, and we must not fear being governed.

Do not fear the unknown ... accept the situation in which you find yourself. Okay. But if you can influence that situation why hold back? Again, I can only explain this as defeatist - what am I missing?

James

My point is exactly the same as yours; government is a mechanism that should be controlled. As long as it is being controlled and working to our benefit, the amount of power is irrelevant.

It may be but I cannot understand why you do not recognize that the increasing power of government works against our ability to control it.

James

You may disagree on how beneficial our government is, but I think it is one of the best in history, along with the Chinese.

I disregarded this, but on second thought ... you are kidding, right?

James

True, but increasing power also works against the government's ability to maintain power.

Okay, if that is what you meant then I understand your logic. The more power a government has the more it pushes its limits and invites revolution. History has demonstrated the instability of power. This is not the way I want our future to play out, I seek actions that fix problems rather than destablize the current system to encourage its collapse.

No. On a quality of life basis, it leaves a lot to be desired. From a perspective of longevity and stability, it is one of the most successful in history.

Okay again. China is a success in mechanics but a human rights disaster. I personally would grade them on their human's right factor rather than mechanics.

James

But do you not recognize that control of healthcare is a step function in power? This is not a temporary granting of power to be recalled in two years. Once government controls healthcare the individual (all of us) are further ensnared with a permanent reduction in our control. We better like the solution because it becomes part of the backdrop - it becomes part of the immutable fabric that defines our way of life.

As this process of incrementalism continues, we will eventually wake up with no real choice left; we will be true dependents of a government that is not for the people but from the people. You catch this stuff while it is happening - while it is subtle. If we wait until it is completely obvious to everyone it is too late.

History predicts the future if we listen.

Once government controls healthcare the individual (all of us) are further ensnared with a permanent reduction in our control.

What about the folks that can't afford healthcare, what kind of "control" is that? If the private industry does nothing to increase it's numbers, but does everything to decrease it's numbers then it is not working. That you can be turned away because you're ill is tragic, imagine that you develop a tumor of some sort and now cannot even get insurance because of a "pre-existing" condition. The insurance industry takes care of their agenda, and does a criminal job of taking care of people.

Do you see other countries with universal health care systems talking about control? This isn't control more than it's a choice. If you like your insurance, then keep it. Surely you can't say that the status-quo is good for the nation?

JustinPM

I agree with you. Can you see how I can have a discussion with James about the role of government while simultaneously recognizing problems in our healthcare system?

Here is a detailed response I provided to another viner in this thread on the subject.

But to give you my opinion, we need a healthcare system that provides the following:

Choice: We need to be able to select the plan that meets our specific needs. For example, a retired couple does not want a plan that includes maternity coverage. We also want the choice of doctors.

Universal coverage: Every citizen needs healthcare insurance to ensure that nobody is financially burdened by illness. So a basic, moral plan needs to be made available to all. Premium plans need to exist to allow those who have the means and desire to get more comprehensive or advanced treatment. This encourages continued practice in these areas and provides a strong competitive market.

Patient-doctor: Medical decisions should be made between the patient and the doctor. No bureaucrat (insurance company or government) should be involved.

Cost/quality: Healthcare costs need to be controlled (ideally reduced) but NOT at the expense of quality. Costs can be reduced by eliminating waste and inefficiency without affecting quality but this requires professional management. What we do not want is brute force cost cutting which comes at the expense of quality. We see this all the time with rationing (long waits), use of older technology, denial or limitation of services, etc.

My discussion with James was focused on the role of government. You have opened up another aspect of the discussion.

Why is it that people continue to blame F&F for the housing collapse? F&F only held 15% of the subprime mortgages.

the sub prime mortgage mess, has been transferred to GNMA who now holds more subprime mortgages than during the bubble,

UHH, that's their job. Their purpose is to hold these default mortgages and pay off the investor. If they didn't, then you would see a real crash, not the fake one we just witnessed.

It's a shell game. Government fixing the problem would first require government admitting they were a prime mover in the debacle in the first place. Since F&F were directed to take the sub-prime mortgages from the banks (who were suffering) in the first place; then directed to take more, as things worsened (because the government decisions opened the door for predatory lenders); I find it difficult to credit that only 15% of the mortgages were ever held by F&F.

Had government stayed out of this business altogether, the crash would not have occurred - because the bubble would never have existed - because the banks would have simply said "no" if the borrower didn't qualify.

Do we want similar with our health insurance?

What are you saying that Frank said that is wrong?

In 2005 before becoming the chairman of his committe he said people were picking on Fannie, that it was safe, in 2008 as it was being rescued he said it was solvent, you dont borrow 85 billion dollars because you are doing well, with the possibliley of another 400 billion dollars being needed. Insolvent is when you owe more than you have as in bust. Thats the way I understand it from 35 years in finance, perhaps Barney has a differnt intepretation of what insolvent is, after saying it was in good shape in 2005.

They were given cash because the credit market was drying up and causing the recession to deepen. Not because they were broke.

I am sure you wont take my word for it, even though I used to trade those securities, along with GNMA futures back in the 80s. There was a govt takeover because they were insolvent, their debt to equity ratio was in the stratosphere, they had absolutely no capital left period. They were in worse shape than GM, but I guess you could say the govt took that over even though they werent insolvent either. If you would like I am sure I could find numerous links as to their financial situation. Without govt intervention they would have gone bankrupt.

Please, be my guest

Can it be from a financial journal, would that be acceptable or are all financial journals right wing?

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090814-712997.html?mod=wsjcrmain

This article explains that the govt took them over to prevent them "failing" a la Lehman Bros, they of course continue to lose money and the stock trades at 94 cents. But of course it doesnt mention that they would have become insolvent:) I will look for more

http://online.wsj.com/quotes/a_balance.html?mod=2_0485&symbol=FNM&news-symbol=FNM

And here we have the balance sheet, liabilities exceed assets

The international collapse was not caused by sub-prime mortgages. It was caused by lack of appropriate regulation - which was slowly removed over several presidencies, the last and most critical regulation being removed under Bill Clinton (Glass-Steagall) which allowed the banking industry to put it all together and run one of the biggest scams in history. A Pump 'n Dump of epic proportions.

It was all about mortgage backed derivatives, which were used to create derivatives of derivatives, (now known as FASB Rule #139 Class 3 Assets - aka "Toxic Assets") which were insured against failure by AIG that the banks like Goldman KNEW would fail, and which the banks had leveraged at 25:1. So when the $2 Tn in derivatives failed, it had an effect on world capital markets of $50 Tn in value which just sort of disappeared overnight. The entire US Economy is only around $15 Tn. and weaseling around in the middle of it all was Greenspaz, Rubin, and Larry Summers (currently Obama's "economic adviser") who prevented the government from regulating the derivatives - which would have prevented the collapse.

Sub-prime Mortgages played a part in the collapse - but only a small part. Sub-prime mortgages were not the proximate cause, nor the underlying cause of the collapse. The regulatory system was taken over by crooks and the US government was complicit,. because it too had been subverted. THAT was the cause. Anything else is pure BS.

What this all means is that we are not in an economic recession - but a financial recession. Throwing money at the economy will only run up debt - it will not lead to recovery. There will be no recovery until the government restores appropriate regulation of the financial industry.

There are several articles on the Vine about this - you might wish to read some of them.

OK, I found an article that indicates they were insolvent depending upon the type of accounting being used:

And if the Titanic had been patched it wouldnt have sunk. Without govt intervention the company would be out of business. They just lost another 14 billion dollars last quarter and needed another cash injection. Yes they might make money in a few years, they cant keep losing forever, but that was not the point, without the "too big to fail" intervention they would be history. Yes they were saved to keep the mortgage market going, it was in the public interest, they still doesnt mean they werent going bust. One can admire loyalties to party principle, but in finance bust is bust.

James #14.14

They only raised capital from the government (until AFTER the government signaled that they would NOT be allowed to fail, making them a sure bet) - and their ONLY "line of credit" was the US government.

The banks would not lend to each other because they all knew that they were all insolvent - their balance sheets were full of the FASB rule #139 class three assets - ie "toxic assets" that had no value in the current market - and so the banks were NOT credit worthy because there was no assurance that they could pay back loans. So no one but the government would loan to them. ie NO interbank loans.

And that is still the situation today. And the only loans the banks are making today is mortgage loans that they can pass on to Freddy and Fanny, collect an origination fee, and not have to risk any of their own precious capital (obtained from Paulson) that props up their balance sheets so they can pass the "stress tests".

And the situation will continue in this stasis - this frozen capital market - until someone breaks the log jam of worthless assets either by regulating them away or by allowing the banks that hold them to fail. There is no such thing as "too big to fail." Had Paulson let them fail last year, the economy would be recovering now - as it's starting to do in some parts of the world. And Goldman Sucks - by their own admission a criminal enterprise, MUST be disolved for the good of the nation and appropraite regulation to prevent any bank from getting that big again must be enacted.

I expect the government do do what they did with GM - (see my site - the article on the Rope-a-Doping of GMs debts.)

James #14.11

The mortgages aren't the problem - it's the derivatives they spun off from them (securitized) and then spun off a second layer of derivatives from THEM with inappropriate risk ratings that are the problem. Glass-Steagall was repealed by Clinton in 1999 - anything after that is a problem.

The banks that are failing are not the BIG banks - the ones that caused the problem in the first place - the ones that NEED to fail to clear the markets. Those banks represent a HUGE percentage of the control of the total banking market in the US. And they need to separate the banks (depository) from the banks (investment).

In 1933 somewhere around two to three thousand banks failed - so we're not doing too bad yet. (IIRC we only lost around what - 500 so far?) You said closing at a record rate - throughout the '20s banks were closing at an annual rate of about 500 per... mostly due to infrastructure changes in the nation. And my son the Navy Petty Officer has at least two offers to finance his used car (which he paid WAAAAY too much for - but he don' listen to ME... Noooo... ;-D) so no one's pushing the Self Destruct button yet. But they have to do SOMETHING and soon - did you read the rope-a-dope article on my page? That's about what I'm looking for them to do - or a variation of it.

I'm still calling for a beginning of an anemic "recovery" or easing around the middle of next year, which was my original prediction in spring of '08... but that could move on to my secondary "if they're REALLY STUPID" prediction of 2011 or 2012.

And since this is a financial recession (as opposed to an economic recession), unemployment is a LEADING indicator. Watch for easing of the unemployment rate (as opposed to an easing of the rate of increase). The recovery will actually begin about 3 months after unemployment turns around.

And of course - I COULD be all wet!!! ;-D

The rope-a-dope piece is kind of buried, so I excavated it for you if you're interested...

http://nofluer.newsvine.com/_news/2009/07/12/3020027-gm-citi-bank-and-the-rope-a-dope

Read it and understand how they're going to.... in fact have already begun... to lay off the bad debt on the chumps.

As far at the devaluation of the foreign debt - that's a whole different animal - They're simply going to monetize the US debt - and the world knows it, sees it coming, but can't do a thing about it. Stand by for hyper-inflation.

And do not even try to explain Hyper-inflation or the concept that people had to use a wheelbarrow of cash just to buy a loaf of bread(Germany 1923). People do not want to look to the future- they want to live in the NOW- which is part of the whole problem- they wanted the big house , the big car , the big TV and went out and over-bought and over-leveraged until....the bubble burst. And our wonderful Politicians go ahead and accommodate all those people not worrying about future costs or unintended consequences- the only consequence they worry about is if they are going to get re-elected or not and how much they have to prostitute their own morals/principals to do so.

If I knew nothing else about him, this would be enough for me to vote for him as next president of the United States. He reminds me of Winston Churchill.

Who for most of his life was super conservative.:)

And would be a democrat today before being a republican if he had lived to see the RNC acting this way (and was living in this country)

Old-school conservatives aren't republicans today... if anything we're libertarians, but the GOP only has two values these days... 1. money 2. power. They no longer have any other core values or principles. They could care less about doing what's right for this country and only care about trying to stop the president (i.e. America) from being successful so that they might have a chance at getting back into office next election. Churchill probably would have executed the lot of them for treason.

1. money 2. power. They no longer have any other core values or principles

Interesting take, not that I agree with you since Mckinley was known for representing big business, and Warren Harding, that great Republican was around for the Teapot Dome scandal, somehow people's memories of history sometimes fails them, the more things change the more they dont. And of course Hoover didnt care about money or power, maybe just his cronies did, not him. And lets not forget good old Coolidge, whats good for business is good for the country:)

Fortunately I have no party affiliation, since all politicians have one main aim, to get elected and re elected and will do or say anything to acheive that goal.

all politicians want money and power. it's not just a republican thing.

What was Winston Churchill's take on, oh, say, unemployment insurance?

Ben #15.2

There really isn't much difference between the Dem Party and the Rep party. The differences pretty much went away during Bush41 when HUD secty Jack Kemp (IIRC?) outspent the Dems on public housing construction.

Catch your breath man! You're starting to sound like you spend all your time on another planet! lol

F Pfarr

Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Congressional Republicans were prophetically warning was getting out of hand and if more stringent regulation was not immediately introduced, would eventually bring our economy to its very knees.

So, are you saying the government needs to regulate the market? I thought the Free Market cured all ills? "More stringent regulation" were your exact words.......hmmmm. I also thought that government involvement in the market was a mortal sin to Republicans.....hmmm. Which one is it? Does the government need to be involved in the market or not? What about the healthcare market? Do the same principles apply?

It's also funny that you mention Alan Greenspan as the champion for 'more stringent regulation' because he readily admitted to Congress on October 24th, 2008, the exact opposite of that assertion:

Greenspan said that his long standing ideological belief was that "free, competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies. We've tried regulation. None meaningfully worked".

It wasn't until October of 2008, after the meltdown that he testified that he "found a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak". When asked what that flaw was, Greenspan said "believing that the market could be trusted to regulate itself."

That was in October of 2008 bud..... OOPS

Then I think that all ought to be required to wear DUNCE caps in order to attend and speak.

#24

Another cup of chamomile tea?

No but they can sure as hell be your crazy assed, paranoid Hobbesian uncle who looks like a cross between the Unabomber and Dick Cheney.

What is your source we are paying double or triple the cost ?