The Whatcom County Democratic Party has officially thanked U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, for his vote on the House healthcare reform bill. From the party’s Web site (they didn’t have time for a press release, I’m told):
At the November membership meeting, Whatcom County Democrats unanimously adopted a resolution commending Congressman Rick Larsen for his Yes vote on the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) which contains a “public option” and for opposing the Stupak amendment to H.R. 3962 which imposes unconstitutional restrictions on women’s rights to make their own medical decisions.Rep. Larsen
Read the full resolution commending Larsen, over here.
As written about earlier, the local Democratic Party had passed a resolution previously expressing “profound disappointment” with Larsen’s lack of support for a bill that included a public option.
At the time, Larsen was holding out on supporting the legislation due to his concerns about what he believed were unfair Medicare reimbursement rates that weren’t equitable nationwide and, thusly, hurt Washington medical professionals and those in need of care. The public-option’s rates were based on the same matrix, but no longer, and so Larsen gave his support.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:34 PM
If you think we can do better than Rick, there is a petition you might want to check out:
http://www.petitiononline.com/koster/petition.html
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 20th, 2009 at 4:56 PM
John Koster ran for Congress back in 2000. During the campaign, The Seattle Times asked Koster the following question.
How would you extend healthcare coverage to more Americans?
Koster’s answer: “I support increasing health-care choices and providing economic incentives that enables more individuals to afford health insurance. Individuals are best served when they are able to make informed choices. We must address the increasing cost of health care, access to quality care and patient choices.”
Seattle Times Article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/politics/election2000/congress/koster_john.html
November 20th, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Does that mean yous signing the petition Madam E?
You know, one day you may figure it out that we really all want the same thing it IS mainly about how we do it!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!
November 20th, 2009 at 5:08 PM
And these are the people ole Rick wants to keep funding!
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/19/new-l-a-acorn-sting-why-sure-ill-help-you-launder-money-to-pimp-underaged-girls/
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 20th, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Here’s why John didn’t win.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/politics/election2000/congress/koster_john.html
November 20th, 2009 at 5:17 PM
So… Koster like Rep. Gary Alexender (R) and our very own Doug Ericksen (R) all belong to the cult of the invisible hand. They think that if they say “choice” often enough their crappy ideas about making government a profit center for their cronies will somehow become good policy.
Privatize government services??? I’ve got a three letter rebuttal to that idea, KBR. $400 a gallon gasoline, showers that electrocute the users, fraudulent billing and covering up gang rape by its employees are just a few of the ‘benefits’ of Republican efforts to privatize government functions!
November 20th, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Sorry, wrong link regarding why John didn’t win:
Tilting at Windmills:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20040922&slug=rams22
November 20th, 2009 at 5:23 PM
There is a big difference between 2000 and today, Madam E, over 10% unemployment is going to have a bunch of people pissed off, and those in office are gonna feel the wrath of the voters for sure!
Now as for me, since I’s know you can’t wait to find out, I have not decided if I would vote for John but I am definitily for him running just as I am for anyone, someone to take the bum we currently have representing us, out!!
I am very interested in anyone who runs agin Rick, whether they be red, blue or green or otherwise! The more the merrier, cause I’s loves choice!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 20th, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Is that wrath justified? Or, is it a form of unfocused anger that is doing more harm than good?
I’ve gone through three company closures during the last 16 months and I don’t hate the government.
I hold the real villans accountable — do you?
November 20th, 2009 at 5:37 PM
One thing for sure John must have SL scared so much that he feels he has to attack him before he even decides to run!
To listen to SL its all private business fault for all of our ills, sorry Charlie, but it is mainly government (both parties are guilty)!
The budget and the debt exploded. Like an alcoholic trying to quit drinking, Washington tried to reform itself with a series of budget deals and “summits.” None of it worked, as Congress, like the alcoholic, kept making one-time exceptions to the rules. Finally, in 1994, when a disgusted public—like a family “intervening” with an out-of-control family member—threw out the long Democratic majority in the House and Senate, real reforms became possible. The House Speaker was given the power to name committee chairmen and their terms were limited. The new Republican majority, with its “Contract with America,” restrained spending. It even gave a Democratic president a line-item veto, although the Supreme Court threw it out as unconstitutional.
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/september/debt-be-not-proud-the-sorry-tale-of-america2019s-out-of-control-spending
So what I am saying, it ain’t gonna be like 2000 but more like 1994, now does anyone remember which party won out in Rick’s district then?
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 20th, 2009 at 5:55 PM
The real villians are those who want to saddle the future with the debt of the me generation who is mainly concerned with, well, me, Madam E!
I’s off for the week now but I’s know how much all me friends loves utube!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B93yn0O35Cw&feature=player_embedded
Limited government is the answer to all of our problems, and how do we get back to it, there is a way, it is in Article V of the constitution, and we are almost there!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 20th, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Limited government usually results in the powerful making out like bandits.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Exactly!
The more Freedom from government,
the greater the corruption that results.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:12 PM
One of our current problems is an insufficient supply of n1h1 flu vaccine.
How is limited government that answer to that?
November 21st, 2009 at 7:53 PM
I have 3 questions for Larsen:
1. Did you read the bill and know exactly what you were voting in on?
2. If not, why not?
3. How do you expect to win re-election for deceiving your constituency along with your fellow
cabal members on Capital Hill?
All should be turned out with fresh talent voted in with term limits in place. The Imperial Congress
strikes me a way too Roman these days.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:51 PM
“One of our current problems is an insufficient supply of n1h1 flu vaccine.
How is limited government that answer to that?” (Apexnerd)
The previous administration passed the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) of 2006. One of the provisions under this act protects Big Pharma from any legal consequences that may result from the manufacture and distribution of the H1N1 vaccine.
In spite of the billions and billions of dollars that taxpayers have paid, in advance, for research and development of the H1N1 vaccine, there is a shortage in supply (supposedly).
Perhaps if Big Pharma were to be held accountable for the shortage, they may have been more motivated to produce the vaccine sooner and in sufficient amounts, or risk penalty for failing to do so.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Perhaps if big governent got out of the way, then legislation like the “Absolute protection of big pharma from any kind of lawsuit concerning its activities in the production of vaccines subject to government mandate would be protected…” Act would not be necessary.
“Perhaps if big pharma were to be held responsible for the shortage…”
This is so removed from reality…
Get out of the way!
November 21st, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Thank you, Rep. Larson, for supporting the health care bill. Our health care system is expensive and inhumane. Like most Americans, I support a public option.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Camille-
Normally I call ‘boogeyman!’ on people using general terms like ’special interests’ or ’socialism’, but today I call it on your use of ‘Big Pharma’.
Earlier this year (spring), the WHO, much less the US, didn’t know if H1N1 was going to reach pandemic status (which it has). They also didn’t know if/when the strain did reach pandemic levels, if it would be the same strain they had at that time (fortunately it was).
Well they did start making the vaccine by early summer, and they discovered that H1N1 is, despite its rampant spread amongst groups of people, very difficult to cultivate and slow to grow compared to previous flu strains. With increased growing times, production of the vaccine was slower than previous vaccines and caused a relative delay.
Normally there is testing on the vaccine to make sure it is effective against the prevalent strain and check for side effects, but it was July by that time and the pandemic had already been declared. The UK decided to pretty much forego testing in order to get the vaccine in August before anyone else in the world.
Meanwhile the WHO asked vaccine producers to set aside 10% of their production for developing countries.
By October, nearly all vaccine production facilities were finally shipping vaccine, and were producing it at a rate of about 3 billion doses per year. That might not seem like a lot considering the world’s population is more than double that, but it is an astronomical increase from just two years ago, when worldwide flu vaccine production was only capable of producing .8 billion doses per year.
In short, everyone in the world wants a vaccination this year, which is comparable to everyone wanting to leave town at the same time. There isn’t enough roads/vaccine to meet the sudden huge increase in demand, even given a sudden near-400% increase in supply. The fact that the virus grows more slowly than other strains in vaccine labs is no fault of the vaccine labs, and we’re extraordinarily lucky the virus has hardly mutated since last flu season and that our government had the foresight to contribute to that 400% increase in global vaccine production.
As for PREPA, and specifically the section that deals with vaccine production, it’s kind of like an ambulance. Normally there is a speed limit on roads in the interests of safety, but in an emergency, ambulances can disregard that in the interests of someone’s life. Likewise, there are usually standards that must be followed with vaccine production (testing, trials, etc…), but in an emergency like a pandemic outbreak, the standards that keep people safe can cause delays that cause greater harm than the dangers that safety standards protect against would have caused.
Given all this, where does the ‘Big Pharma’ boogeyman fit in, and how did it contribute to any of the above?
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:42 AM
Hi Bikerbob,
I wanted you to know that I’m not ignoring you.
I’ll respond to your comment tomorrow (today?); the real time as I post this comment is 1:05am,
and I’m bushed.
Have you read any of the seemingly endless comments on H1N1 flu & vaccine that I posted on the story comment boards several weeks ago?
fyi: Reports of adverse reactions to the vax are starting to appear in the news. A batch of the vaccine made by GlaxoSmithKline Inc. was recalled on Saturday in Canada. (healthzone.ca)
I fear we’ll be seeing more of this.
Also, a new study by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) indicates that healthy adults already have a protective immunity that “can blunt the severity of infection caused by the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus.”
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/newsreleases/2009/H1N1protection.htm
November 22nd, 2009 at 6:51 AM
“Limited government usually results in the powerful making out like bandits.”
An active government ALWAYS results in the powerful making out like bandits. Without fail. A government that does a lot of things is always influenced by special interests, who always have more money to effect policy than you do, always in ways that conflict with your interests. Either that, of course, or the government itself takes way your liberty.
A public option exists for one reason — according to Jacob Hacker, who helped design it — and that’s to eliminate private insurance.
A mandate exists for one reason — obvious to everyone who follows along — and that’s to force people who don’t NEED insurance to give their money to pay for people who DO need it. It’s literal wealth redistribution.
This is all bad news. This health insurance reform does not cut costs in any meaningful or substantive way; it doesn’t give us increased competition (on the contrary, it decreases it); it disassociates us MORE from the actual costs; it’s basically a terrible program that does all the wrong things and should be defeated.
Just like Rick Larsen.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Get out of the way!
Great advice!
You should heed it.
At least Camille isn’t a blatant prevaricator whenever she needs to make points.
That’s one reason you were run off Ayer’s old board,
a penchant for the un-true.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:51 AM
I would sure love to hear some real debate. The same old tired, fear big government, government is only going to screw us and the poor insurance companies does not cut it with people who want to see solutions, but it plays well with do nothings who can’t think for themselves and just want to be angry. If you are listening to Republicans, Fox news or any of the other myriad of right wing blather and nonsense, your debate is only going to sound foolish and short sighted. Want to wear your total ignorance on your sleeve, declare yourself a tea bagger.
I say, if you all feel so strongly, just opt out and give your share of public health care insurance to someone else. You can always continue to get hosed by the insurance companies if that’s your thing. You know health care is not a big issue because it’s so good in this country, it’s an issue because ours is the pits.
November 22nd, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Camille,
Don’t worry about me thinking I’m being ignored (though the thoughtfulness is appreciated). No I haven’t read your other posts, do you have a link to them so I can save you the trouble of restating it all?
Back to the issue, I’m making arbitrary dates here for the sake of argument… Let’s say that, with the testing and human trials to ensure the vaccine works and has minimal side effects, vaccine labs could have started shipping vaccine in early November. But everyone wanted vaccines by September. It’s not like people can use sheer willpower to make the vaccine grow faster. The easiest (and pretty much only) thing to do is just cut down on testing and trials and get the vaccine out 2 months sooner.
But why would the vaccine labs agree to that? I mean, the whole reason for testing and human trials is to make sure it’s as safe as possible, because if anything goes wrong they are liable for it. So world powers essentially said, “fine you’re not liable, just GIVE US A VACCINE BEFORE THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE IS UPON US!!!!!1!!one”
There are lots of issues to debate here. Getting a largely untested vaccine now vs. getting a tested one a few months later; making optimistic policies that assume the best about future outbreaks and leave us unprepared but don’t cost a lot vs. making pessimistic policies that assume the worst about future outbreaks and leave us prepared for anything but cost a lot; Allowing laws to be bent or even ignored during a pandemic or other health emergencies/crises in the interests of preventing spread ASAP vs maintaining that laws should be upheld at all times in the interest of collateral damage in trying to address pandemics/health crises whether or not it slows down a response; governments serving the demands of a population with national hysteria vs. governments remaining calm and collected despite the demands of a population with national hysteria.
None of these can be addressed or debated using boogeymen (simplistic generalizations of complex issues/participants), and grouping together some diverse participants from all over the world under one label (”Big Pharma”) and putting the blame squarely and wholly on them is definitely a boogeyman.
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Bikerbob,
“…they discovered that H1N1 is, despite its rampant spread amongst groups of people, very difficult to cultivate and slow to grow compared to previous flu strains.” (bikerbob)
Last month Novavax announced they would begin immediate production of their 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine using their proprietary manufacturing process ‘Vaccine-Like Particle Vaccine Technology’ (VLP). VLP accelerates the production of the influenza vaccine. Novavax is manufacturing the vaccine in Mexico.
(The VLP technology could be shared with their competitors in a joint effort to manufacture and distribute enough of the vaccine to put an end to the pandemic, IMHO.)
Fewer than half of Americans say that they are planning to receive the new H1N1 swine flu vaccine, according to recent polls, including one from Consumer Reports.
The C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health finds that less than half of parents plan to have their children vaccinated against H1N1 flu.
* Only 40% of parents plan to have their children get the H1N1 flu vaccine
* Nearly one-half of parents who don’t plan to vaccinate their children are not worried about their kids getting the H1N1 flu.
* Only about one-third of parents believe that H1N1 flu will be worse for children than seasonal flu.
I have links supporting these comments if anyone wants to see them.
Most of my comments including links, on H1N1 start on page 15 on my home page, under ‘Comments’.
You can’t begin to imagine how burnt out I am from commenting on this topic.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:55 PM
No I can totally imagine, I went through this when the TEA Party was making news and am going through it now with people who don’t see a difference between what Marx wrote and what Stalin implemented, or think that Hilter was a socialist.
You can get mad at Novavax for not sharing its VLP technology, or debate the merits of patent protection laws during global health crises, but that is not the same as saying “Big Pharma” is accountable for any shortages.
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Why don’t you people go see if you can sweep all the sand off the beaches. They would be much tidier that way. And it would give you a harmless outlet for your attention to minutae.
Yes, yes, there are differences between what Marx wrote and what Stalin implemented, and Hitler was’t exactly the same kind of socialist as either Marx or Stalin or Trotsky or Lenin, but they all lead you to the same place, and if you ever wind up in that place you AIN’T gonna like it. Ask anybody whose BEEN there.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Now I definitely know how you feel, Camille. “Hitler wasn’t exactly the same kind of socialist as either Marx or Stalin” *facepalm* *headdesk*.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Been where? In your fantasy land? The simplistic notions of socialism being tossed around illuminate one giant reality–some people will never let themselves imagine anything but the dismal state we have now–pseudo freedom under a corporatocracy with a citizenry that has no clue which way is up. This is where the industrial war machine has lead us and no I don’t like it. To talk as if we can save ourselves from ignorance is it’s own brand of insanity.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:39 PM
bikerbob,
http://www.flowgo.com/funny/16387_headbanging-bird.html
If I had anything that even remotely resembled self-discipline I wouldn’t consider posting this link.
Turn off your speakers, or lower the volume if/and before you go there.
sorry, in advance.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:17 AM
If the Catholic church or any church is going to be sticking their noses into the political debate, then they should be willing to give up their non-profit status. Personally I’m offended at any church trying to codify their delusional beliefs into law. Religion is nothing but fantasy. We do not need more people living a delusional life built around the poison of religion influencing public policy for the rest of us who still have our facilities. Just one more way in which Religion Poisons Everything.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Balance the budget on the backs of all the formerly tax-exempt churches.
They have the same right for exemptions and deductions for charity expenses as any other wealthy organization.
Pretending that they have a right to be subsidized by taxpayers because of some kind of ‘good works’ authority is silly.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I’m not even sure if most churches get that many breaks any more. I just rankle at things like hearing some Catholic bishop is denying communion to a Congressmen who is supporting the health care bill and a woman’s right to choose. Though I do find a lot of religion to be delusional, the principles of living in peace and exhibiting compassion and integrity are fairly universal and necessary. But religion tends to take itself too seriously and so you get interference in our lives that affects our liberties. That’s the line for me and I don’t like any crossing of it. Yet what we have here is just the anti- health care crowd trying to instill more fear in the people and rally the fringe. When you have to use fear of change or religious authority as political weapons, then maybe that is a sign that something is rotten in Denmark.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Tax benefits for religious organizations fall into three general categories: tax-free donations, tax-free land and tax-free commercial enterprises.
And every penny of tax-free asset building by churches results in more load on the rest of us.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 AM
I’s hope everyone had a great weekend and is well and ready for the upcoming T-day!
Now on to today’s subject matter, MSNBC at that:
Government has done a great job with the swine flu vaccine!
“The Obama administration bears much of the blame for the fear the public and health care workers have of the swine flu vaccine. The facts do not square with the fear.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33797280/ns/health-health_care/
AFY!!thesheepdog!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:28 AM
1. In 1993, Ins. Comm. Debra Senn, in conjunction with Hillary Clinton unleashed managed care on Washington State as a trial balloon for Hill-Care. Both HCR plans put forth by Congress and Senate are managed care on steroids compared with what was done in ‘93. These type of fixes will not only explode the over use of health care, it will also explode the costs due to a lack of staffing and facilities, which will eventually lead to rationing of services.
2. It has been documented that not only is POTUS’s long term goal Universal Health Coverage and the destruction of private insurance, but many other Dem’s are also on record for this end result.
The meer fact that we stand around and continue to allow government to shackle free people with restriction after restriction and mandate after mandate, to our own demise…where is the bottom to peoples acceptance of BIG GOVT/BIG BROTHER? Most of the restrictions and mandates, foisted upon the people, in the end benefit big business over small business. That is why more small businesses are closing up and unemployment is rising…govt has made it very difficult for small businesses to survive even 5 years.
Vote them all out, get fresh blood and term limits. Get rid of their big govt salaries and pensions. Let them live on the health care they want for us, the SS they want for us, the Medicare they want for us and make them subject to all laws they enact for us. Watch them clean up their act then!
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:40 AM
The reason to oppose health care reform and insurance coverage is so access will be restricted (to the wealthy) and so that staff won’t be strained?
Hmm.
But I do agree completely with your last rant/statement about applying all laws and restrictions to the legislators themselves in order to achieve real reform.
Including term limits.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:41 AM
To recap…
I took one of AFY’s sweeping statements…
…and I called it into question by using the contemporary example of the shortage of n1h1 vaccine.
The thread then debates Big Pharma, which was quite an entertaining dialogue.
For what it is worth, I was taking exception to the word all in that sentence.
The notion that there are simple and effective solutions to complex problems is absurd on its face.
If your solution to health care reform can fit on a bumper sticker, then you aren’t finished writing it.
One of the most popular products sold in the world today is Coca-Cola.
Coca-Cola was invented in the 19th century by a pharmacist and marketed as a “nerve tonic” and “headache remedy”. As many readers may already know, the active ingredient in Coca Cola at that time was cocaine. (You know… the real thing.)
No government regulation: Coca-cola is medicinal elixir, that treats headaches.
With government regulation: Coca-cola is a beverage, that promotes tooth decay.
I continue to question the wisdom of limiting government as a solution to health care reform.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Imagine a world Free from Government interference in Commerce!
Billion-dollar Ponzi schemes and not an SEC in sight,
telemarketer calls at 3am,
no-bid war contracts for the President’s friends,
e-coli in yer spinach,
lead in yer toothpaste,
melamine in yer dog food,
Wall Street Executives running the Treasury and The Fed,
health insurance monopolies with anti-trust exemptions,
hell, no anti-trust for any business!
Speculators driving up oil prices, commodity prices and manipulating currency values.
Almost like the last eight years of blessed freedom.
But to have Real Coke again might be worth it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Limited government does not mean no government. There is a difference. Limited government is what our constitution is all about.
What are the problems of today? To me the biggest problem we face is not the lack of health care in this country but the lack of jobs.
I support a balance budget, I do not believe we should be spending money today for future generations to pay back. Right now the interest alone on our 12 trillion debt is 700 billion a year.
So what government is doing today is taking all of our resources for entitlements (BTW our debt is really around 100 trillion if you count in what we are on the hook for entitlements) and the running of government. It has to stop sooner or later because if we keep spending like we are spending over the next 10 years our debt will grow to over 20 trillion, think of what the interest will be on that. Where will it come from?
Now back to jobs, over 10% unemeployment, but the real figure is over 17%, but aren’t we coming out of recession? However this is a jobless recovery, but can a recovery really be a recovery without jobs? So where the jobs? We are spending a huge amount of money for what? Bigger government! And for the private sector the people who are paying the taxes, it is hard to get investment capitol because government has it all tied up. So layoffs and business closings are what’s happening all over.
There is only one answer, A balance budget, limited government, we are very close right now, only a few more states and Article V of the constitution will be in play!
Personally I would love to see a constitutional convention, where everything is on the line, and we get back to having a constitutional government once again. This reminds me of a congressman the other day being asked if it was constitutional, putting people in jail for not buying health insurance, his answer was pretty much everything we are doing here (in congress today) is unconstitutional!
I think that should be rectified and what we as a nation really need is a refounding, a refounding that puts us back on the track of limited government, the track that our forefathers knew we needed to travel if we were to survive as a nation.
It is all in constitution, the plan, all we need is to require a balance budget and we will be forced to live within our means.
While we are at it (at this convention!) maybe getting rid of the income tax should be considered too?!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 PM
$700 billion = 4% GDP.
If my interest payments were only 4% of my GDP I’d be driving Pike’s Mercedes and buying $150 rounds at AFY!!!’s favorite pub.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:49 PM
That’s right!
The Constitution doesn’t mention anything about establishing The SEC, The CIA, The FDA, The FBI and a dozen other initials that wouldn’t fit on AFY!!’s bumpersticker.
And so all the functions of these Outlaw Programs of Meddlesome-ness?
Also Illegal and Un-Constitutional!
Let Freedom Ring!
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Why don’t Catholics deny communion to those who support the death penalty? Seems like a contradiction.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:42 PM
So Ciz and I’s agree limited government is good!!
I’s glad he’s not for unlimited government, for sure!
Here’s the big question is leaving a huge debt to future generations to pay for our needs today, is that right?
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. TJ
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Just to put a face on $700 bil in interest payments, that is more money than our entire defense budget next year! And that’s at today’s interest rates, wait until interest rates goes up! You see, the US debt is like on a balloon loan whose interest rates increases as rates goes up!! What a ride we are forcing future generation to take, all for the greedy me generation to live outside of their means!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Do you realize that TJ was referring to the British overlords Governance and not the established We The People one?
The defense budget - famously higher than every other defense budget on the Third Rock - is all of that $700 billion.
But like you said,
War is a Government Jobs Program!
Interest payments and death are just a part of the overhead.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Larsen.
No thanks for voting to coerce over 10 million Americans into buying something we don’t want.
No thanks for voting for a plan that in its first FULL 10 years of operation will cost over $2.5 TRILLION, and then rise after that.
No thanks for voting for a bill that makes patients more vulnerable because education of doctors and medical staff will even more based on affirmative action that merit.
No thanks for setting the stage for illegal aliens to be legitimized and then receive taxpayer funded health care, futher raising the cost.
But thank you for giving your political opposition more reason to campaign against you.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:32 PM
The reason our forefathers wanted limited government was to avoid the tyranny of unlimited government!
Since you liked TJ so much, here’s one of his neighbors you may have heard of;
All that seems indispensible in stating the account between the dead and the living, is to see that the debts against the latter do not exceed the advances made by the former.
James Madison
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Those guys were building a case against The King,
not their own government invention.
So you’re for a public health insurance option so the debts of the living stand a better chance of being retired?
Also, in Madison’s day,
the debts were all between American rebels and their French financiers.
So to be indebted to a foreign nation actually allowed for the success of The Revolution.
Maybe that isn’t mentioned in your copy of The Constitution?
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Hey ciz, a utube a day keeps the doctor away!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXeCAeACmJE
Now don’t tell me to shut up!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Ciz, I’s figure it out, maybe we are going to too far back for you to understand, here’s something a little closer for you!
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. – Daniel Webster (1782-1852)
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:20 PM
The government our founders rebelled against was a tiny fraction of the enormous monstrousity that is our Federal Government in 2009. And King George was a whole ocean away. Not so, our modern oppressors.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:26 PM
Hey ciz after much research I’s think I’s found someone you might agree with!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM2siIWB0J4&feature=related
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 10:37 AM
I’s been thinking (as me wife will say; that is very dangerous!), what about do you ask? Well about everything, like:
Why do people who want government run health care also have a problem with what our forefathers once said about government and why it should be limited, like if they don’t agree with our forefathers who do they agree with? and why won’t they admit about who they do agree with? and for why?
Maybe some of me good government run health care friends advocates can explain these conundrums!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 25th, 2009 at 10:20 AM
They were coming from a monarchy run pretty much as a dictatorship, so yes they talked of limited government–but not what you talk about which is akin to wanting anarchy.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Jurgen: “I would sure love to hear some real debate.”
I don’t believe you. People who want to hear real debate do not dismiss the principled arguments of their opponents, especially when those arguments are derived from the founding principles of the nation. People who want to hear real debate do not prejudge arguments of their opponents as “blather,” “nonsense,” “foolish,” “short sighted,” “ignorant,” and so on.
Oh right, but you say I “can’t think for myself.” I defy you to demonstrate it. Good luck with that.
“I say, if you all feel so strongly, just opt out and give your share of public health care insurance to someone else.”
As long as I don’t have to PAY for it, fine.
“You can always continue to get hosed by the insurance companies if that’s your thing.”
I get excellent health care paid for by my health insurance company.
“You know health care is not a big issue because it’s so good in this country”
Actually, no, health care in this country — for people who have insurance, which is overwhelmingly most of the country — is among the best, if not the best, in the world. It’s got problems, and needs improvement, but this is not driven by the low quality of health care, but by the fact that many people do not GET health care. When they DO get health care, it’s excellent quality.
I apologize for injecting facts into this debate you don’t want to have.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Jurgen: “Personally I’m offended at any church trying to codify their delusional beliefs into law.”
So you are offended that the evangelical Christians led the movement to push their “delusion” in the mid-1800s that slavery was unjust and should be abolished? That women should have full rights of citizenship? That alcohol should be banned?
OK, you (as I do, as the nation does) probably believe the last one was wrong. But most people think the other two were right. Yet all of those things were based firmly in their religious beliefs, and they pushed them to become law. And we’re all better off for it.
Same thing with Martin Luther King Jr. and many other civil rights leaders in the middle of the 20th century, including my brother-in-law’s father-in-law, who was a white chaplain at a black college in Mississippi, and has scars on his face today because he pushed to codify his “delusional beliefs” into law, about what the Bible had to say about segregation and discrimination.
No serious person believes that religious people should not try to codify their beliefs into law, because of — if nothing else — the examples I just gave. The only question is whether enough people agree with you, for religious, or non-religious, reasons. Some people think you should have to justify your beliefs in non-religious terms, but the Constitution certainly doesn’t require it … but it’s a good idea, and certainly abolition, suffrage, desegregation, and the pro-life views can all be — and are — justified without using religion.
(For example: slavery is wrong because it denies the right to liberty guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence. Abortion is wrong because it denies the right to life guaranteed in the same. That life begins shortly after conception, at least by the time of implantation [though really before that], is biologically undeniable. Etc.)
Obviously, you likely agree with the first three, and disagree with the fourth. Fine. Many people disagreed with each of the first three, too; doesn’t mean they were right. Conceptually, in terms of the relationship of religion and government, pro-lifers pushing for legal abolition of abortion is no different than evangelicals pushing for the abolition of slavery.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:59 AM
Wow, this is some discussion. I have learnt quite a lot including the area of tax and religion. I think it’s unfair that there are so many organizations who are getting tax breaks. At the end of the day is tax payers who end up paying for it.