Super Congress

[crabfan]

http://www.infowars.com/super-congress- ... amendment/

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Take off the aluminum foil beanie and read this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/3 ... 14538.html

The next round of $1.5 trillion in cuts would be decided by a committee of 12 lawmakers evenly divided between the two parties and two chambers. This so-called super Congress would have to present its cuts by Thanksgiving, and the rest of Congress could not amend or filibuster the recommendations.

OH NO!!!!!!!!!! It's a cookbook!


Stupid fuckhead.

[Constantine]

This is the day the clown cried.

[Scoundrel]

the rest of Congress could not amend or filibuster the recommendations.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

the rest of Congress could not amend or filibuster the recommendations.

So fucking what, you ignorant dumbass. The House and Senate get to make their own rules on how they do business. Read the Constitution before shitting your diaper. BTW, the budget sill has to pass votes in both houses so it's not like they're passing a decree.

[crabfan]

I agree with the critics out there that say it's a subversion against a representative form of government (which doesn't really exist now anyway).

The only reason to put it into place imo is so the Executive Branch can push their regulations through quickly. If Congress rejects the recommendations of this group, authority would be transferred to the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the Executive Branch. It gives them "power of the purse." We're watching a tyranny being born before our eyes. Keep your eyes open for a 21st century version of the Reichstag Fire that the "powers that be" then blame on those that don't agree with them. They will then continue to erode our freedoms in the name of security.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

I agree with the critics out there that say it's a subversion against a representative form of government (which doesn't really exist now anyway).

The only reason to put it into place imo is so the Executive Branch can push their regulations through quickly. If Congress rejects the recommendations of this group, authority would be transferred to the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the Executive Branch. It gives them "power of the purse." We're watching a tyranny being born before our eyes. Keep your eyes open for a 21st century version of the Reichstag Fire that the "powers that be" then blame on those that don't agree with them. They will then continue to erode our freedoms in the name of security.

It's too late. The Illuminati and the Elders of Zion have already enslaved us all.

[NickasInSaltLick]

I agree with the critics out there that say it's a subversion against a representative form of government (which doesn't really exist now anyway).

The only reason to put it into place imo is so the Executive Branch can push their regulations through quickly. If Congress rejects the recommendations of this group, authority would be transferred to the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the Executive Branch. It gives them "power of the purse." We're watching a tyranny being born before our eyes. Keep your eyes open for a 21st century version of the Reichstag Fire that the "powers that be" then blame on those that don't agree with them. They will then continue to erode our freedoms in the name of security.

It's too late. The Illuminati and the Elders of Zion have already enslaved us all.

Not to mention the "Pentaverate" featuring The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went tits up.

[crabfan]

I agree with the critics out there that say it's a subversion against a representative form of government (which doesn't really exist now anyway).

The only reason to put it into place imo is so the Executive Branch can push their regulations through quickly. If Congress rejects the recommendations of this group, authority would be transferred to the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the Executive Branch. It gives them "power of the purse." We're watching a tyranny being born before our eyes. Keep your eyes open for a 21st century version of the Reichstag Fire that the "powers that be" then blame on those that don't agree with them. They will then continue to erode our freedoms in the name of security.

It's too late. The Illuminati and the Elders of Zion have already enslaved us all.

Not to mention the "Pentaverate" featuring The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went tits up.

It's a Globalist agenda with an engineered collapse of the US economy, plain and simple....the various names it's given is to keep people laughing at the "conspiracy theories"...whatever. Some people just don't want to look into these things...which is your choice. I will sat you better sell your US Treasuries after the upcoming short term spike because of the S&P Downgrade to AA+ that just happened a moment ago...they are going to drop like a rock after some short term gains. My silver has more than doubled over the last 2-2.5 years. It's tough to say that about anything in this economy. They dropped this week as people liquidated for cash to cover losses but they will jump again. Buy now. I'd hate to say "I told you so." P.S. Don't keep it in a safe deposit box at the bank...the bank is not your friend and they can access what's in those boxes in a national emergency.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011 ... ake-sense/

Buffett to FBN: S&P Downgrade 'Doesn't Make Sense'

By Liz Claman

Published August 05, 2011

Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett told the FOX Business Network that S&P's downgrade of the United States' triple-A credit rating "doesn't make sense."

"I don't get it," Buffett told FBN late Friday night. In fact, Buffett reaffirmed his belief in the quality of the United States' credit telling FBN, "In Omaha, the U.S. is still triple A. In fact, if there were a quadruple-A rating, I'd give the U.S. that."

Buffett told me tonight that Berkshire Hathaway's T-bill exposure is significant.

"We just filed our 10Q and we have $47 billion in cash and cash equivalents. Well over $40 billion of it is in short end T-bills. (Tonight's S&P downgrade) doesn't tempt me to sell. We'll stay right there."

Buffett sounded no alarm bells about the downgrade, going so far as to say it wouldn't have much effect on the markets Monday. "If nothing else takes place, meaning, if all other variables hold and there isn't say, a new problem in Europe, it won't make any difference."

"Think about it. The U.S., to my knowledge owes no money in currency other than the U.S. dollar, which it can print at will. Now if you're talking about inflation, that's a different question."

When asked if he felt the U.S. deserved the downgrade, Buffett said, "No." He took a swipe at S&P, quipping, "Remember, this is the same group that downgraded Berkshire."

The downgrade has prompted some economists and market watchers to warn that interest rates may rise, the dollar may weaken and stocks could see a sell-off. When asked whether he was worried about market gyrations Monday, Buffett said, "No."

[crabfan]

Doesn't make sense? We almost defaulted on our debt a couple of days ago. More like....what took so long, imo. Fox and CNN are selling the agenda to keep the cattle calm and in their stalls.

Yes, inflation will go up...the housing market and unemployment rate will get worse, etc.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Doesn't make sense? We almost defaulted on our debt a couple of days ago. More like....what took so long, imo. Fox and CNN are selling the agenda to keep the cattle calm and in their stalls.

No, we did not.
http://www.slate.com/id/2300429/

Crisis? What Crisis?
Cheer up, America: Our nation won't default, nor is our government dysfunctional.
By Bruce Ackerman Posted Friday, July 29, 2011, at 4:31 PM ET

U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner. Click image to expand.Speaker of the House John BoehnerDire warnings of a crisis serve the interests of both Democrats and Republicans as they try to bludgeon one another into a last-minute deal on the debt ceiling. But that doesn't mean the warnings are valid. There is zero—and I mean zero—chance that the United States will default on its debt even under the worst-case scenario. More fundamentally, it is wrong to look upon the current impasse as a symptom of a deeper "crisis of governability."

Despite claims to the contrary, this standoff is not unprecedented. It is a pale rerun of the Newt Gingrich-Bill Clinton confrontation over the federal budget in 1995 and 1996. The last time around, the Republicans posed a far stronger challenge to their Democratic antagonist in the White House. During Clinton's first two years in office, they managed to beat back the president's health care program, and capitalized on this remarkable victory by sweeping both houses of Congress. Though it may seem like ages ago, recall that President Obama succeeded on health care where President Clinton failed, and that the Republicans won only one chamber of Congress in 2010. (In 1994, they won both.)

In 1994, House Republicans actually gained a popular mandate by hammering out the Contract With America. This time around, the party did not go to the country with a unified program. While the Tea Party raised a Gingrich-like critique and carried many of the party's freshmen to victory, many establishment Republicans won on more moderate messages.

As a consequence, the speaker is now an old-time wheeler-dealer, John Boehner, not a charismatic idea man like Gingrich. But Gingrich had more than ideas; he had also built House Republicans into a disciplined and aggressive force since he was first elected whip in 1989. By the time he called his troops to battle against Clinton, he had built up an enormous fund of loyalty as well as fervor.

In contrast, Boehner and the Tea Party owe no deep loyalty to one another. When the speaker confronts his antagonists in the Senate and the White House, he can't be sure that his troops won't stab him in the back. Even if he succeeds in rounding up the 216 votes necessary to pass his debt-ceiling proposal, as now seems likely, his evident difficulty has already devalued the House's bargaining position in the next stage of wheeling and dealing. Quite simply, the speaker can't credibly guarantee that he can get his party to buy into any concessions he makes in the future.

But he can't credibly insist on a hard line, either. As the impasse continues, there will be further television duels with the president as each side seeks to mobilize public support. Boehner's wooden performance during his first matchup against Obama on Monday makes it clear that he can't effectively appeal to voters to support the Tea Party till his opponents cave in—especially when the advent of "default" on Aug. 2 will give the president powerful new weapons in the intensifying conflict. In contrast to 1995-96, the government can still spend all the tax revenues it collects, and it will be up to the president, and his secretary of the Treasury, to establish payment priorities. Under the Constitution, the first priority must be the payment of interest on the national debt—which the 14th Amendment states "shall not be questioned." Since the Treasury will be receiving about $172 billion in revenues in August, it will have no trouble paying the interest of $29 billion due during the month. There is no reason for the bond markets to panic.

Once the president makes it clear that American bonds are absolutely secure, he must decide how he will spend the rest of the revenue. Obama has already indicated that Social Security payments are in danger—and when the checks stop arriving, Washington will hear from millions of pensioners. If the Tea Party continues to resist a genuine compromise at that point, Boehner will have little choice but to ram the bill through the House with the aid of Democratic votes. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell put it, further intransigence would assure that the "Republican brand" will be damaged goods for a very long time to come.

Boehner's collapse, moreover, may teach Republicans a sobering lesson about the modern Constitution. Quite simply, it takes much more than the momentary control of the House to force America into the embrace of a radically new governing philosophy. It takes a president like Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan to launch such an effort—and even they cannot succeed decisively unless they can carry both houses of Congress in repeated elections.

The failures of Boehner and Gingrich show that there is no shortcut to this arduous process. Memories are short, but not that short. After two failed efforts in 20 years, it may be a generation or more before another movement tries to use the House to dictate terms to the Senate and president. The current impasse is not the prologue to some escalating congressional breakdown. It is the end of Gingrich's dream of a constitutional putsch by the House of Representatives.

Yes, inflation will go up...the housing market and unemployment rate will get worse, etc.

It's likely they would anyways.

[crabfan]

I agree that inflation/interest rates would go up anyway and unemployment would continue to rise MOMP.

[Scoundrel]

the rest of Congress could not amend or filibuster the recommendations.

So fucking what, you ignorant dumbass. The House and Senate get to make their own rules on how they do business. Read the Constitution before shitting your diaper. BTW, the budget sill has to pass votes in both houses so it's not like they're passing a decree.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

[Scoundrel]

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Yes, I am filled with boundless rage. You are really pwning and schooling me like a 1337 troll.

Now go back to 4chan, newfag.

[Scoundrel]

http://www.slate.com/id/2300429/

Crisis? What Crisis?
Cheer up, America: Our nation won't default, nor is our government dysfunctional.
By Bruce Ackerman Posted Friday, July 29, 2011, at 4:31 PM ET



Under the Constitution, the first priority must be the payment of interest on the national debt—which the 14th Amendment states "shall not be questioned." Since the Treasury will be receiving about $172 billion in revenues in August, it will have no trouble paying the interest of $29 billion due during the month. There is no reason for the bond markets to panic.

The above quote is the only part of the incredibly shitty article you posted that is even worth addressing. All other content in the article was the equivalent of a sports commentators analysis of the strategies being used in a game of football, and was devoid of value to anyone.

Thanks for posting it.

Anyway, referring back to the above quote, an introductory class in statistical bullshit might enlighten you.

In this case the interest being addressed is separate from the principle of the loan. There are a million different kinds of bonds structured a million different ways but I'll keep this simple since you think politicians and money are the answer to the ills of society; which means you are obviously retarded. When you loan the government a 100 bucks by buying (loaning to them) a hundred dollar bond at say 3% due in three years, what happens is the first year you get paid one dollar in interest, the second year you get paid one dollar in interest, and the third and final year you get paid 1 dollar in interest plus the original 100 dollars you lent them (the principal). In year three you are to be paid $101. However in this case, at the end of year three the principal ($100) is being rolled over, which means it's simply being borrowed again rather than getting paid back. Assuming the country has an economy where GDP rises at a rate faster than the rate at which they borrow, a country can pull this off. It's stupid, but they can do it. If not, you the creditor will not be be repaid.

At this point our country is so massively in debt that the politicians can tax the rich at 90 percent and it will only slowly start repaying the debt (and rapidly reduce the number of rich people you can tax), but in that situation the money is not being put back in the economy via spending and investment. Without spending or investment, companies have great difficulty expanding. Thus we have less jobs for our growing population. Industries that provide expensive and/or non-essential goods will shrink or collapse worsening the situation, etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. Thus we continue to borrow. (Yes, China uses the American dollars to buy American goods but if the dollar decreases in value they can't buy much, thus our production will be low.)


Now let's see what our main creditor has to say to us this week after the debt deal:

China roundly condemned the United States for its "debt addiction" and "short sighted" political wrangling and said the world needed a new stable global reserve currency.

"China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets,"

China also urged the United States to apply "common sense" to "cure its addiction to debts"

"The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone,"

"International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced, and a new stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country,"

Here is the idea currently brewing:

"China will be forced to consider other investments for its reserves. U.S. Treasuries aren't as safe anymore. There is a class of assets out there that are more risky than AAA, but less risky than AA+. China didn't consider these investments before, but now it would be forced to do so,"

A bit alarmist in my opinion, but add in this:

"I think the chance of the United States launching another round of quantitative easing is rising, as outside investors may try to avoid dollar assets, leaving the Fed with no choice but to buy their own Treasuries,"

Yea, that'll work.



http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/08/ ... p.htm?_r=2

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

I love how Butt Puppet thinks he's a really smart guy because he's always in here, calling all the mongs that regularly post on the war board idiots, and posts articles that he doesn't understand with no attempt at analysis. Then occasionally someone like Scoundrel or myself come in here and own his ass into oblivion, and he slinks away like a dachshund that got caught tearing up a curtain.

Butt Puppet is just the commercial till we get back.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Interesting article but I missed the part where the evil SuperCongress™ takes all our guns and enslaves us. Chief Justice Scalia would be laughing at me if he wasn't too busy starting 'Is Paul Stanley gay?' threads.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

Wow, two non sequiturs for the price of one. I would expect nothing less.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Wow, two non sequiturs for the price of one. I would expect nothing less.

viewtopic.php?p=5270427#p5270427

http://www.infowars.com/super-congress- ... amendment/

Super Congress To Target Second Amendment

Unconstitutional body created by debt deal to get “even greater super powers”

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
Monday, August 1, 2011

The so-called “Super Congress” that is about to be created with the debt ceiling vote will have powers far beyond just controlling the nation’s purse strings – its authority will extend to target the second amendment – eviscerating normal protections that prevent unconstitutional legislation from being fast-tracked into law.

As the Huffington Post reported last month, the debt deal that has already been passed by the House and faces the Senate tomorrow will create an unconstitutional “Super Congress” that will be comprised of six Republicans and six Democrats and granted “extraordinary new powers” to quickly force legislation through both chambers.

Legislation decided on by the Super Congress would be immune from amendment and lawmakers would only be able to register an up or down vote, eliminating the ability to filibuster. The Speaker of the House would effectively lose the power to prevent unpopular bills from making it to the House floor.

But far from just being a committee that would make recommendations concerning the debt ceiling, the body is now to be granted “even greater super powers, according to multiple news reports and congressional aides with knowledge of the plan,” writes Michael McAuliff.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled no punches in making it plain that the Super Congress would have supreme authority. “The joint committee — there are no constraints,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “They can look at any program we have in government, any program. … It has the ability to look at everything.”

That includes introducing laws to restrict the second amendment, states a Gun Owners of America bulletin, warning that the body would be “a super highway for gun control legislation”.

“Gun owner registration … bans on semi-automatic firearms … adoption of a UN gun control treaty — all of these issues could very well be decided over the next 24 hours,” states the GOA release.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) echoed Reid’s sentiment, asserting that the Super Congress was “not a commission, this is a powerful, joint committee.”

The Obama administration has already indicated that it will take the deciding vote as the de facto 13th member of the Super Congress. During his press briefing today, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the government would work with the Super Congress to hike taxes in 2012 and beyond.

Barack Obama has already exercised his fetish for executive autonomy by launching the attack on Libya without Congressional approval, bypassing Congress and having the EPA declare carbon dioxide a pollutant, as well as the appointment of ten state governors directly selected by him who will work with the federal government to help advance the “synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States”.

The administration’s zeal to target the second amendment “under the radar,” as Obama promised earlier this year, has also manifested itself in the form of ATF harassment of gun owners who purchase two or more firearms, despite the fact that the law to mandate such a policy failed to pass.

The establishment of a “Super Congress” will completely demolish the credibility and the authority of the system of elected representatives. It represents another final nail in the coffin of the American Republic and its replacement with an executive dictatorship run by the political elite.

Yeah, it had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

Butt Puppet, there are arguments about three different topics in this thread. I was referring to the ownage of you by Scoundrel on economics which had nothing to do with guns. Instead of answering to his ownage and my commentary about your ineptitude, you say what he was talking about has nothing to do with guns. That does not follow.

Oh dear....

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

No, it was about the true purpose of the "Super Congress", dealing with the budget instead of stealing our guns. If you two clowns want to stroke each others egos, PM each other and get a hotel room or a new thread.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

Dry those tears, Little Puppet, and accept your defeat. Or don't. It doesn't really make any difference.

[Scoundrel]

Interesting article but I missed the part where the evil SuperCongress™ takes all our guns and enslaves us.

If this thread was about guns I just made it about stupidity. If you don't like it I suggest you write to your local congressman to insist that they pass legislation keeping threads on the internet subject specific. Note that it might have more teeth if you address it to your federal "super" congressman.


Anyway, on with the show.


Here is the problem with attempting to use legislation to solve economic problems (and most things).

Congress (or anybody for that matter), has absolutely one hundred percent zero idea what the medium term, let alone long term results of their legislation will be.


Concept:

Make drugs illegal:

1. Drugs will disappear
2.Addiction and ensuing behavior will vanish
3. Society will be better off
4. Utopia


Reality:


Make Drugs illegal

1. Gang turf wars
2. Juarez Mexico
3. Harmless people imprisoned whom we have to now pay for as well as their families whom they were the bread winners for.
4. Drug use doesn't decline, draconian punishments are created (feedback loop into #3)
5. Violence grows in the (drug) crime filled neighborhoods keeping people from opening stores (creating jobs as well as practically located goods and services) or investing in that neighborhood. Violence and dilapidation raise (federally mandated) insurance costs for businesses in those neighborhoods which translates to higher prices. Poor people pay more for the same goods, worsening an already fucked situation
6. Zillions of alternative names for marijuana and other drugs are created to conceal the nature of illicit conversations in public
7. Purple drank
8. Lil' Jon
9. This list could go on forever.


Concept:

Universal Healthcare ----> More people will be able to go to the doctor and get the help that they need


(potential) Reality:

Universal Healthcare ----> Far more people who (genuinely) need help can finally afford to go to the doctor. Percentage of doctors does not increase proportionately with number of patients. Clusterfuck of unknown nature and consequence quite possibly ensues. More legislation introduced triggering off further unknown consequences.


Alternate albeit overgeneralized observations:

Example one: John D. Rockefeller had more money then I will ever have. However, my car kicks the shit out of any car he ever owned. More power, has power steering, AC, airbags, on and on. I have lots of better shit than a billionaire did.
Example two: Food poisoning back in JDR's day could give you dysentery possibly even killing you. These days you waddle your leaky ass into the store with twelve bucks and buy some pepto bismol, a bottle of pedialyte, and some saltine crackers. One Jersey Shore marathon later you are feeling better. The point is our quality of life has improved incredibly sans government interference. It may not happen as fast as you like, it might not happen when you like, but it happens. There was no direct centralized putsch, er push to make these improvements happen.



"Only rich people can afford it."

1905 MasterofMeatpuppets: "Only rich people can afford cars. We need equality, cars should be subsidized by the government. Furthermore big business will use them to their advantage in their businesses activities and wipe out all of their small business competitors. Monopoly will ensue. We will be slaves. We need legislation to stop this from happening."

Didn't happen.

Instead, once small companies are now big companies and once titanic companies don't even exist anymore. Why? Because in order to stay on top you have to make the correct decisions. Infinitely. Not easy to do. The fact that free markets allow shit that doesn't work to fail and shit that does to benefit is key. It can be rough if you're on the receiving end of a reality kick to the balls, but society as a whole benefits. If GM had failed it most likely would have been bought out by its competitors saving many jobs. Yes, people would have lost jobs. And that sucks. However, had that been the case and another company had jumped in, all future risk of failure falls on that company. If they fail, maybe someone else will give it a shot. Maybe not. However, American people who never had anything to do with GM's corporate incompetence and untenable pension plans don't have to pay a dime. That risk goes to those who are willing and the most prepared to take it. It's their problem. Not mine, not yours. I'm not even going to get into the bullshit between Wall Street and our government because after reading three books on the subject I still don't have that relationship figured out enough to have an informed opinion. Maybe I would understand it better if I read articles on Salon or Slate. Or maybe Alex Jones's website.


Instead of problems being absorbed into a malleable society on a case by case basis by people who are more knowledgeable and have far more invested in such things, we have congress foisting it upon the citizenry. Cause obviously the only thing that needs to be done is to throw some cash at it, right? It just needs to be handled by the Democrats (no wait, the Republicans!).



I am aware that Government has its place, but the idea of a Super Congress (or any congress) saving the day is stupid and if you don't think so then so are you. It's on par with the religious right writing legislation according to the bible. Cause you know, gawd wrote it and he is omnipotent.

[Scoundrel]

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Interesting article but I missed the part where the evil SuperCongress™ takes all our guns and enslaves us.

If this thread was about guns I just made it about stupidity. If you don't like it I suggest you write to your local congressman to insist that they pass legislation keeping threads on the internet subject specific. Note that it might have more teeth if you address it to your federal "super" congressman.

It was about crazy antigun conspiracies but you had to bring in the stupidity.

Anyway, on with the show.


Here is the problem with attempting to use legislation to solve economic problems (and most things).

Congress (or anybody for that matter), has absolutely one hundred percent zero idea what the medium term, let alone long term results of their legislation will be.


Concept:

Make drugs illegal:

1. Drugs will disappear
2.Addiction and ensuing behavior will vanish
3. Society will be better off
4. Utopia


Reality:


Make Drugs illegal

1. Gang turf wars
2. Juarez Mexico
3. Harmless people imprisoned whom we have to now pay for as well as their families whom they were the bread winners for.
4. Drug use doesn't decline, draconian punishments are created (feedback loop into #3)
5. Violence grows in the (drug) crime filled neighborhoods keeping people from opening stores (creating jobs as well as practically located goods and services) or investing in that neighborhood. Violence and dilapidation raise (federally mandated) insurance costs for businesses in those neighborhoods which translates to higher prices. Poor people pay more for the same goods, worsening an already fucked situation
6. Zillions of alternative names for marijuana and other drugs are created to conceal the nature of illicit conversations in public
7. Purple drank
8. Lil' Jon
9. This list could go on forever.

And?

Concept:

Universal Healthcare ----> More people will be able to go to the doctor and get the help that they need


(potential) Reality:

Universal Healthcare ----> Far more people who (genuinely) need help can finally afford to go to the doctor. Percentage of doctors does not increase proportionately with number of patients. Clusterfuck of unknown nature and consequence quite possibly ensues. More legislation introduced triggering off further unknown consequences.

Dozens of countries have already done it.

Alternate albeit overgeneralized observations:

Example one: John D. Rockefeller had more money then I will ever have. However, my car kicks the shit out of any car he ever owned. More power, has power steering, AC, airbags, on and on. I have lots of better shit than a billionaire did.

And?

Example two: Food poisoning back in JDR's day could give you dysentery possibly even killing you. These days you waddle your leaky ass into the store with twelve bucks and buy some pepto bismol, a bottle of pedialyte, and some saltine crackers. One Jersey Shore marathon later you are feeling better.

And you are far less likely to get food poisoning in the first place due to health regulations.

The point is our quality of life has improved incredibly sans government interference. It may not happen as fast as you like, it might not happen when you like, but it happens. There was no direct centralized putsch, er push to make these improvements happen.

At times, also due to government's action. I don't know why you think I'm a Communist. The private sector gave me a kick-ass car and shit that JDR, H.G. Wells and Jules Verne could barely conceive. There is a reason people form governments also.

"Only rich people can afford it."

1905 MasterofMeatpuppets: "Only rich people can afford cars. We need equality, cars should be subsidized by the government. Furthermore big business will use them to their advantage in their businesses activities and wipe out all of their small business competitors. Monopoly will ensue. We will be slaves. We need legislation to stop this from happening."

Didn't happen.

Now you're being ridiculous.

Instead, once small companies are now big companies and once titanic companies don't even exist anymore. Why? Because in order to stay on top you have to make the correct decisions. Infinitely. Not easy to do. The fact that free markets allow shit that doesn't work to fail and shit that does to benefit is key. It can be rough if you're on the receiving end of a reality kick to the balls, but society as a whole benefits. If GM had failed it most likely would have been bought out by its competitors saving many jobs. Yes, people would have lost jobs. And that sucks. However, had that been the case and another company had jumped in, all future risk of failure falls on that company. If they fail, maybe someone else will give it a shot. Maybe not. However, American people who never had anything to do with GM's corporate incompetence and untenable pension plans don't have to pay a dime. That risk goes to those who are willing and the most prepared to take it. It's their problem. Not mine, not yours. I'm not even going to get into the bullshit between Wall Street and our government because after reading three books on the subject I still don't have that relationship figured out enough to have an informed opinion. Maybe I would understand it better if I read articles on Salon or Slate. Or maybe Alex Jones's website.

Historically, government bailouts of industrial concerns have worked out, like CSX for example, so the GM bet was not such a bad gamble. There's also the first Chrysler bailout but they fucked that up again, so that's kind of a push. As for Wall Street and the banks, if only there was someone looking out for our interests...

Instead of problems being absorbed into a malleable society on a case by case basis by people who are more knowledgeable and have far more invested in such things, we have congress foisting it upon the citizenry. Cause obviously the only thing that needs to be done is to throw some cash at it, right? It just needs to be handled by the Democrats (no wait, the Republicans!).

I am aware that Government has its place, but the idea of a Super Congress (or any congress) saving the day is stupid and if you don't think so then so are you. It's on par with the religious right writing legislation according to the bible. Cause you know, gawd wrote it and he is omnipotent.

Unfortunately the ball is in their court in this case. Hopefully, they will live up to the name or at least not make it the punchline to Conan, Letterman and Leno jokes.

Democrats are spineless, Republicans are brainless, fuck it all.

It makes more sense than Alex Jones' theories.

[Scoundrel]

It was about crazy antigun conspiracies but you had to bring in the stupidity.

I brought up stupidity not in reference to anti-gun conspiracies but rather to you posting an article full of political spin that you bought hook line and sinker.

Here is the problem with attempting to use legislation to solve economic problems (and most things).

Congress (or anybody for that matter), has absolutely one hundred percent zero idea what the medium term, let alone long term results of their legislation will be.

And?

The actual results of legislation and regulation are impossible to foresee due to the dynamic nature inherent in any society. Looking at the intended result of a piece of legislation and ignoring the fact that it will have numerous unintended results is foolish.

Concept:

Universal Healthcare ----> More people will be able to go to the doctor and get the help that they need


(potential) Reality:

Universal Healthcare ----> Far more people who (genuinely) need help can finally afford to go to the doctor. Percentage of doctors does not increase proportionately with number of patients. Clusterfuck of unknown nature and consequence quite possibly ensues. More legislation introduced triggering off further unknown consequences.

Dozens of countries have already done it.

And far more are failing miserably or have never even gotten off the ground. It's important to look at those countries too in order to make an accurate assessment. If I asked you to list a few of those dozens of countries that have had some success you would find they are (were?) rich, most of them are currently hemorrhaging money potentially threatening its viability or at the very least quality of care. I already brought up doctor to patient ratios and considering that quality diagnosis and treatment often requires sufficient one on one time between doctor and patient due to the individual nature of illnesses this is a bad thing. Medical insurance has expanded in both breadth and depth over time but unfortunately it is a slow process. I’m not sold on the idea Obamacare provides something better in return, especially over a long period of time. Given the well supported fact that proper nutrition and mildly intensive exercise have been proven to be an extremely effective treatment and preventative to our "epidemic" maladies of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, I would say the presidents wife’s approach to “healthcare” would prove more beneficial than her husbands.

I know I'm also bypassing a lot of shit like pre-existing conditions, elective surgery, etc.

I have lots of better shit than a billionaire did.

And?

The point I was trying to make is that progress isn't something people necessarily notice. Probably because the grass is always greener on the other side (except for in Darfur or some place like that, but we don't look at that because it makes us embarrassed about how much we bitch that other people having more than us).

Example two: Food poisoning...

And you are far less likely to get food poisoning in the first place due to health regulations.

No, you are less likely to get food poisoning due to refrigerators, freezers, proper cooking, good hygeine, freezer trucks, etc. Most restaurants don't "follow regulations" because the government says so, they take precautionary steps because they want customers to return. They also don’t want law suits. I’ve gotten food poisoning from a restaurant despite regulations and I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume you have too. The point is not that they should be removed, but that they don’t do much in the first place. However in times of hysteria out come the potentially destructive and ultimately worthless panaceas.

The point is our quality of life has improved incredibly sans government interference. It may not happen as fast as you like, it might not happen when you like, but it happens. There was no direct centralized putsch, er push to make these improvements happen.

At times, also due to government's action. I don't know why you think I'm a Communist. There is a reason people form governments also.

People see a good idea working, say medical insurance companies (again slowly), and then want their government to come in and legislate it. What they don't see is the far greater number of insurance companies that have gone belly up over the years than have been successful. Those companies are no longer there so all that you are left seeing is the successes, thus giving you a warped view of the underlying reality and zero understanding of the evolution that took place. People form governments to protect their rights. It should be clarified to say people form governments to protect their rights even from lobbyists and well meaning but naïve society builders. Speaking of society builders you always struck me as a progressive. I just enjoy calling progressives communists because in my opinion they share the same naivete.

Historically, government bailouts of industrial concerns have worked out, like CSX for example, so the GM bet was not such a bad gamble. There's also the first Chrysler bailout but they fucked that up again, so that's kind of a push.

Funny you refer to the GM "bet" as not such a bad "gamble". Call me ridiculous but in my opinion the government doesn't have the right to take "gambles" in which fuck ups are paid for by the citizenry. And for the record, most companies end up failing, are you implying that if they reach a certain degree of success or size it’s ok to bail them out? If I were a douchebag and I owned a big company and knew I would be bailed out I would take more risks because that’s where profit is (which I get, not the tax payers). I wouldn’t have to worry about shitting the bed because the tax payers will foot the bill to get me back on my feet. People like that exist, talk about moral hazard. The companies who get saved would be the ones with the best lobbyists.

As for Wall Street and the banks, if only there was someone looking out for our interests...

These quote and respond posts are already way the fuck to long and this is a thread unto itself.




Crabfan, could I request you give the low down on the illuminati/NWO/Zionist connection to Denver International Airport? I'm going to be there in a few days.

Thanks.

[Constantine]

The U.S are so arrogant they dont care if they start WWIII and millions of people die. True.