Pelosi and Reid's Congress has logged the lowest approval rating ever... EVER... since they started taking polls. Bush's approval rating is almost 3 times theirs. Congress' magic number?
11
Not as in This is Spinal Tap...
"...if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? Put it up to eleven."
...but rather, slightly more than 10% of poll respondents APPROVE of Pelosi and Reid's combined houses.
Absolutely Amazing! And yet all the media can seemingly report is how horrible Bush's numbers are. Talk about Clueless!
The fact that they [Democrats] trashed a 4-star general before the entire viewing nation-- to say nothing of the world! Calling him a liar in no uncertain terms, will only exacerbate their embarrassingly paltry approval number. Think it can't get into single digits?
Time will tell. As it is, Congress doesn't need an "extra push over the cliff." They're free falling as I type this. One question remains: Will they know when they hit dirt bottom? Or will they mercifully black out before the end?
Personally, I want them conscious. I want them to see, recognize, and know the damage they have done to this nation.
39 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I just don't see it...and...though I have many disagreements with Dick Morris, one cannot deny his political savvy.
If the Senate is swept by Dems...surely it will be Blue Dogs?!?!
Thing is, he's made a name for himself as being an ex-Clinton staffer turned Republican pundit. I think most people give him more credence for that fact alone without judging him strictly by his record which, I believe, is more than a bit spotty.
A discussion at Mark's "God's Way..." blog, made mention of one individuals "mis-belief" and the consequences of such. Well, the same can be said for the state of American politics. There are consequences for everything the Democratic Party has successfully implemented and/or tried to do these last 50 years or so.
Just look at the depraved nature of our Culture! The social engineering policies of Democrats primarily-- and Republicans are certainly not immune to criticism, only less so --have affected our culture in dangerously detrimental ways...
Abortion... Lax sexual morality... to say nothing of moral relativism! It's as though America sat down in front of Ozzie and Harriet and fell asleep... only to wake up to Ozzie and Sharon!
The most disturbing aspect of this is no one-- or rather not enough willing to fight --seems to care, let alone seek to avert driving off the cliff looming very near.
I know you see it too, D. You also see what happens to people like you and me who choose to speak out about it. We may hold our own intellectually, but we're hammered down nonetheless.
The WORST thing that could happen to this nation is for Dick Morris to be right. Even worse would be ANY current Democratic candidate, in light of Morris' prediction, take the oval office in January of '09.
There are too many people in OUR circle of bloggers and commenters who think what WE believe is little more than howling at the moon.
But I would pose this question... If a segment of society can't see what is obvious to others, just who suffers from delusion? And in this case, from Cultural Myopathy?
Do these "Frogs" even realize there's a fire burning under the pot?
To me, that's the truly frightening aspect of this... the apparent blindness that so permeates the Progressive Left, and consequently, the Democratic Machine and the cogs that turn with every new policy they set in motion.
This is a bit of an aside from the topic of a wasted Congress, though, isn't it? I find it amusing that their numbers are so low, particularly after all they screached leading up to the midterms. Here's the really funny part: Two of their candidates lost to one they consider an idiot, and now a host of their own rule the House and together they can't impress the people better than does the one they hate the most. Poetic justice.
If anything, they have hurt themselves by demonstrating to the country how totally outside the lines they have wandered.
The American people are waking up and smelling their BS.
Republicans should face an even harsher criticism, in my book! The very people who stood up in '94 to create an impenetrable wall against the liberal social engineering have taken a seat...some even profit these days by joining the leftists as they pile it on to this administration. (Joe Scarborough, I'm disappointed in you, pal! You too, Newt!)
Mark, you and I agree on almost everything, but I believe you are wrong about the minimal damage. I love this nation! For the first half of my life, I lived on or near U.S. military installations all over the world. In a way, I spent half my life in the military...first as a dependent...then as a member. I've experienced our nation's effect on other parts of the world...both from those who admire and love the US (most), and those who demonstrate against it(marxist juveniles).
But the division that seems to be solidifying in the current American society makes me believe that I no longer am a citizen of the country of my birth.
You know what I mean?
From what!? I'd like to know! National pride? Common decency? Prudish, puritanical notions of Morality? From God, and His fanatical followers? Rosie was not a lone dandelion in the cow pasture. There are millions who think the way she does... That Christians are just as bad, if not worse, than Al-Qaeda.
I know exactly what you mean.
1. The American people will allow themselves to be deceived and then, yes, Dems will have damaged us.
2. Americans will see through the attempted deception and throw the bums out on their collective ear.
Each of these bills received more than 50 votes, but because the republican party threatened to fillibuster each bill. Democrats couldn't get 60 senators to commit to ending debate. So each bill died without being voted upon and going to the President's desk.
Republicans in the senate are on track to threaten almost three times as many fillibusters as any previous congress. They are the ones causing grid-lock in the capitol.
If this trend continues and Democrats take both the Senate and the White House in '08. Then you can be dead certain these issues will come up again, and this time Democrats won't have to seek measures that will be consensus agreements. They will have the power to pass policies that are even more liberal than what is being proposed now.
Conservatives should be calling their representatives and telling them to make compromise deals now on these issues, or they might be left out in the cold.
Of course not!
You don't want compromise...you want your own way...like any child does.
The bill that would have given congressional representation to Washington, DC was full of compromise too. Conservatives would have gotten new representatives in conservative areas, to match the supposed liberal bent of Washington, DC.
EL in the last congress liberals had to compromise on may issues. Like the PATRIOT Act. Like the bills originally stripping habeus corpus rights from US detainees. Democratic representatives took a lot of abuse from the further ends of their spectrum. Now republicans are in the minority.
There are 33 senators running for reelection in '08. 22 of those are republican. There are also 3 republicans retiring. Right now generic polls show people more willing to vote for a democrat than a republican. That's why I'm predicting democratic gains in the senate.
That seems like a good starting point for a discussion. I wouldn't say any reason though, such a description is too broad. I'd probably also want new taxes to help support adoption agencies and social services and free prenatal care. Would you support those taxes?
There are portions of both ends of the political spectrum that won't accept compromise on these issues. Conservatives who oppose all abortions for any reason. And liberals who oppose any limiting the rights of women in medical procedures.
The philosophical question I was asked recently, "If I was in a fertilization clinic and a fire broke out. I could run out with ans save either a 1 year old child or a tray of 20 fertilized embryos. Which would I choose?" It was asked by a women's right advocate obviously, but the question is still legitimate.
Sorry. You lost me with 'Taxes'.
As to the hypothetical you were posed, the answer is simple in terms what a Christian should do: save the life that is 'quantified'... the egg that is hatched as opposed to the ones that haven't.
That is an interesting Hypo. I get the impression that it was crafted to create within someone who is Pro-Life a sort-of moral dilemma, but the answer as I stated above is quite clear. A child that is already viably OUTSIDE the womb is far more valuable than a tray full of embryos that may never come to term in a mother's womb.
Bent, this kind of statement needs a quote before posting it as fact. I have never read anything that made me feel that D. is uncaring about any child. This is what I get upset with liberals about.....imply something and hope that someone believes the implication. Exaggerations are no more than glorified lies and it is an exaggeration to make claims without proof.
We were speaking about how compromise has to be both parties moving from absolutist positions. I wouldn't mind limits on abortion, if I were assured that the resulting children would be supported, whether in the adoption/foster home system or through increased support for low income families, where the majority of abortions come from anyway. Heck I'd even be willing to pay taxes to support such programs. EL is the one who balks. He wants to limit abortions, but isn't willing to make any compromises to get my support.
I don't care about power I care about people. Children who weren't aborted. Families who can't afford college because they're busy feeding kids. Ask your representatives what they've done for the middle/lower class.
You want to strengthen families then work to eliminate two-income households. Differences about money are the number one reason cited in divorce filings. The median wage compared to inflation has been almost flat since the 1970's. Somehow the higher your income the faster it grows compared to inflation.
These are the issues that I see the Democratic party working with. That's why I support their policies.
I hear it all the time: "You can't legislate morality". And yet that is EXACTLY what Democrats try to do with their efforts toward Liberal 'Social Engineering.'
I too would like to help lift the 'under-privileged' for the social gutter, but again, I'd opt for solutions that didn't involve taxing the remaining populace into grumbling discontent.
"FROM the social gutter..."
Let's go fa bit further then, BenT.
If I gave you embryos on a tray would you give me a normal pregnancy?
'Kay?
(I couldn't resist...I tried...just couldn't)
Studies show that kids that only get abstinence education are just as likely to have premarital sex as kids that get a more liberal course of study. The key difference is that kids that are educated about condoms and birth control are more likely to use those options. That means fewer unwanted pregnancies to teen mothers. If conservatives want to make abortions more consequential legally, then the obvious compromise is to support programs that reduce unwanted pregnancies. Even if that means handing out condoms in schools.
Women's rights activists will never concede that such seeds should have the same protections as a 6-month fetus. Die hard conservatives will never move from abstinence only sex education. That's the deadlock. It would mean getting each party to alienate it's firmest base to find a compromise.
Life? Liberty? the Pursuit of Happiness?
Hmmm. Nothing there about social programs or taxation.
Ask any Democrat Candidate how they intend to pay for all the programs they want to institute and they'll all say, "raise taxes on the rich."
Not the "Wealthy," but the RICH... those making 120k or more a year. Taxes don't affect the "Wealthy" but they do affect the ones who pay the brunt of these taxes.
Also... no where in the Constitution, the Bill or Rights, or the Declaration of Independence is there an expressed right to free medical care, free housing, free groceries, free, free, free what-have-you. Too many people think our government exists to GIVE "the People" their daily sustenance. Sadly, so do many Politicians; Democrat AND Republican. But Democrats seem hell-bent on taking this Great Experiment of a Constitutional Republic-- for we are NOT a democracy --in a direction that will ensure the end of this Great Experiment more affectionately referred to as "America."
Republicans are not exempt from Criticism. Democrats likewise. But Democrats use criticism of the Right as a smokescreen... a ploy... to deflect attention from their own agenda. As the trite, yet true reference goes:
"Pay no attention to the [Glaring Inconsistencies in My Proposed Policies] behind the curtain, I am [A] Great And Powerful ["Benevolent" Liberal Democratic]!"
In the end, the "righteous" indignation of Liberals and Democrats when confronted and questioned about their "Evil" plans to destroy America, falls on deaf ears to much of the Right for the simple reason that Liberals and Democrats hypocritically paint Conservatives and Republicans as "Bad for America" when their own policies seek to Destroy what America WAS, in favor of a more socialistic utopia. A utopia, I might add, that has failed EVERYWHERE it's been tried. EVERYWHERE.
Will taxing the "Rich" save the U.S. Dollar from ignominity against the Euro? How will the Left get away with taxing the "Rich" when the "Rich" begin losing investments because of the loss of America's world monetary power?
Mistakes have been made on both sides, but Democrats have offered no plan that will do anything but exacerbate the problems already on the books.
An oak tree can grow huge and mighty, from a little seed. When does it move from plucking a weed to cutting a tree?
You know the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, didn't mandate the creation of the FDA, CDC, Labor Dept., National Parks Service, Dept. of Education, or the Securities and Exchange Commission. Those are social safeguards too. Do you condemn those departments? Would you like the FDA abolished, because George Washington and Benjamin Franklin couldn't foresee the need to make sure that companies, don't sell you talcum powder instead of blood pressure medication? What would we do without a federal postal service? If Eisenhower couldn't build the interstates imagine the cost of Chinese goods? Would Wal-Mart even exist? Those liberal social safeguards make this country strong.
Because seniors have Medicare and Social Security millions are able to work decades longer, contributing to the economy. Because of WIC fewer children die from malnutrition. Because of the Dept. of Education, for decades the United States led the world in new discoveries and scientific advancement. Because of the CDC you don't have to worry about catching tuberculosis at work.
These are all valuable additions to our society. They strengthen the United States. But, they have to be paid for, and that means taxes.
If everyone paid $3,000 per year then some poor families would be paying 30% of their yearly income, while some rich would be paying less than 3% of their yearly income. Does that seem fair? Does that not seem like kicking the already down? That's where the idea of progressive taxation comes from. Liberals support it. Conservatives support it. I personally have never yet heard a compelling reason to oppose progressive taxation.
Take that as a challenge EL. Don't just recycle conservative memes. Explain to me why conservative policies will strengthen the country.
I was a Democrat, raised in a Democrat family with both parents coming from Democrat households. The Democrat party has done more to destroy the family than anything I can think of.....welfare to able bodied young people has been more of a ruination than it would have been to make them suffer the consequences of not working. Idle hands have been responsible for a lot of drug addicts and sex addicts. Had they have had to work they would not have had time to be involved in so many things that were harmful to them and the rest of society. I was still voting Democrat through the election of Jimmy Carter, but it was going down hill then and has escalated ever since.
---
Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. It was a compromise bill that he hammered out with Newt Gingrich's Congress. Bill took criticism in his party because of the concessions he made in the bill. Wikipedia sets out how it reformed welfare best.
"One of the bill's provisions was a time limit. Under the law, no person could receive welfare payments for more than five years, consecutive or nonconsecutive. Another controversial change was transferring welfare to a block grant system, i.e. one in which the federal government gives states "blocks" of money, which the states then distribute under their own legislation and criteria. Some states simply kept the federal rules, but others used the money for non-welfare programs, such as subsidized childcare (to allow parents to work) or subsidized public transportation (to allow people to travel to work without owning cars).[Haskins 2006; Blank 2002]."
So your concerns about welfare while they may have been valid in the 80's and early 90's are a bit out of date now.
You go, dude!
But you're wrong. I will take on the abstinence only stuff first. Back in my day, which I don't think was too much before your day, the sexual revolution was in gear, but there still existed an underlying sense of what "good" kids did and didn't do in that regard. From the 50's and before, while there were still those who engaged in pre-marital sex, the percentage of those were quite small and this was due to expectations placed on, not just the kids, but everyone in general in terms of what was decent and non-decent behavior. Thus, there was no where near the percentages of out-of-wedlock births and/or abortions, back-alley or otherwise, that exists now. It simply wasn't the problem. You may have heard some older people claim that the only problems they had in their schools was gum-chewing and spit-balls. While it is likely an exaggeration, the point is that things have devolved into a degenerate state that few would not have considered shocking and very low class "in the old days". I bring this up to illustrate the sadness of your argument regarding abstinance only education and the alleged results (different studies show differing results--yours back up your argument--not all do).
It is NOW said, that we can't expect people to abstain from sex, (or much of anything, really) but that is the heart of the problems you wish to address through governmental policy and taxation. You complained about Republicans curtailing the bankruptcy situation through their legislation, but this is exactly what is needed in our society to turn it around. Expectations need to be placed upon most everyone in order to achieve ANY utopia. There were fewer pregnancies and abortions among the young of the pre-1960's era due to the expectations placed upon the kids. They were expected to act in a certain manner and understand traditional notions of right and wrong.
The limitations placed on bankruptcy claims places expectations upon people that they ARE responsible for their debt. Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 were used to eliminate such responsibility and it allowed people to take liberties they were not prepared to take. Now, with this "safety net" removed, people are forced to plan better, manage their money better, and, gosh this part is just inhuman, forestall gratification longer if their finances demand it.
The bottom line is, much of what concerns you is the direct result of a lack of expectations that are placed upon people by society and their own selves. And now, you want instead, to place expectations upon those who have adhered to higher standards and notions of character, to dig deeply in order to save others from themselves.
Redistribution of wealth is all fine and dandy if it was just growing on trees waiting to be harvested. But redistribution of wealth in practice is actually the forced donations, otherwise known as "theft", from those who did things properly.
If you truly cared about the downtrodden, show them the error of their ways, show them where they can learn better ways (there's these great places that provide all sorts of free info---we call them "libraries"), encourage people to donate directly to charities willing to help these people. But DON'T think you have any right or moral high ground in TAKING the money from someone else to give to the poor. It doesn't gain you any brownie points whatsoever.
I really want to see the studies you are citing that show abstinence-only sex ed. reduces premarital sex. Today's teens don't live in the 1950's, they live in a society where sexual issues are introduced much earlier. Where ideas about amorous activities are much more relaxed. You have to adapt to today's society. You can't shut down the internet or MTV. The weirdest coincidence is that the highest rates of teen pregnancy are in areas that are both traditionally most conservative and most poor.
And how do you say that Paris Hilton has "did things properly." Or maybe you were talking about Ken Lay? When the dividends tax cut was proposed in 2003 Warren Buffet slammed it saying it was a give-away to the rich and he should know.
If the working class labors to grow the economy, increasing the stock market, shouldn't they expect to get some of those returns as tax receipts? Should someone making 150x what I make pay the same numerical figure in income tax, or should he pay the same percentage of income in taxes? Does Bill Gates get an extra exemption for being rich?
If you want to talk about expectations, talk about expecting a science teacher to educate children with all the new advances in the last 20 years even though the school year is just as long as it was in 1970.
Or maybe talk about a family that brings in less value today than their parents in 1960. What do we expect of our government? Aren't they supposed to try to make things better for everyone? Not just the ultra rich companies and individuals.
Did you know that even though the estate tax only affect about 200 families in the US, it brings in almost 20% of the federal income. If that tax is eliminated then where do you think the federal government is gonna make up the shortfall? On the working class.
I'm willing to pay taxes for all kinds of federal services because it is more efficient for the federal government to handle some things. Imagine if each state had it's own Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
But this is what truly frightens me about the Liberal thought process... The question was:
"...[W]hen should personhood attach to a developing human."
Followed by, in the very same paragraph, this statement:
"Even with a normal 9 month pregnancy and birth a child won't begin to develop permanent memories until he/she is almost 1 year old. It might be even longer before the child's permanent personality begins to form."
The implications of this statement are truly frightening! Does the "fact" that permanent memories don't begin to form till year 1-- as well as personality [an assumption I reject] --make that life any less valuable? Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer believes it's fine to kill children already out of the womb if its in the best interest of the child and/or its family... because of physical or mental handicaps. He justifies this believe with the following:
"it is much worse to kill a being who is aware of having a past and a future, and who plans for the future. Normal humans have such plans."
The context of the previous statement was a hypothetical: Which would you rather kill? 10 cows, or 1 human? On the surface, it may appear that I'm twisting Singers response to the above question by attaching a meaning he did not intend, but this is not the case. Mr. Singer contends that "Normal" humans have memories of a past and hope for the future... Do children? Under the age of one? Especially handicapped children? Who makes the distinction between what is and is not a normal child? or whether or not one child's life will be full; rich with good memories, and another's will not? Government? God forbid!
Does this remind anyone of a certain "der Feurer"? What about the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger who advocated a eugenics program upon the Negro and other "inferiors"?
Personally, I KNOW BenT is not advocating the same here, but I do believe he has so bought into the Liberal Meme that government is the "end all, be all" of panaceas for everything that ails the citizenry, that he speaks without truly hearing what he's saying-- not near as bad as Peter Singer, or Margaret Sanger [perhaps because his last name begins with a "T" and not an "S"], but the questions he raises are just as deadly.
Where is "personal responsibility" in BenT's Utopia? It doesn't exist. Government's role in HIS Utopia is that of a safety net... no one gets to skin their knees or learn from their mistakes. No one gets to play "Tag" on the playground, or read books like "The Red Badge of Courage" or "Fahrenheit 451".
A sampling from the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto:
"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
10. Free education for all children in public schools..."
And now Hillary wants to add Healthcare? Does anyone remember the Cold War? How many billions of dollars did America spend to beat the U.S.S.R.? Why then are Democrats so eager to adopt Communistic principles and ideals, even creating "Social"-ized Programs?
Have they lost their minds?
You KNOW what I think!!!
If you want to keep talking about abortion (even though the original topic was Congress):
When do you think personhood attaches? Fertilization, Implantation, First Trimester, Second Trimester, External Viability, Memory, Personality? I didn't state what my personal choice is, because I simply don't know yet when I think personhood develops.
If you want to talk about social safeguards and a strong federal government: Do you oppose all federal departments and services except those decreed by the Constitution and Associated founding documents? How does having increased power at the state level strengthen us as a country?
If you think that Republicans stalling the business of Congress for partisan goals is a good thing then we could discuss that too. However, I will not answer any of your scurrilous distractions.
If I wanted to I could write a post linking your views to disgraced persons on the right. But I'm not because I think that way lies civil war. I know you love this country and the freedoms America stands for. However all I ever get from you are generalizations and character attacks. If you have reasons you believe like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Michell Malkin and Bill O'Reilly, then state them. You are articulate with words, use them to express your reasons and thoughts.
If on the other hand all you have is a hatred of liberals because that is what you've been told, then it's time you started searching for reasons to back up your political views. Seek out the red meat of political discourse - studies, policy analysis, the actual language of legislation.
Well, first of all, it's not "federal" anything, as in, the United States Postal Service is not run by the Federal Government... but rather is Semi-privatized, and out of the filthy hands of Congress.
The United States Postal Service, quote, "...handles more than 680 million pieces of mail [and] ...relies on the revenue from these deliveries to survive, because it does not receive funding from taxpayer dollars."
As to WHEN the "Federal" Postal Service became semi-privatized-- From the same source:
"On August 12, 1970, President Richard M. Nixon signed Public Law 91-375, which reorganized the federal Post Office Department as the United States Postal Service. Under the new law, which went into effect on July 1, 1971, the Service emerged as an independent agency of the executive branch, no longer under the control of Congress. Operational authority passed to a President-appointed and Senate-approved Board of Governors and a managerial infrastructure, headed by the Postmaster General named by the Governors. No longer a cabinet member, the Postmaster General became the Service CEO. The law gave the new agency the authority to issue public bonds to finance operations and to engage in collective bargaining between management and union representatives. It also established a postal rate-setting policy and procedure regulated by the independent Postal Rate Commission.
"The reorganization and partial privatization of the Post Office Department was undertaken to solve difficulties that by the 1960s had made its traditional operation an ineffective and financially disastrous albatross for the American taxpayer. Because the rates charged for services no longer bore any relationship to their actual cost, the Post Office had come to depend heavily on federal subsidies, rendering it increasingly susceptible to the vicissitudes of partisan politics. Furthermore, the managerial organization had turned into a bureaucratic maze, with a blurring of the lines of authority and fragmented control. Underfunding also had meant a continued reliance on antiquated facilities and equipment and mail-handling methods that, except for the introduction of the ZIP Code in 1963, had not changed since the turn of the century, despite a vastly expanded volume of mail. The resulting inefficiency led to long delays in service, with jams that from time to time brought it to a virtual standstill..."
HillaryCare may not immediately become an "ineffective and financially disastrous albatross for the American taxpayer," but in time, as all bloated Federal Bureaucracies do, it WILL come to resemble the carcass of a whale beached and dying, much as Social Security is now. It will become an Election Platform... "Vote for us and we'll save Healthcare!" Yet another bloated entitlement program for which they can tax us.
Congress can't get anything done now-- retreating back to the point of this post! Why then give them something else to screw up!? Especially something that is already close to being completely screwed up? It makes no sense that BenT and the god-like Democrats argue for more "Federal" control over the lives of the American people. We are nothing more than "Sources of Revenue" to the Government, and "Sources of Political Capital" [in the form of voting blocks] to our elected representatives.
BenT doesn't want Hillary as president any more than I do, but he DOES want the Federal Government controlling more of our lives than they have the right to control.
The view you presented however did have overtones that were, as I stated, "Frightening".... to me, at least.
Please accept my sincerest apologies. I regret you saw something in what I wrote, that I did not intend. Perhaps I too crafted statements fraught with unintended implications.
The postal service may not now be a federal department, but it began as one. Perhaps federal healthcare may one day need to be overhauled as well. Right now though, healthcare costs are rising at three times the rate of inflation. Inflation yearly averages out to 3%. Did you get a 9% raise this year? If not then your income fell behind in relation to your healthcare.
Did you know that 10% of healthcare costs go to administration? That's secretaries and managers and corporate brochures. The Veteran's Administration which is a much more federalized system spends about 1% on administrative costs.
Surveys show that the people most happy with their healthcare are seniors on Medicare. Did you know that the US spends more per capita on healthcare than any other industrialized nation (I think any nation in the world) and we don't live significantly longer. The US has the highest rates of obesity and other preventable diseases than any other industrialized nation. Did you know that this week GM union workers went on strike because of negotiations over healthcare fell apart. Last year sometime I heard that healthcare costs added $1500 to every GM vehicle that came off the assembly line.
You personally, EL, if you lost your job or quit could you do without employer healthcare for six months to a year? Should that be something your employer can hang over your head?
How does our current system strengthen us as a nation? We spend more and get less value for our money. Almost all the industrialized nations of the world have federal healthcare, each with different strong and weak points. If we don't like the waiting times in Canada let's see how the Swiss do it.
The postal system was privatized when it became moribund and too expensive. Well the healthcare system has become moribund and too expensive, so I say let's federalize it. If things don't work out then we can always privatize it again. Because with issues like this systems have to work. If a federal healthcare system limits patients choice, denies life-saving procedures, then there will be a groundswell against it and changes will be made.
What is going to happen is that around 2025 the Social Security Trust Fund will not be able to pay benefits at 100% levels. If nothing changes and Social Security continues on with current law then when the Trust Fund is empty there will still be money coming in and SS payout levels will drop to 80%. That's if the SS actuaries worst-case scenarios happen.
If the US economy performs 2-3% better than expected over the next decade and a half then the SS Trust Fund will be solvent for that much longer. If we wanted to be sure that SS continues to pay out at 100% levels then we need to deposit into the SS Trust Fund sometime between now and 2017 about $4.75-Trillion. That would according to the Bush appointed actuaries make the SS Trust Fund solvent into infinity. Yes, that's right forever.
$4.75-Trillion sounds like a lot, but just recently Pres. Bush was talking about the US staying in Iraq for decades like we have in Korea. The army estimates that it will take $5-Trillion for us to maintain a presence in Iraq similar to that in Korea for 50 years.
I support social security because I know there is no way I could ever earn enough to support myself, my mother and my aunts. Could any of us if we had to support our parents at 60% of their income? That's what SS does, it takes today's workers' money, and supports today's retirees.
Huh? That's an error in judgment that adds to my mistrust in ...well...your judgment, BenT.
But...you are correct in your assessment of the the left...I'm surprised you are even able to admit it.
The leftist champions of immorality and irresponsibility will NEVER give an inch.
The left will NEVER admit that abortion in almost EVERY case is nothing more than murder for sake of convenience.
To deny the logic in that is...well...illogical.
How can abstinence be taught without also teaching about methods of control? Teaching methods of control doesn't have to include step-by-step instructions. Kids are pretty damned smart, BenT. Let's give them the facts...and let's tell them how absolutely F***ED their lives could become if they don't use the good-sense that God gave them to recognize how dangerous immorality is to their future well-being.
Immorality destroys lives. Why do you champion it? Why do you promote it?