Obama secures major new endorsement...

I've read through this entire stream, and it just so clearly demonstrates once again that liberalism is indeed a degenerative mental disease, and that ignorance truely is bliss.

 

Hey guys. I took a nice ride today on my VFR.
Great weather for a ride here in the Bay Area today.., almost 80 degrees!!!
Just wanted to share that with all my VFR World brothers (and sisters).

 

"Truth" and "smart" used it the same sentence with "liberal"??? ound::lol:ound::lol: You're kidding, right? Since I'm a conservative, why did I waste all that time in college? Oh yeah, me so stoopid. Me no like The Obama, so me must be dum.

 

About 3-4 weeks ago, I had 3 patients in the office who are all on the public payroll as one might say. The 3 are a brother, a sister, and the brother's girlfriend. They all live together. They were in 3 different rooms. One of them was telling me how they had not eaten in 3 days. She explained to me that her check would not be cut until the first of the month and her foodstamps would not be there until the fifth of the month.

I am a compassionate man and my initial response was to start figuring in my head how much they will need to get them by until the first of the month. Shortly there after, her cell phone started to vibrate... Her brother, who was in the room next door was texting her. I thought... what is this, they can afford cell phones but not food. A minute or two later, the brother's girlfriend was texting her from the room down the hall.

That is not all... It gets better.

When I am in the room with the brother's girlfriend, she starts talking to me about staying up too late (3:00 a.m.) playing Wii Party Games. This is also the reason they will not accept appointment times in the morning. They don't get out of bed before noon.

By now, I am no longer feeling compassionate.

Me, on the other hand, am showered and out the door around 8:00 a.m. After a 42 minute drive to the hospital, I am seeing patients at 9:00 a.m. I work until 4:30, or later. I come home, and do about an hour or more of paperwork from the house. In the cage, I spend about 15 dollars a day just to get to work and back home. On the bike, it is about 8 bucks a day. My student loan payment is about as big as a mortgage payment.

The insurance companies are cutting re-imbursements and fee schedules. One insurance company has cut re-imbursement on routine urinalysis to $1.86. So, let's say our phlebotomist makes 12 dollars an hour. She collects and packages the urine in a specimen cup and vacutainer that probably costs a buck. She spends 10 minutes collecting and transporting to the lab. That is another 2 dollars for her time. She takes it to a lab tech who is making say 18 bucks an hour. Let's say the tech works on the sample for 10 minutes also. That is another 3 dollars that the hospital has spent. This is not to mention the equipment costs, the energy costs, and depreciation of the equipment. Therefore,

1 dollar for packaging.
2 dollars to phlebotomist.
3 dollars to lab tech.
10 dollars estimated to other associated costs.
= 16 dollars to perform test.

Insurance pays about 2 bucks.

We lose 14 dollars on every routine urinalysis.

The sad thing is this... Private insurers are forcing physicians and hospitals to accept a fee schedule that is roughly the same as the government set Medicare/Medicaid fee schedules.

How do we stay in business when we lose 14 dollars on a routine examination? Is this the best government can do... They force us to work at a loss to recoup 1/8th of the money that they take from us.

On the other hand, if you work for a living, you have to pay to bring the hospital back to a closer margin. You have to pay for your test. In addition, you have to pay for the labwork of the guy who was in bed while you were busting your hind end at work. Socialism rocks doesn't it???

So how do we stay in business? We are a not-for-profit hospital that receives some charitable donations from wealthy people who care about their community and get a little tax deduction while they are at it.

 

Look at it like this, you'll be helping your less fortunate neighbors. Of course that is just an assumption on your part, not that you would ever do anything like that unless some liberal DNC member forced you to, by "controlling" the government. Just keep minding how your neighbors down the street might be living their lives and don't bother yourself with the reality of the situation. You don't really have time to worry about the real issues with all of this neighbor watching you have to do. Keep up the good work. That "white guilt" comment was especially great, something I would expect from the constituency of the party of change. Sorry to take up your time when sean hannity is on....

 

Ed you've got to be kidding me, you didn't amswer my question about wealth. A mind is like a parachute, it needs to be open to work.

 

I should have know with a screen name with California in it......

I have to ask, what do you do for a living? How much do you make?
These two questions aren't to be nosey, they are to find out how bad your rectum hurts after seeing worthless slouches live better than you on your dime. I give around 10-12% of my annual salary (reasonably small 40-45K) to the charity of MY choice. How 'bout you? Probably not. People with your mindset would rather we ALL give to the government and let them hand it out to who THEY want. Yes, I look at that chic and get pissed. Everytime she wants a raise, all she has to do is pump out another dependent. The government has certain functions, like said before, protect us, make sure we are safe (health), and to a certain extent help the helpless. By helpless I mean cripples and the mentally retarded. Not a bunch of 4th and 5th generation welfare cases.

So, how much do you give? Or don't you want to tell us and you want us to all give and help the unfortunate behind us?

The only thing behind us is big government and the liberal tools deep dicking us in the wallet.

Sorry to bother you while your getting your legs waxed and listening to Air America. Wait, NO ONE listens to Air America!

 

I think Ed and I would agree that the net effect of all such policies has been the mass accumulation of a 10 trillion dollar national debt. We have the largest economy in the world. Our corporations pay the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world (second to Japan). I know you will argue that Bush took the debt from 5 trillion to 10 trillion, so I will address it now. Bush was spineless to not demand spending cuts in non-essential programs. Furthermore, I would say that Bush was spineless not to demand our exodus from the United Nations... Here are some stats to ponder.

* Americans pay more to the UN than the other 177 member nations combined.
* Foreign nations that receive most of the US donated foreign aid, vote against the American interest 74% of the time.

(I think it is time for us to get out of the United Nations and quit propping up a bunch of 3rd world socialist dictators... This is not the time for us to elect a socialist who will make us a 3rd world country.)

You talk about using agency regulation to redistribute wealth. Let's see where that has gotten us.

*Community Reinvestment Act: It was passed in 1977 under Carter. It was strengthened in 1992 by Clinton. It demanded that banks make loans to certain Democratic constituencies (minorities) who had been considered too high risk for the bank to loan to previously. This act created Affirmative Action in lending and expanded the function of the government owned but publically traded institutions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It lead to the rise of subprime loans and collapsed the banking and financial markets. This is a prime example of using government regulation to redistribute wealth. Obviously, the good intentions of the Democrats were far overshadowed by the disasterous consequences of their regulatory policies.

You talk about trade policy for the purpose of redistributing wealth. Where has that gotten us.

*The net effect of combined Environmental and Trade policies regarding the production and importation of crude oil has lead to the transfer of 700 billion dollars to foreign regimes that do not have the better interest of the US at heart. We send billions to them, they strangle us with our own energy needs, and use our dollars to fund terrorists. Meanwhile, we have reserves of oil, oil shale, coal, and natural gas under our own ground. We have nuclear capacities. We could employ hundred of thousands of people in mining, drilling, transporting, and refining. Yet, the Democrats, beholden to the environmentalists, through trade policy keep you and me in subjection to the Middle East, Russia, and Venezuala. Is this a good way to redistribute wealth?

Jim, will you admit that a big, over-reaching government is not the answer to the problems that we have? Will you admit that the government has done more to create problems than it has done to solve them?

 

Thats nice and all but I like the retort that most people have:

NAh NAH NAH NAH YOUR WRONG AND I'M RIGHT, MR. POOPYPANTS!!!!!!!

 

:bs: You sound just like Barry; cliches, empty phrases, meaningless words and gestures. All form, no substance. Now go do something meaningful, like go for a ride.

 

Bob, the 'Big L' has the same relevance as your post, as said post is untrue, misleading and slanted. What is a liberal; I haven’t seen a real one in a long time.

I do not like welfare but I do not see that as the problem; I see declining incomes for the middle class as the problem. Here are just a few examples of trends that are disturbing:
· The top 1% make as much as the bottom 50%.
· 50% of Americans make less that $44K
· The highest income percentage group makes $10K to $20K
· Real incomes have been declining since 2000
· In 2000, entry-level computer help desk staffers earned about $55,000; now, $35,000.
· Manufacturing employment fell by 35,000 in July bringing losses over the past 12 months to 383,000
· We graduate 1/5 the engineers that China and India do

With 70% of GNP coming from consumer spending and much of that done on credit one has to ask where do we go from here? Is the problem a conservative or liberal problem or does it go far beyond that. No one is better off in the long run given the trends that have brought us where we are today; in a recession that is going to be deep and protracted. The course forward is not just a question of tax policy and clearly what we have been doing is not working.

I could mot agree with you more about insurance companies and they are one of several industries groups that have undue influence in Washington. Meanwhile the populace is arguing conservative liberal while big special interest run the country by influacing two political parties that are tantamount to Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. Yet what do the labels liberal and conservative mean?

Take me for example, I am for among other things:
1. Right to choose
2. Gun ownership
3. Low taxes
4. Small government
5. legalization of drugs
6. Separation of church and state
7. Progressive taxation
8. Civil unions (not gay marriage)
9. Removing insurance companies from the health care system!!!
10. Social security (do not call it an entitlement; I have paid the maximum for over 35 years)
11. A more efficient military (read less expensive)


So what does that make me? We need to move beyond the two political parties; how that will happen I am not sure.

 

Let's face it people. No matter who is elected into office, our taxes will be raised anyway. Whether it is for health care or the foreclosure relief fund, no matter what either Obama or McCain says, they will raise our taxes some way or another. So the average Joe, the small business owner, the large corporate owners, will all have money taken from our pockets to help out others. So this argument about who is going to take from our wallets to bail out the lazy or less fortunate is ultimately void. I think this issue should be put aside because of this. There are actual issues that they will, in fact, differ on once in office. Education of our children and our future leaders being one of them. Not taxation. Calling Obama a terrorist is getting about as old as McCain too. Just not true. It is a last ditch effort from McCain/Palin and their supporters to swing a cheap vote. A low blow that takes away from their credibility and respect. We don't hear any Obama supporters saying things like "McCain was a Communist and gave away valuable information to his captors in the prison camps" do we? That would be the same as calling Obama a terrorist. Just doesn't make sense, and it is sad to see two adults running for such high positions in government sinking to that level. Again, another reason it is looking like they will lose this election.

 

Knife, at least you own a nice Bike.

 

I think this is the general consensus:

Obama isn't a terrorist
McCain is old

Face it, we're all screwed for the next 4yrs no matter who is in. They are both a couple 'a nimrods.
I can't say it enough: We should be pissed these are the two choices.


And one more thing. This country is the "land of opportunity" not the "land of entitlement". Nobodies guarantied success. You can fall ass first into wealth or you can work yourself to death and never get anything. Its not the governments job to GIVE you anything. You go out and make it on your own. You might make it or you might not. NO GUARANTIES!

And no, that didn't come from any Republican talking head. Thats pure Anthony Cumia from "Opie & Anthony". He was a poor, working piece of garbage and became a millionaire on his hard work and talent. Not a social program. The source might not be everybodies idea of genius, but its about as true as it can get.

 

I don't have time to adequately addess the problems with the remainder of your post. I have half of my garage dragged out into the driveway and it is probably going to rain in the next hour or two, but I did want to respond to this...

What specifically did I say that was untrue? What specifically did I say that was misleading? And, what specifically did I say that was slanted?

In two posts now, you, Jim, have essentially called me a racist and a liar.

When I disagree with your points, I elaborate on them. You just call me a liar or a racist without addressing the specifics regarding the statements that I have made.

That is typical of the LIBERAL playbook. And that begs me to ask, why are you do defensive about the word liberal? You said that you haven't seen a real liberal in a long time... Are you telling me that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Ted Kennedy aren't real liberals? Are you telling me that Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are not real liberal organizations? Are you telling me that Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews aren't real liberals?

Maybe I don't understand what a real liberal ideologue looks like. Perhaps, you can tell me what constitutes a real liberal.

 

Bob this is not true, That is what I am saying. You posted it, what do you want form me an apology for saying something is not true that is not true? I am certainly not calling you a liar because my assumption is you know it is not true and it was tongue and cheek
I am not a liberal but it appears in your eye anyone left of extreme right is, stop acting so self righteous.

Where did I say this?

 

Bob it did not read this until after I read your last post so I here is what I would say


think Ed and I would agree that the net effect of all such policies has been the mass accumulation of a 10 trillion dollar national debt. Yes run up by the republicans We have the largest economy in the world. Our corporations pay the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world (second to Japan) Our rate is higher but in actual total taxes paid we rank 34th we also rank behind a bunch of developed countires in corp taxes as a percent of GNP (from the labor department) . I know you will argue that Bush took the debt from 5 trillion to 10 trillion, so I will address it now. Bush was spineless to not demand spending cuts in non-essential programs. Furthermore, I would say that Bush was spineless not to demand our exodus from the United Nations... Here are some stats to ponder.

* Americans pay more to the UN than the other 177 member nations combined.
* Foreign nations that receive most of the US donated foreign aid, vote against the American interest 74% of the time. Agreed

(I think it is time for us to get out of the United Nations and quit propping up a bunch of 3rd world socialist dictators... This is not the time for us to elect a socialist who will make us a 3rd world country.) Agreed but Obama is not a Socialist - I cannot name one card carrying socialist, hence my comment about liberals.

You talk about using agency regulation to redistribute wealth. Let's see where that has gotten us.

*Community Reinvestment Act: It was passed in 1977 under Carter. It was strengthened in 1992 by Clinton. It demanded that banks make loans to certain Democratic constituencies (minorities) who had been considered too high risk for the bank to loan to previously. This act created Affirmative Action in lending and expanded the function of the government owned but publically traded institutions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It lead to the rise of subprime loans and collapsed the banking and financial markets. This is a prime example of using government regulation to redistribute wealth. Obviously, the good intentions of the Democrats were far overshadowed by the disasterous consequences of their regulatory policies. You do not mention Phil Graham and ‘Graham Leach Bliley’. You do not mention the real problem we face that being credit default swaps ($60 trillion world wide) and synthetics. The Democrats tried to enforce regulations and the republicans successfully blocked them.

You talk about trade policy for the purpose of redistributing wealth. Where has that gotten us.

*The net effect of combined Environmental and Trade policies regarding the production and importation of crude oil has lead to the transfer of 700 billion dollars to foreign regimes that do not have the better interest of the US at heart. We send billions to them, they strangle us with our own energy needs, and use our dollars to fund terrorists. Meanwhile, we have reserves of oil, oil shale, coal, and natural gas under our own ground. We have nuclear capacities. We could employ hundred of thousands of people in mining, drilling, transporting, and refining. Yet, the Democrats, beholden to the environmentalists, through trade policy keep you and me in subjection to the Middle East, Russia, and Venezuala. Is this a good way to redistribute wealth? Agreed but not what I was driving at.

Jim, will you admit that a big, over-reaching government is not the answer to the problems that we have? No it is not a yes or no question it depends on what type of government. Will you admit that the government has done more to create problems than it has done to solve them? Yes

 

Oh, that's original. LOL!

 

Thanks for the graph... If you notice, the USA ranks relatively low in "Misery Index" in comparison with other countries. If we look at what drives the Misery Index, we will see why an Obama presidency would move us more toward France and less toward the Emirates.

The Misery Index is increased by the net effect of high taxes:
** If you increase the corporate tax, you increase the misery index.
** If you increase the personal tax, you increase the misery index.
** If you increase Social Security Taxes, you increase the misery index.
** If you increase the sales tax, you increase the misery index.
** If you add a wealth tax, you increase the misery index.

The only way to lower the misery index is to:
** Decrease corporate taxes, personal taxes, Social Security taxes, sales taxes, death taxes, etc.

Obama's policies are to increase taxes and to drive us toward a European/French model of government.

**Misery Index (France) = 174.8
**Misery Index (USA) = 85.3

In another thread, you lauded the model in place in Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark... You said that we should not be afraid of the political models in place in these Scandanavian countries. Well, lets compare the misery indices of these countries to these countries to the USA.

** Misery Index (Sweden): 150
** Misery Index (Finland): 133.7
** Misery Index (Norway): 131
** Misery Index (Denmark): 123
** Misery Index (USA) = 85.3

Why should we embrace these models of government? Higher taxes spread misery, not wealth. If we use the Misery Index as a measure, wouldn't we be better off in the status quo rather than adopting policies that will raise taxes for the purpose of "spreading the wealth around?"

Your graph is one of the best arguments that I could make for conservative priniciples.

 

Bernie Sanders is a self-professed Socialist-Democrat Senator from Vermont. Why would Obama "Stump" for him if he did not have tendencies to agree with him? One of the national journals ranked Obama as being more liberal than Bernie Sanders.

Here is a link to the stump speech for Sanders...
YouTube - Bernie and Barack Address Overflow Crowd