yyz28

I find myself trying to care, but alas, I can not. This news is about as interesting as Soccer. Next topic please.

Great work as always, Smitty! Thank you!

FAIL! I know this will shock you, but there are more than one thread on this subject. ...a far more thoughtful request asking "if not this, then what would YOU do?" was asked in another thread over a month ago by Harry. Senate Health Committee Clears Insurance Overhaul ...and here was my response: Harry, this is a thoughtful question. First, I don't want to speak for anyone, but I don't think many of us who are against THIS proposal are opposed to reform of some sort, but the reform needs to address the "why do we have the problems you listed in the first place, and how do we control them" question. One of the prime reasons healhcare costs are skyrocketing is because there is more demand due to an aging population bubble and uncontrolled immigration. In addition government is not paying for the obligations it has already made to the healthcare industry via the medicare and medicaid programs. Additionally, health care providers are over-burdened with paperwork requirements to satisfiy the government, regulatory boards, HIPAA compliance and have sky-high malpractice insurance rates, which has continued to climb while congress after congress (which is full of lawers) refuse to address the issue of tort reform. Most doctors I know spend more time, either through their own hard work, or through salaries they pay multiple assistants, to keep up with the alredy out of control paperwork, regulation and red tape the government has already created. Many folks choose to be uninsured, as a result of their priorities. As Rick has demonstrated here, insurance premiums monthly are expensive, but not cost prohibititve if prioritized for. Individuals, not government, should set these priorities. How would I fix it? 1. This is one of the few places where I would be against states rights - there needs to be a uniform code by which insurance can be written so insurance companies may control their costs and the same plan in New Jersey may be sold in Texas, by the same company, as opposed to the way it is now. Allow smaller companies who are only in one state or another compete with other companies and the big boys in all 50 states. 2. Tort Reform. If we're going to get anything done that will begin to IMMEDIATLEY lessen the burden on the healthcare system and allow rates to come down, THIS is what should be done by August. 3. Pour through the massive piles of law and regulation that currently control the medical profession and clean it up so that medical professionals spend more time with patients and less time with paperwork. 4. Secure the borders. 5. Deny all but life saving care to illegal immigrants and their families. 6. Allow small and medium sized businesses to band together to pursue more cost effective insurance for their employees with a system that doesn't have the problems the current one does (groups don't all have to buy the same insurance for everyone, one company is not penalized if other members fail, downsize or go out of business, etc. Harry, I guess the point that Rick is trying to make, and I happen to agree with it, is that NO reform is better than what is being proposed. Even if you are for reform, you can't seriously be for the plan that is before congress unless you want government run, mandated and controlled coverage, because that is the net of what this bill is going to give us, despite the promises from the President. Either he's lying or he doesn't know what is in the bill. There is a provision that was uncovered yesterday that I think has been posted in this discussion that literally kills private coverage in one shot. The provision calls for no more private policies to be written once the new government policy is in place. This will cause insurance companies to go out of business very quickly as businesses dump their coverage since the national plan will be available. This plan penalizes any individual who doesn't have, want or need health insurance by forcing them to have insurance, and pay into the system via a compusary tax. Just like Social Security (which is broke) just like medicare (which is broke) and just like California does (...and that state... is B R O K E!!!) That's not freedom. That's not choice. We the people can't pay for the obligations this government has made as it is. EVERY social program in this country is either broke or headed in that direction. This program can not be sustained without ever higher taxes, and should be defeated at all costs. We should not destroy the healthcare of the 85% of the population who has it to give lesser coverage to the 15% who don't have it, many of whom don't have it by choice. The constant drumbeat and repetition of the "if you are against Obamacare, you are for the status quo" couldn't be further from the truth. Many of us have ideas that would help control the cost of healthcare and make it more affordable to people even of minimal means. There are several alternatives to what has been suggested by this President and congress that have been introduced by Republican leaders that have every opportunity to work. ...and NONE of them will throw out our system in favor of a socialist national government run system, so if our ideas fail, the entire system doesn't get destroyed. If our ideas fail, national healthcare is still an option. Very few people in this country are actually uninsured for an extended period of time who actually WANT to be insured. This is a made-up crisis, and the system being proposed by the Obama administration and Congress will do severe, permanant damage to health care in this country and as well as around the world. The rest of the world who has socialized medicine waits for us to innovate and then they use what we come up with. What happens when the free market forces that lead to innovation go away? Giving the government control over your healthcare, your VERY LIFE, means you are giving up your freedom.

If we're going to attack someone for their brain power, perhaps we should understand the difference between the debt and a deficit. Nice form, but a little rough on the landing... you may have to settle for the bronze.

I'll notify my Army and Marine friends in Iraq and Afganistan. They'll be relieved.

Perhaps it is better to say that most folks in a socialized system are dis-satisfied with it and feel it needs fundamental overhaul just as may feel about our system. This is the article I am quoting for. I'm including the references 10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care So again, I call on everyone to slow down and not throw away this system. Let's back up, figure out what is broken and try to surgically fix it (no pun intended) than throw it away. Thoes of us who are against the President's plan aren't for the "Status Quo" to use the President's own term - we just have different ideas and don't want the system thrown in the trash. We want to keep our own choices and freedoms.

This thread should be split into it's own topic now... LOL! ...but to measure the efficiency of electircs against IC's you have to look at the whole picture over the vehicle's lifetime. Electrics take more energy to build. Electricity isn't free, it must be made by burning coal, water turning turbines, etc. In the end they ARE more efficient in terms of power needed to be produced and go 100,000 miles, but IC cars are cheper and more efficiant to produce, and are instantly rechargable (simply fill up.) I think that electrics will come into their own in the next few years and be common in-town commuters. ...but Hydrogyn or something along those lines will have to replace gasoline and be able to power large cars and get refueled anywhere making the range basically infinate just like cars are today before there will be a major change in the consumer's desires.

Oh, Emmitt, come off it. Rationing wasn't in the UK or Canadian legislation either. The bill is just a bill. It doesn't address its own consiquences. Rationing happens when there is unlimited demand due to no cost to the end consumer and limited supply. This is a pretty basic concept. Government Run healthcare, EVERYWHERE it has been tried, has led to rationing. It will happen here too. There is no reason, no logic that you can present that will make it otherwise. Combine that with the fact that many doctors will retire rather than put up with this new system and you have a shrinkage in the supply. Services will HAVE to be cut. We can't fund what we are doing now. The lofty language of "While the current proposals include savings in Medicare by cutting out fraud, abuse, waste, and inefficiency..." falls on deaf ears as we only quadruple or more the size of the system and bureaucracy. You can't increase the size of the program the way this bill does and have any chance of possibly cut our fraud, abuse, waste and MOST OF ALL inefficiency. You WORK for the Government - you can't sit there and tell my you believe any government agency you've worked with or near that grows both in size and scope by a factor of 4 overnight is efficient. There is no direct euthanasia approved in the bill - that statement is true. ...but as rationing becomes a reality, choices are going to have to be made. If there isn't enough for everything that everyone wants, someone, somewhere, in a building who's never seen you and most likely the part of the country you live in, is going to make the decisions about what things your doctor says you need you get... and then, they set the schedule of when you're going to get it. This bill is dangerous. ANYONE in their right mind should be pushing against it. I have no problem with REAL reform, and there are alternitives to this 1000 page single payer option bill that won't destory the system we have now. The system we have now isn't perfect, but it IS the best in the world. Let's work to fix it, and not copy what the UK and Canada have done, both of which are a miserable failure and have much higher dis-satiscation rates than ours does. Giving the government control over your life and healthcare means you have lost your freedom.

Yup... Heads/Cam/Stroker/Stalled 2000Z28 - gets about 15 in town and about 25 on the road... (Gotta love having a lock-up clutch in the converter.) ...but at Wide Open Throttle, I can watch the gas gauge drop. LOL! Rumpity, Rumpity.

The program is not a success. Read the government numbers I posted above. While the program has moved a few cars, it has not met ANY of the goals actually lined out by Congress and the Obama administration, as exhibited above with Government numbers. GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF TAMPERING WITH PRIVATE ENTERPRISE!!! This is not a stimulus plan and once the free handout is over, there is no long term benefit to this program. The fact you actually believe that the math on the Tax Receipts will exceed $3,500 per car proves to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that you are no economist.

I acutally agree with you Flyer. I, however, want to see Roe v. Wade overturned as it is bad law based on a right (the "made up" right to privacy) that doesn't exist in the Constitution. Abortion should be a states level issue.

The Tesla BASE MODEL, no options, is $101,500. It should be able to run with the other supercars out there for that price. I've got a little Camaro that would like to have a word with it. (and that overrated GT-R POS, but that's a topic for another thread entirely...) I don't think Flyer was suggesting that electric cars won't be big in the future, but PRIVATE BUSINESS should develop them on their own and build cars as technology evolves that consumers want. THEN people will come and buy them all on their own because they are better than their Gas counterparts. It shouldn't be Government in the car building and R&D business (GM not withstanding) it should be private enterprise. Flyer is correct in saying electric cars that price within my reach (and probabaly yours...) DO, in fact... SUCK. 10 years down the road, maybe we'll all feel differently.

The entirety of world history would disagree with this statement. While I believe THIS government is the best man has ever devised, it is still loaded with corruption and profit motive. You can see it on both sides of the isle. Power and staying in office is far more important than helping the people. Rewarding the groups that got you into office is far more important than doing what is in the best interest of the general public. Government is fundamentally corrupting, and the founders knew this and tried to control the size and scope of the government under the constitution. The firewalls in that document were blown past years ago (the largest hole placed in it in the 30's and 40's with the new deal, though Nationalized Healthcare will make the new deal look like a small expendeture) and now power and the desire to line their own and their friends pockets are the motivations of most in government. I DO truely believe that many individuals in Government are benevolant and want what is best for everyone - but the government as a whole is simply inefficient, bloated, corrupt and growing in power daily. The more power the federal government has, the less freedoms you have. This is a simple truth that escapes the statist who believes the government is basically a "good guy" trying to look out for everyone. ...the fact that you believe government won't deny claims simply proves you haven't studied the history of socialized govnerment medicine across the world. Rationing is a part of the deal. Denying cliaims to the elderly is part of the deal. There simply isn't the money to cover unlimited demand on the system, even if we raise taxes to 50% across the board. Claims will HAVE to get denyed as there is only so much to go around. A single payer system, which is what this is all about, despite the misinformation being pushed out there, will fail here as it has everywhere else it has been tried. Long waits, long lines and rationing is the endgame of national healthcare. When the "benevolant" government has your very life and health in its hands, you are no longer free.

The analogy is a. flawed, b. not very good, and c. irrelevant. Under what article and section of the constitution is the man's Old F150 a concern of the federal government's? I'm not sure, mabye I'm being obtuse and stopping at step one, so I'll keep reading... Still trying to find why the Government should be involved at all here. If the man wants a new car, he should either figure out how to do it on his own, or do without. This is just how life is. If you can't afford it, do without. I'm still looking for the Constitutional authority under which "Cash for Clunkers" falls. Cash for Clunkers - a wealth redistribution program, based on one group behaving in a way the Government desires, despite the legal freedoms of every US Citizen to make another choice the Government not like as much. Our tax dollars are being spent to allow people who can't afford a new car (or, more likely, CAN afford to get a new car without the tax advantage, but are going to take the handout because it is there) when we can't keep Social Security solvent. This points to extremely flawed priorities. If wealth redistribution is required to gain an incentive, then there is no real business case for more economical cars. If there was a good business case, this would be happening in the free market without the (totally unconstitutional) government intervention. If the benefit of the more efficient vehicle made a good economic sense to the consumer it would happen without a government program. There is no consideration about the fact that the energy needed to build the new car is greater than the environmental impact of 4-5 MPG over the lifetime of the vehicle in terms of (so called) greenhouse gasses. The child not dying of some respritory disorder is a straw man and a non sequitor. The man could have had no car payment and paid slightly more for gas, and had plenty left over to still buy the ham. Do you know how much gas you can buy for the cost of a car payment? No doubt this is a winfall for Ford, GM and the other car makers. I object in the same manner I objectected to the bailout of GM. It isn't the place of the Government to mess with the free market. These companies should rise and fall on their own merits and products. ...and there is the biggest fallacy in your argument. There is no way that the federal government's tax take on each vehicle is greater than the Cash for clunker's rebate. The ONLY way your argument be true is for the FEDERAL government to get more than $3500 tax revenue per the average vehicle sold under this program in the form of tax revenue from Ford, which, I think we all know, isn't going to happen. Moreover, when you get past the headlines, it becomes clear that your brilliantly flowcharted scenario... Isn't what is really happening - ‘Cash for Clunkers,’ By the Numbers By Ken Belson - Wheels Section, New York Times - August 4th, 2009 The “cash for clunkers” program introduced last week appears to have been a success, at least based on the tens of thousands of consumers who streamed into their local car dealers to swap their beaters for new, more fuel-efficient replacements. According to a survey of car dealerships and 2,200 consumers by CNW Research, the average fuel economy of vehicles traded in last week was 16.3 miles per than the 18 m.p.g. needed to qualify for a government rebate of $3,500. The relatively small differential suggests that consumers have not been turning in the oldest, dirtiest and least fuel-efficient cars, but instead have been getting rid of their second and third cars, according to Art Spinella, who ran the survey. “These are third cars used for kids in school,” Mr. Spinella said. The vehicles that consumers bought with their credits had average fuel efficiency ratings of 24.8 miles a gallon, he said. Lawmakers hoped the “cash for clunkers” program, formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, would reduce America’s dependence on imported oil. But the early results of the program suggest that may not happen. The vehicles turned in were driven about 6,000 miles a year, he said. If the new vehicles are driven about 12,000 miles a year, the rough annual average, then consumers will actually use more fuel, not less. “The energy independence argument did not ring true, at least so far,” Mr. Spinella said. He added that the average annual income of those who bought cars with their rebates was $57,700, just under the $61,000 for all new car buyers these days. That suggests that consumers with the lowest incomes who, in theory, need the rebates most, are not benefiting from the program. One of the problems, Mr. Spinella said, is that even a $4,500 rebate may not be enough to persuade consumers to turn in their cars, particularly if they are unable to borrow from cautious auto dealers. “Some of the folks who drive a beater all the time are unlikely to get a new car loan,” he said. “That’s one of the problems with the program.” ...I may have missed your analogy at first, but at least I actually know something about this program. It is NOT doing what is intended. It is NOT doing what you so expertly layed out. ...and it is CERTAINLY not within the Constitutional authority of the congress to create and administer such a program.

Demanding that our governement function within the confines of the Constitution and not take my hard earned tax dollars and hand them out to someone else makes those of us who disagree with this policy uncreative children? Wow, that's a jump of logic. ...but not unexpected coming from you, my friend...

Trying to understand what you are saying is rather difficult since it isn't complete sentences. In addition, some of the response is in the quote. Hard to read. ...but let me try and rebut. Raising Taxes WILL NOT solve this problem. It will make it worse. When you raise taxes in a down economy, you will make the down economy worse and it will take longer to recover. No nation in the history of this world has taxed itself into prosperity. Not one. History is NOT on your side my friend. You've got to quit thinking that higher taxes means that the government will have more money to spend. In fact, the less is true. We must cut spending, and I don't mean strip down the military while the rest of the world powers get stronger and more agressive. I mean social spending, pork and "investment" in technologies that the free market has no interestet in them. You know why the free market doesn't invest in these technologies? ...because there is no market and thus money to be made on them. You speak of the Government's forcing of GM to make cars people don't want as a big positive. GM already makes more fuel efficiant cars than Honda and Toyota. Honda and Toyota are discounting their cars now. People made car buying decisions based on gas milage for about 6 months when gas was at $4. The Government fired the CEO of GM who is responsible, along with Bob Lutz, with getting GM back where it needs to be, building cars customers want and that JD Power, Consumer Reports and Motor Trend respect. GM quality surpassed Toyota AND Honda according to JD Power under Wagoner and Lutz. You then speak of the recovery. Yeah, there are s few good signs right now, no doubt. The market is up. Unemployment hasn't stopped climbing yet, but there are a few positive things happening right now. Here's the dirty little secret - had Bush and Obama done NOTHING in terms of pushing tax payer money at the problem in the TARP and in the STIMULUS - we'd be seeing the same results, and probably would have seen them a quarter ago. The passage of the stimulus slowed the recovery. ...and I fear, as history repeats itself when the math is undeniable, that this little blip is just that. As the stimulus money gets printed and then spent, inflation will follow. It ALWAYS happens. So you'll grow the economy by 3% with the stimulus, and you'll dilute the value of the dollar by 6%. Well, that's grand, we just had a net 3% economy shrinkage. It happened in the 30's. It happened in the 70's. It will happen now. We don't learn. ...the BEST part of your response, however, is the rant about how government regulation has destroyed healthcare, and yet you are sitting here promoting MORE government regulation of the industry. There is no consistancy to your statements. Finally, I must say, with all due respect, your understanding of economics is lacking if you believe that doubling the debt in one shot isn't a bill that future generations will have to pay. You can't spend what you don't have today and not eventually pay the piper. Our monetary system is in very dangerous shape. We have a huge amount of debts in the hands of people who could call it at any second and in so doing cripple our economy overnight. You can't print money and spend money you don't have without something to back it up. Let me put it simply for you. If you are in debt that equalled 20 times your annual income, and you, in one purchase, double that debt, is there any chance that debt is paid back before you die asssuming your income stays relatively static? ...so why do you assume the US government can? We need to DEAL with the difficult time we have now, and we need to reign in this government, and not pass on the sins of those in power (and I don't mean obama, I mean members of both parties who have let this spending get out of control) to the next generation. I don't get this from Fox News - try a new talking point. I get it from a basic understanding of Math and Economics. You can argue the merits of deficit spending, but even the most ardent stimulus obama supporter who understands economics knows this debt has to be paid at some point and that deficit spending won't lead to budget surplus.

[Kevin Nelon as Musburger]...here on SEE-BEE-EEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS...[/Kevin Nelon as Musburger]

There should be no Cash for Clunkers program. No handouts. Jesus... If you want a new car - GO BUY THE F$%KING THING YOURSELF!!!!!! ...and if you can't afford it or have s$&^ty credit, TOUGH. Damn, when are we going to stop this crap in this country. I'm putting "Cash For Clunkers" in my back pocket so everytime one of my liberal friends claim we don't have any room to cut programs I can whip it out on them.

I don't blame him for the totality of the unempoloyment. I also know, however, based on history, that governement spending on government projects, no matter how grandios will not spur on the economy. The net result of the deficit spending in the stimulus will be runaway inflation and interest rates. This will send us into a similar route as did Carter policies. Why support a concept and policy which history has proven doesn't work. It didn't work in the late 30's, it didn't happen in the late 70's and it won't work now.

3 words into it and you're already calling names. Pretty interesting. Well, let's start with the point of this thread. This thread was about the need to raise taxes to pay for the proposed healthcare reform. Geitner's comments and now Obama's rebuttal have nothing to do with bailing out wallstreet (voted for by this President), cutting taxes on corporations, military build up and the like. There was no sizeable military buildup, as we've fought these wars with the troop level we had and equipment we had. The cost of the War in Iraq and afganistan to date is roughly 800 Billion. A sizeable sum, to be sure, but the President, during his first month in office, signed a stimulus bill which hasn't stimulated a single thing thus far, that, in one stroke of the pen, cost more than both wars combined. The economy would have recovered on its own faster than it will now with the burden of the stimulus and this huge debt that has been incurred. Your rant about corporate taxes is funny and mis-informed. Currently, the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent, second among OECD countries to Japan's combined rate of 39.5 percent.1 Lowering the federal rate to 30.5 percent would only lower the U.S.'s ranking to fifth highest among industrialized countries. Corporate tax rate brackets have remained unchanged since 1993. The last administration DID NOT cut corporate income taxes. 0 50,000 15% 50,000 75,000 25% 75,000 100,000 34% 100,000 335,000 39% 35,000 10,000,000 34% 10,000,000 15,000,000 35% 15,000,000 18,333,333 38% 18,333,333 .......... 35% ...but don't let the nubmers get in the way of your assertion. ...in addition, here's a little secret - CORPORATIONS DON'T PAY TAXES. How can this be? Simple. Instead of cut their margin, businesses pass the tax burden on to the consumer (you and me) and build it into the cost of goods sold. So, when you applaud the Obama administration when they finally "stick it to business" and increase Wal-Mart's income tax rate by 15%, don't be angry when your grocery bill goes up 15% at Wal-Mart. A Tax increase on business and those "Evil Corporations" is a tax increase on you. Bailing out Wallstreet was a bad move, and many of us were mad at Congress (Including Obama and McCain) for voting yes and President Bush for signing it into law. ...so don't throw that back into our face - most of us who don't think Obama is doing the right thing disagreed with Bush when we did that. You don't have to agree with EVERYTHING the guy you voted for does. It is called freedom of speech, and guarantees that we don't HAVE to "So just shut up and take it" as you suggest. Delay and Gingrich have NOTHING to do with this current crisis. ...and if you're GOING to put it on them (which a 5 minute reality check and google search will prove is a crock) you also have to put it on Clinton who signed anything they got passed into law. The lack of regulation isn't what caused this mess. It was the government putting its fat nose where it didn't belong in the first place that created this mess. Bush and McCain BOTH tried to get congress to change the Freddie Mac/Fannie May situation back in 2004 and again in 2006 and were ignored buy the likes of Barny Frank and Chris Dodd, the two hacks who are now in control of our financial comittees in Congress. I blame Bush for not making a big public deal of this when it may have helped, before the situation blew up, but it was most certainly NOT caused by a lack of oversight, and won't be fixed by having the Government run the banks and financial institutions. The war didn't cause the economic problem. In fact, the war spurred on a good deal of business in this country. It was actually an economic stimulus. ...so much for that assertion. The system being broken isn't the problem. THE SYSTEM IS THE PROBLEM!!!! Government needs to be smaller, and less involved, and the economy will rock and roll along just fine without any help from a bunch of lawers in Washington who have never actually run a business out in the real world. Yeah... all Republicans are Rich. The labels are a gas, they really are. Frivilous lawsuits. Having hospitals shift cost to those who pay since the government can't pay their bills. Lack of competition between states and increased regulations. If you believe government is going to actually drop the cost of healthcare you're insane. With unlimited supply and entitlement comes unlimited demand. There aren't enough doctors to cover the increase in demand. There aren't enough facilities. This will lead to rationing and decreased quality of care for the 85% of the country who already has quality health insurance. I'd rather pay higher premiums and get premium healthcare for my family and I than to turn my very life and healthcare decisions to the Government. You LOWER taxes to increase reveunes to the Treasury. This is a history proven FACT time and time again. You don't raise taxes to pay old debts. ...and aren't you in the least bit concerned about the next generation who has to pay for the debts THIS President is amassing?

Kickass... I'm already in...

Yes... higher taxes, higher unemployment, runaway deficits, nationalization of private industry, un recoverable debt and the upcoming inflation and interest sky rocket party we're about to endure... Yes, he's doing a great job. I'd like to know what, exactly, he's done that is an example of him doing a "Great Job". Not surprising that someone who thinks a President who is acting outside his constiutional authority on almost every major policy he has touched is doing a good job would want the constitution shelved for his own benefit. That being said - I don't think there is anything to this. The Clintons or one of the Republicans would have been able to put together the evidence if it were true. There is nothing that constituationally disqualifies Obama from being President. The question is, "what if I'm wrong?" Well, if it is proven he's not qualified to be President, he should be removed and Biden should take over under the rules of the Constitution. ...but I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that will be proven. Think about it for a minute. The ONLY way he makes it to this point if he weren't a citizen is with a lot of help, which would basically make him a puppet. Someone or group willing to go to that affort to have a puppet could find someone who didn't have this controversy hanging over his head.

The drama of last year should not be an issue this year. If Tony gets his head in the game and understand that winning is actually important, then the Cowboys could be great this year. If not, it'll be more of the same, T.O. or no T.O..

I'm in again this year... ...though is Yahoo doing free live scoring this year? That sucked last year. ESPN's engine is stronger...

I take care of the pop-ups on my own, thanks...