She was talking shit about Obama during the debate, claiming that he represented and was friends with Tony Rezko the Chicago slumlord.....but......what is this picture that just turned up....why its Hillary and Rezko.



http://www.crosstabs.org/stories/elections/2008/hillarys_rezko_humiliation_photo

1/25/2008 5:24:59 PM

dude looks like he's capped a few punks.

1/25/2008 5:26:41 PM

whoopty doo--a picture....

not quite the same as working for, buying your house from and living next door to the guy

1/25/2008 6:19:16 PM

this very same thing happened to W a couple years ago

the media went and made a big deal about it, but presidents get their pics taken with so many people it's crazy to think they remember meeting everyone

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/22/politics/main1227468.shtml

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 6:37 PM. Reason : +]

1/25/2008 6:33:49 PM

That photo's not going to hurt her nearly as much as this one:



Does Hillary really want to get into a fight about who has the shadiest backers?

1/25/2008 7:06:30 PM

i know its not really a big deal, i just hate that socialist whore so much that i cant help myself

1/25/2008 7:06:37 PM

policy-wise, she's no shittier than Obama.

1/25/2008 7:58:22 PM

gender-wise, she is

1/25/2008 8:05:04 PM

I'm getting about sick and tired hear the word SOCIALISM

get your fucking head checked.

1/25/2008 8:06:16 PM

yainorite.

its like everything that isn't about corporate-tax-breaks-for-gun-nuts is fucking "socialist"

i dont think he even really knows what socialism entails.

1/25/2008 10:26:35 PM

Quote :

"policy-wise, she's no shittier than Obama."

Quote :

"gender-wise, she is"

LOL.

1/25/2008 10:38:50 PM

Quote :

"i dont think he even really knows what socialism entails."

trust me i do. im not going to explain it, but trust me I know what socialism is.

1/26/2008 12:04:23 AM

These recent squabbles between HRC and Obama warm my heart.

I want a bumper sticker "Hillary Pwnt 08"

I can easily get behind this message, much more than I feel inclined to back any of the particular psuedo-conservatives that are likely to get the republican nomination.

HRC is not for socialist policies?

Sorry I thought she was the one that wanted to nationalize 17% of the economy. But then again I don't know whatever asinine definition of socialism all ya all are going to start pontificating about so fine, lets just say she is a moderate who wants to vastly increase the size and scope of federal government interference in our lives. It's not like she wrote a book emphasizing that "It takes a Village" or anything, no I guess she is a champion of individualism and self reliance. That is why she talks so much about class envy and confiscating profits from corporations. It's all part of her grand scheme to shock and awe us with her radical moderate positions.

1/26/2008 12:50:03 AM

Quote :

"trust me i do. im not going to explain it, but trust me I know what socialism is."

Well then, case closed.

1/26/2008 1:00:23 AM

i dont need to justify my knowledge of political/economic systems to TWW at 230am thanks.

1/26/2008 2:31:40 AM

Quote :

"Sorry I thought she was the one that wanted to nationalize 17% of the economy. But then again I don't know whatever asinine definition of socialism all ya all are going to start pontificating about so fine, lets just say she is a moderate who wants to vastly increase the size and scope of federal government interference in our lives. It's not like she wrote a book emphasizing that "It takes a Village" or anything, no I guess she is a champion of individualism and self reliance. That is why she talks so much about class envy and confiscating profits from corporations. It's all part of her grand scheme to shock and awe us with her radical moderate positions. "

well said

1/26/2008 8:18:20 AM

Quote :

"I'm getting about sick and tired hear the word SOCIALISM get your fucking head checked."

HILARY PROMOTES SOCIALISM!!! --

there you go

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM. Reason : that is totally unnecessary and stupid. hell, even what i left is, for that matter.-theduke866]

1/26/2008 8:49:01 AM

Quote :

"Sorry I thought she was the one that wanted to nationalize 17% of the economy"

Really? Really? What 17% would that be?

1/26/2008 12:57:51 PM

brothels

1/26/2008 4:01:00 PM

healthcare?

1/26/2008 4:30:12 PM

brothels

1/26/2008 4:35:46 PM

^^ I seriously doubt that health care is 17% of the US economy. Don't we make like 8-9 trillion a year? That would easily be over 1 trillion in health care.

1/26/2008 4:40:38 PM

^ obviously you underestimate the cost of keeping old people alive

[Edited on January 26, 2008 at 5:27 PM. Reason : 

1/26/2008 5:24:02 PM

Recall that two-thirds of the federal budget is spent on entitlements. Of these mandatory expenditures, the largest one is for Social Security, which accounts for about 23 percent of total federal expenditures. The next largest mandatory expenditure is for Medicare (12 percent) and Medicaid (7 percent), which add up to 19 percent of total federal expenditures. So about 42 percent of the federal budget is going to Social Security and subsidized health care. Other means-tested entitlements and mandatory payments and net interest on the federal debt add up to 23 percent. So, the 42 percent for Social Security and subsidized health care and the 23 percent for other entitlements and net interest equal 65 percent, or about two-thirds of total expenditures.


http://www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/government-share-economy.html

In the U.S. economy, total government spending at all levels represents about 28 percent of GDP.

So he is probably lowballing the hell outta it at 17%

1/26/2008 6:00:29 PM

it looks like Bill and Hillary are doing a pretty good job "pwning" her so far.

1/26/2008 6:12:56 PM

I just don't comprehend this...maybe because I am too logical...but I would honestly like a liberal/progressive person to answer this honestly. Liberals claim that big corporations (medical insurance, oil, pharmaceuticals, industry, wal-mart etc) are greedy, inefficient, oppressive and all around evil....yet....they are fine with the biggest, most corrupt, most inefficient, most oppressive most inherently evil corporation of all (ie the federal government) being in charge of everything. They want the feds to micro managing health care, industry, the economy (either directly or indirectly), wealth redistribution, the justice system, education and just plain micro manage away most of whats left of our freedoms. Now I will cede that we have drifted this way since the great depression...but how the hell can you think its a good idea. How can you bitch about the big brother right wing patriot act while at the same time supporting this oppression. You call right wingers fascist, yet this is the friggin definition of a facist socialist state, and its what progressive Democrats want. When Hillary says she wants a "shared economy for shared prosperity" what the hell do you think she wants....wealth redistribution and the road to full socialism. We trusted the feds with social security and look where that went, how can you honestly think they wont fuck up health care and go broke trying to pay for it. Do you really want to be taxed more than you already are? I mean what kind of freedom/individualistic liberal truly wants to live in this 1984 society. Everyone who has read a history book knows that socialism/communism leads to oppression in order to allow it to work....the soviet union, nazis, facist socialist italy, facist spain, cuba, north korea, china, venezuela...the list goes on. Do you truly want America to go down this road more than we already are? I want a liberal to answer me on these points, seriously. No name calling, just a fair academic discussion on this. And I admit I hate any republican that supports policies that take us down this road. I personally think some politicians like this because it secures power....but why support a party/ideaology that openly preaches socialist policies? I agree both parties have their faults, but the democrat liberals openly preach populist class warfare socialism....listen to a debate where they compete for lowest common denominator populist rhetoric. Dont we all want a government that is small and not a huge part of our lives, dont we want to NOT be dependent on the government, dont we want more personal freedom and constitutional rights. where is the independent pioneer spirit that founded this country, where did this nanny state mentality come from and how can some of you actually support it? Mature responses please

[Edited on January 26, 2008 at 6:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2008 6:30:38 PM

no, we want gov't handouts

1/26/2008 7:11:55 PM

^^ great post. btw, the major networks are predicting Obama to win SC

[Edited on January 26, 2008 at 7:19 PM. Reason : ...]

1/26/2008 7:18:45 PM

Quote :

"facist spain"

I don't think Spain was ever fascist. I mean, I know you're talking about Franco, but that's not fascism.

And by the way, this isn't meant to single you out, but it seems like there's nothing new to "argue" in this section and your post there defines this. I come back here after multiple years of ignoring this section, and it's the same old shit.

It's like a Nickelback song, man. give it a rest.

I'm out.

1/26/2008 7:23:50 PM

Quote :

"Recall that two-thirds of the federal budget is spent on entitlements. Of these mandatory expenditures, the largest one is for Social Security, which accounts for about 23 percent of total federal expenditures. The next largest mandatory expenditure is for Medicare (12 percent) and Medicaid (7 percent), which add up to 19 percent of total federal expenditures. So about 42 percent of the federal budget is going to Social Security and subsidized health care. Other means-tested entitlements and mandatory payments and net interest on the federal debt add up to 23 percent. So, the 42 percent for Social Security and subsidized health care and the 23 percent for other entitlements and net interest equal 65 percent, or about two-thirds of total expenditures. "

Ok, first of all... 2/3 of the federal budget does not go to entitlements. Half of the money goes to the Pentagon (some of which goes towards veteran's benefits and shit like that). About 30% goes to Medicare/Medicaid. You seem to completely forget about the construction of roads, subsidies, schools, NASA, other little shit like that that does add up to be quite a significant figure in the end. So... I call bullshit on your 2/3 claim.

Second, not all of Social Security goes towards medical care. You can ask my grandma how much of the $800 she gets a month goes to her rent and food and all that other stuff that is just as essential to staying alive as medical care. So I call bullshit on that too.

You can't count the interest as something towards the medical care either. That debt was created by a Republican president who thought cutting taxes and increasing spending would be a good idea. So... bullshit there too.

All in all... I call bullshit on the 17% because your analysis is based on a graph from almost a decade ago. But I'm sure you realized that too...

Quote :

"Liberals claim that big corporations (medical insurance, oil, pharmaceuticals, industry, wal-mart etc) are greedy, inefficient, oppressive and all around evil....yet....they are fine with the biggest, most corrupt, most inefficient, most oppressive most inherently evil corporation of all (ie the federal government) being in charge of everything."

I'll give you that. But only because it is the biggest. Would you trust a single corporation with that much money? I think not. Atleast the governments purpose is there to help people and not to reap profits. At least not directly.

Quote :

"They want the feds to micro managing health care, industry, the economy (either directly or indirectly), wealth redistribution, the justice system, education and just plain micro manage away most of whats left of our freedoms."

I don't know where you're getting this information from because I've never heard anyone say anything like this before. Managing health care maybe, but industry, the economy, wealth redistribution, the justice system (last time I checked this was a non-partisan branch of the government. Oh no, that's right... that was before the Supreme Court voted Bush dictator of America and he replaced everyone who disagreed with him), education (Bush has done much more for micro-managing education than Democrats ever have... NCLB).

Quote :

"How can you bitch about the big brother right wing patriot act while at the same time supporting this oppression. You call right wingers fascist, yet this is the friggin definition of a facist socialist state, and its what progressive Democrats want."

I don't recall Democrats ever spying on average, ordinary citizens. At least, not to the extent that has gone on the past 8 years.

Quote :

"When Hillary says she wants a "shared economy for shared prosperity" what the hell do you think she wants....wealth redistribution and the road to full socialism. We trusted the feds with social security and look where that went, how can you honestly think they wont fuck up health care and go broke trying to pay for it."

Maybe she wants to take profits away from insurance companies who rape the average American on prices. Is that really a bad thing? I don't know how it would work, but the same people that you think she would take money away from are the same people who give her lots of campaign money. I seriously doubt she would socialize medicine anytime during her presidency if she were to win. Also, the only person who thinks Social Security is fucked up is Bush and that's like 20 years down the road and that's only because he cut taxes while increasing spending!!! and he's not willing to cut back other programs.

Quote :

"I mean what kind of freedom/individualistic liberal truly wants to live in this 1984 society. Everyone who has read a history book knows that socialism/communism leads to oppression in order to allow it to work....the soviet union, nazis, facist socialist italy, facist spain, cuba, north korea, china, venezuela...the list goes on. Do you truly want America to go down this road more than we already are?"

Have you ever actually read 1984? It was about technology erasing history and surveillance intruding on citizens' lives. Bush has brought us much closer to this reality than any Democrat ever would have. 1984 was not about the evils of socialism. BTW, there are many socialist countries (partly socialist anyway) that are very successful. You're getting communist fascism (which has historically always been a bad thing) confused with a small deal of socialism (which can be, but is not always is a good thing). I think that Hillary is intelligent enough and surrounds herself with enough knowledgeable people that nothing would be too quick or too drastic.

Quote :

"but why support a party/ideaology that openly preaches socialist policies? I agree both parties have their faults, but the democrat liberals openly preach populist class warfare socialism....listen to a debate where they compete for lowest common denominator populist rhetoric. Dont we all want a government that is small and not a huge part of our lives, dont we want to NOT be dependent on the government, dont we want more personal freedom and constitutional rights. where is the independent pioneer spirit that founded this country, where did this nanny state mentality come from and how can some of you actually support it?"

It's not like the Democrats call themselves the Socialist Party or the Worker's Party or something like that. Every label that they've been given has been given by Republicans who are trying to scare people away from voting for them. Socialism in some forms works. Without it, things that need to be done but cannot or will not be funded wouldn't take place or would take place too late. Do you really think we'd be better off without a socialist education system, or a socialist transportation network... because that's what we have. Anything bought and paid for by the government is socialism. Are all of these things bad? Would it be better off if we had a private military or a full-blown private education system? I seriously doubt it. There's a difference between having a small government and having a big government that intrudes on daily life as little as possible. You think that big government = no freedom. I'll give you that it does create more corruption and wasteful spending with increased size, but like I said before, she's smart enough that she won't change this thing overnight or too drastically. It won't be like paying insurance one day then the next you have no choice but the government. I honestly think that will never happen and that any individual who wants to pay for it privately will be able to if they really want to. But you have to admit that there are lots of problems with the current system.

1/26/2008 7:39:11 PM

Quote :

"Also, the only person who thinks Social Security is fucked up is Bush and that's like 20 years down the road and that's only because he cut taxes while increasing spending!!! and he's not willing to cut back other programs."

So, a system that is supposed to pay for itself isn't actually broken, because what's making it appear broken is cutting taxes and increasing spending, but not cutting the taxes the pay for the not-broken system. eh?

1/26/2008 7:44:22 PM

Quote :

"I just don't comprehend this...maybe because I am too logical...but I would honestly like a liberal/progressive person to answer this honestly. Liberals claim that big corporations (medical insurance, oil, pharmaceuticals, industry, wal-mart etc) are greedy, inefficient, oppressive and all around evil....yet....they are fine with the biggest, most corrupt, most inefficient, most oppressive most inherently evil corporation of all (ie the federal government) being in charge of everything. They want the feds to micro managing health care, industry, the economy (either directly or indirectly), wealth redistribution, the justice system, education and just plain micro manage away most of whats left of our freedoms. Now I will cede that we have drifted this way since the great depression...but how the hell can you think its a good idea. How can you bitch about the big brother right wing patriot act while at the same time supporting this oppression. You call right wingers fascist, yet this is the friggin definition of a facist socialist state, and its what progressive Democrats want. When Hillary says she wants a "shared economy for shared prosperity" what the hell do you think she wants....wealth redistribution and the road to full socialism. We trusted the feds with social security and look where that went, how can you honestly think they wont fuck up health care and go broke trying to pay for it. Do you really want to be taxed more than you already are? I mean what kind of freedom/individualistic liberal truly wants to live in this 1984 society. Everyone who has read a history book knows that socialism/communism leads to oppression in order to allow it to work....the soviet union, nazis, facist socialist italy, facist spain, cuba, north korea, china, venezuela...the list goes on. Do you truly want America to go down this road more than we already are? I want a liberal to answer me on these points, seriously. No name calling, just a fair academic discussion on this. And I admit I hate any republican that supports policies that take us down this road. I personally think some politicians like this because it secures power....but why support a party/ideaology that openly preaches socialist policies? I agree both parties have their faults, but the democrat liberals openly preach populist class warfare socialism....listen to a debate where they compete for lowest common denominator populist rhetoric. Dont we all want a government that is small and not a huge part of our lives, dont we want to NOT be dependent on the government, dont we want more personal freedom and constitutional rights. where is the independent pioneer spirit that founded this country, where did this nanny state mentality come from and how can some of you actually support it? Mature responses please"

Here it is with line breaks. Posting something long without line breaks is a guarantee that next to no one will read it.

As for what you wrote, it seems clear that healthcare has some serious problems in this country and that the free market isn't going to solve them. And the government is already involved in a number of areas of the economy (transportation, education, food standards, etc.). Improved healthcare for everyone is a good thing IMO, and labeling a solution "socialist" (whether is or not) is intellectually lazy. The country has to be on guard at all times to balance our freedoms and government intrusion, so discussion about whether a policy goes too far is better than slapping the label "socialist" on it and dismissing it.

And AFAIK, there are a number of European countries that we might deem socialist without an oppressive government.

BTW, my take on "shared economy for shared prosperity" thing (which really needs to be read in context, wherever it's from) is that she wants to change things from the "rich get richer" trend we've seen over the years. And if you think Hillary's a socialist that's fine, but calling her a whore makes you sound misogynistic than anything.

[Edited on January 26, 2008 at 8:14 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2008 7:57:54 PM

Quote :

"As for what you wrote, it seems clear that healthcare has some serious problems in this country and that the free market isn't going to solve them."

Give me a fucking break. if the gov't hadn't FUCKED IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE, then there would BE NO HEALTHCARE problem.

leave it to a liberal to say that the solution to a problem caused by gov't is to implement more gov't.

1/26/2008 8:15:42 PM

^ I like your evidence proving your position.

1/26/2008 8:21:43 PM

Quote :

"Give me a fucking break. if the gov't hadn't FUCKED IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE, then there would BE NO HEALTHCARE problem."

It depends on which gov. screwup you're talking about (SS or the Kaiser thing back in the days), but that's a generally untrue statement.

Healthcare is an issue for any first world nation (and 3rd world nations too, but they're too busy trying to stay fed).

Also, to whoever claimed SS wasn't broken, it is. Just because we won't feel it soon doesn't mean it's not broken. And 20 years is a short time. The oil crunch is farther away, and climate change issues are farther away, but all of these problems need to be addressed now.

Personally, I think SS should be slowly dismantled, but how this should be done, I don't know.

1/26/2008 8:49:41 PM

Quote :

"but calling her a whore makes you sound misogynistic than anything."

perhaps it isnt academic and mature of me, but bush has been called worse and no one seems to care. and the same level of hate the left has towards bush, the right has towards hillary (both of um for that matter). so, basically, we will continue to be divided.

1/26/2008 9:14:48 PM

Quote :

"the same level of hate the left has towards bush, the right has towards hillary (both of um for that matter). "

Hating someone because you think they're dumb and their policies suck is different than hating someone because they're a woman.

i'm not saying that's why you called her a whore (because she's a woman) but it can be perceived that way that the only reason you hate her is because she's a woman. It's clear though that it is at least a small aspect of why some people hate Hillary (and obama because he's half black).

1/26/2008 9:26:36 PM

^good post moron. I agree on SS. Anyone who doesnt see a problem with it just isnt paying attention. I like the idea of it going into a private account, so a personalized forced savings that the govt cant use on other BS. If they would have done that in the first place we would have had a massive surplus in our SS account. I also like the idea of being able to pass your money(SS) onto your children, after all it is YOUR money being taken out.

420, you can bitch and moan and call bullshit all you want. Here is another article about entitlement spending. This time from MSNBC, that ultra conservative network. haha

"Three growing entitlement programs consumed nearly half of all federal spending in 2004, and budget analysts expect them to make up an even bigger share in the future."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10609044/

Republican18, good post. I too wonder how so many that claim the govt is evil and ineffecient, rush to give them more power over thier lives. I too agree with the socialist movement taking place.

back to 420. SS, as a plan, doesnt really go to healthcare. That isnt factored into that program. Healthcare spending from the govt is limited, I use that loosely, to medicare and medicaid.

Quote :

"That debt was created by a Republican president who thought cutting taxes and increasing spending would be a good idea. So... bullshit there too. "

Ive heard it all now. Do you have any idea how long we have had a national debt? Hell we had a 1 billion dollar debt back in 1863. Maybe bush had a time machine. LOL

Quote :

"Would you trust a single corporation with that much money? I think not. Atleast the governments purpose is there to help people and not to reap profits. At least not directly. "

Yes, i would rather put money into a corporation that creates jobs, produces products that improve our quality of life. There are pressures on a corporation to provide us with new products that are affordable to compete with other coorporations in a free market. There are no such pressures on the govt. In fact, the more people they can make dependent on programs the more power they have. If you dont like the way Sony does business you have a choice to buy samsung. If you dont like the way the Govt does business you can what? move to canada like alec baldwin. LOL

Quote :

"Maybe she wants to take profits away from insurance companies "

Hmm, I guess in most free countries people think its ok to take something that isnt yours or that you didnt work for?

Quote :

"Would it be better off if we had a private military"

It is the govts job to protect its citizens.

420, you want evidence of govt fucking us over in healthcare? Ill give you one better, ill even give you a clinton fucking us over. Remeber our Flu shortage that the dems blamed bush for?

Vaccines should be a moneymaker for drug firms. After all, nearly 300 million people in the United States alone are potential customers. One reason that there are so few producers is that the government is by far the largest customer. According to Paul Offit of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, author of a forthcoming book on the vaccine industry, the United States has weathered nine shortages of six vaccines since 2000. The shortages were driven by government bulk purchasing.

In 1993 Hillary Clinton championed the Vaccines for Children program, under which the government uses its purchasing power to negotiate discounts for vaccines and distributes them to physicians and various health agencies for free or at a reduced price, essentially creating a children’s vaccine entitlement. As a result, more than half the supply of childhood vaccines is purchased by government at deep discounts. Many firms have simply chosen to leave the market, given the low profit margins. Less than two percent of drug company revenue is derived from vaccines.

Like children’s vaccines, more than half of flu vaccines are directly purchased by the government, or indirectly reimbursed by the government at discounted prices. In a market where government is the dominant buyer, or monopsonist, the price may be driven so low that many producers cannot earn a profit. The exposure to legal liability lowers profitability even more. Thus manufacturers have dropped out of the vaccine market.



Yes, lets let hillary "take those profits" again and see what else she can fuck up and blame someone else on. The govt sets the reimbursement rates throughout our medicial industry. Think of Medicare as the pacecar for private ins. They know that if medicare is paying $78 bucks for a 992014(exam) then they can reimburse around that same price. Make sense?

420, I know you are probably pretty young and dont know much about what happens in healthcare industry, but seriously try to listen and just dont discount things bc they go against what others have told you.

1/26/2008 9:32:25 PM

Quote :

"420, you can bitch and moan and call bullshit all you want. Here is another article about entitlement spending. This time from MSNBC, that ultra conservative network. haha "Three growing entitlement programs consumed nearly half of all federal spending in 2004, and budget analysts expect them to make up an even bigger share in the future.""

So you admit that you were wrong and off by nearly 20% of just what the government spends on entitlement programs?

Quote :

"Ive heard it all now. Do you have any idea how long we have had a national debt? Hell we had a 1 billion dollar debt back in 1863. Maybe bush had a time machine. LOL"

I'm sorry. I meant the deficit. I shouldn't have gotten my terms mixed up. But anyone with half a brain probably would have realized what I was talking about.

Quote :

"Yes, i would rather put money into a corporation that creates jobs, produces products that improve our quality of life. There are pressures on a corporation to provide us with new products that are affordable to compete with other coorporations in a free market. There are no such pressures on the govt."

So the government neither produces jobs nor produces products? Funny, I was under the impression that they were the largest employer in the country, but I guess I was wrong there. As far as the free market goes... I never said I wanted to get rid of it. You seem to think that I want to socialize everything which is one of your many false assumptions. There are just certain things that the government can do better (if done correctly) than private corporations can because they're not so much in the game for making profits. Take the USPS, for example. It's a fairly efficiently run program and the country is better off for it. There are certainly niches where private businesses can compete, but by and large the bulk of our mail is delivered by the USPS. If this was a completely private enterprise then there would be a CEO at the top who wants to collectively gouge people another $50 million a year so he can sit back and live the good life. There's no such character in a government run organization. The USPS is a great example of how efficiently a government entity can be run if we really try.

Quote :

"Hmm, I guess in most free countries people think its ok to take something that isnt yours or that you didnt work for?"

So you'd rather they take money away from people that would otherwise save money under a more efficient structure? Oh wait, you're a doctor so this would mess up your little racket, wouldn't it?

Quote :

"Vaccines should be a moneymaker for drug firms. After all, nearly 300 million people in the United States alone are potential customers. One reason that there are so few producers is that the government is by far the largest customer. According to Paul Offit of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, author of a forthcoming book on the vaccine industry, the United States has weathered nine shortages of six vaccines since 2000. The shortages were driven by government bulk purchasing."

A shortage is a producer's problem. If there's a shortage, then the people producing the vaccine got their calculations wrong and didn't make enough. That means there was a higher demand than they got the supply wrong. Kind of like how there weren't enough Wiis for everyone to get one. No one's blaming Japan for buying them all up. Everyone's blaming Nintendo for not being able to make enough. A shortage is never the consumer's fault. It's the producer's fault either in price setting or number of supply. And it's never a bad thing for the producer. It allows for higher prices until demand can be met. Plus, if they know the government wants to buy an assload of the vaccine at a certain price, then they know the production price they have to meet. If they miss that's their own damn fault. It's not the government's fault for subsidizing the cost of the vaccine, the companies still get their money. But that's the very problem people are seeing with health care. It's much too profit driven and should be more oriented towards helping to make sure more people get adequate care.

Don't use my age as an attack against me. I'm more informed than 95% of the people in this country. My age is not the issue here. Don't use it as a pussy bullshit attack on me. I don't call you out on your pisspoor grammar.

1/26/2008 10:36:59 PM

^ ok young sage, wise master, please tell me what is the correct percentage for healthcare. (since you are so well informed and disgusted by our quoting of figures that were widely discussed back when you were in middle school or whatever)

ANYWAY, it could be 5% it doesn't make it any less a socialist idea. (duh.)

1/26/2008 10:53:31 PM

I don't know what they are, but I already proved that it certainly wasn't 2/3 of the government which should also call into question the 17% of the total economy statistic. I never made any other claims other than that.

As for the socialist concept... yeah, I know. I even admitted that. If you didn't have your head up your ass and had actually read my last 2 posts you could have read my argument for why some programs could possibly benefit from a little socialism. It works in other countries. There's no reason to believe it couldn't work here if we actually tried.

I also never said I was a sage or a wise master... that's just more words being put into people's mouths, dickhead. I don't resort to calling people names unless they do first. I can't see why other people can't do the same. I try to attack people's ideas and yet it somehow comes down to people making fun of my username or my age or something. That's a petty excuse for a weak argument.

1/26/2008 11:43:54 PM

Hillary wants the health care system to model european health care where the doctors dont make as much money and they pretty much work for the government. Being in medical school, that idea wouldnt be so fucking bad if I didnt pay out the ass to go to medical school, unlike european doctors who do not incur massive amounts of debt like I so recently have. Her plan isnt socialist, but its too close for comfort, and parts of it are actually dumber than a socialist system would be.

Health care used to be affordable, yet doctors made a lot more money. I have no problem with a doctor not being rich but I sure as hell better be comfortable if I'm working my ass off to become one. The problem started with the insurance companies. They're making huge profits, while doctors make less, and the cost of healthcare has gone up 87 percent in the past 10 years (I think those numbers are right).

That said, Hillary is a dirty whore. I tend to lean right on my political views but I can actually agree with a lot of what Obama has to say. His health care plan isnt bad, and he's not trying to rule the fucking world.

1/27/2008 12:25:57 AM

Quote :

""Would it be better off if we had a private military" It is the govts job to protect its citizens. "

The govt has many jobs. There's nothing too special about the military that makes it exempt from scrutiny under the principles of socialism.

There was a time when it was mostly militias fighting our battles, which were locally organized.

It's pretty clear nowadays why the gov. handles this (way too expensive for even private organizations to do) but there's no reason why other tasks can't fall under this same ideology.

What tasks and why we have to meter carefully, but you can't pretend that defense is naturally the job of the gov.

And before you incur the constitution, it also calls for maintaining the common welfare, which socialized medicine can be construed as doing.

1/27/2008 12:34:37 AM

420, Over the next decade, Medicare and Medicaid costs will surge by nearly 8 percent per year, and Social Security costs by 6 percent annually. These programs will rise from 8.5 percent to 10.7 percent of GDP as the baby boomers begin to retire.

Did you read how they came up with the 2/3s? Those three programs arent the only entitlement programs, they are just the big ones. THe interest you mentioned earlier isnt the interest on the fed debt, its interest on loans it gives out...not ones it takes.


Entitlement spending is eating up our budget, and its only going to get worse. Now if you want to add in EVERYONES healthcare, Id venture to say that his numbers were probably low.

moron, I do think the military is different. Im pretty sure most people can afford a hundred bucks to see their doctor. As opposed to a squadron of f-22s, and the pilots training. I believe security is a priority for government.


Im in a racket? Please tell me what you do for a living if you dont mind. I also would LOVE to know why you think providing healthcare is a racket. Other than being in the top 1% of educated people worldwide, other than that.

Dude, you missed the point about the vaccines. Business do business to make money, correct? So when hillary limited the profits and forced them to give away vaccines, they simply stopped doing it. That is why there is a shortage. That isnt a market pressure, its govt fucking up the market. I wonder why they have doctor shortages in socialized medicine countries, and I wonder why we are having shortages in this country...oh yeah, bc they limit profits.

Im not using your age as an attack. If anything Im trying to cut you some slack. And Im sorry my typing and grammer skills upset you, but last time I checked this wasnt my CV.

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 3:05 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 3:08 AM. Reason : .]

1/27/2008 2:57:55 AM

^ dude, didn't you know? The gov't doesn't do anything wrong. clearly it's the markets fault that producers don't want to lose money due to government price fixing. That's not the fault of the gov't, man, it's the fault of the market! Gov't artificially driving profits down and shifting the demand curve way down is totally the fault of the market. clearly the market needs to make more vaccines so they can lose more money... DUH!

1/27/2008 3:23:25 AM

^so true. I got so caught up on some other points I didnt even remember this gem.

Quote :

"Take the USPS, for example. It's a fairly efficiently run program and the country is better off for it. There are certainly niches where private businesses can compete, but by and large the bulk of our mail is delivered by the USPS. If this was a completely private enterprise then there would be a CEO at the top who wants to collectively gouge people another $50 million a year so he can sit back and live the good life. There's no such character in a government run organization. The USPS is a great example of how efficiently a government entity can be run if we really try. "

Wow, first social security has NO problems then this. USPS being efficient. And no greedy politicians who either steal money, take bribes, use pork barrels to insure job security.

So let me address your grand USPS argument. Despite having a MONOPOLY it still cant make ends meet. Dont believe me? Here is the statement from its own union. "NAPFE recognizes that the USPS is facing a financial crisis. It is grappling with the many challenges of globalization, particularly the role that a government agency with a commercial interest plays in this new environment." But why the crisis? Well the USPS, despite seeing decreased volumes of letters, has increased its labor force, over 800,000. "The Postal workforce is bigger than any two branches of the military combined. You could replace the Marines and the Army with postal workers, and you'd still have some mailmen left over," says Tom Readmond, federal-affairs manager of Americans for Tax Reform.

Oh, no biggie. Well as private companies make cuts to try to stay in business not so with govt agency. USPS needs to lower its labor costs. Its 834,000 workers are paid significantly more than their private-sector counterparts. Meanwhile, the Postal Service spends millions on fancy automated mailsorting equipment, which should make it easier to reduce manhours. Yet labor continues to eat up nearly 80 percent of USPS revenues. By contrast, private companies like UPS and FedEx spend about 56 percent and 42 percent, respectively, on their workforces.

Here is a good read on it. http://lexingtoninstitute.org/159.shtml

I didnt even mention the billions, with a B, it owes US treasury and the fact it doesnt have to pay ANY taxes and is free from most financial transparency regulations affecting private companies.

Oh but what does an eye doctor know about the woes of the USPS. Well here is the former postmaster general. William Henderson, the U.S. postmaster general from 1998 to 2001, wrote upon leaving that "what the Postal Service needs now is nothing short of privatization." He even recommended an employee stock-ownership plan that "would motivate workers by allocating stock to them over time."

Furthermore, declining mail volume, brought on by the e-mail revolution, has resulted in more than $4.5 billion in lost USPS revenue since 2000. And a long-term volume decline is just a small piece of the problem. Few Americans realize that the USPS already has accumulated over $70 billion in unfunded liabilities — mostly money promised to employees in retirement and health benefits. The USPS doesn't have that money. Nobody knows how on earth it's going to meet these liabilities.



Seems pretty consistant with my views of govt run anything.

I will say this. Despite the cost, our military is the best in the world. But using the words effiecient with ANY large govt program is ridiculous.

1/27/2008 10:17:51 AM

Bottom line...anything that is completely government run becomes less efficient and more expensive. If it becomes less expensive, the quality is garbage. That said, health care is out of control, thanks to the insurance companies raking it in. There is no good solutoin

1/27/2008 11:50:20 AM

^sure there is. Do you think car insurance companies are a problem? If we took that same approach and actually allowed ERs to triage care and turn some people away. We could see a dramatic savings. People paying for thier doctors visits and using insurance for the biggies. Also promotes self responsibility.

1/27/2008 12:49:08 PM

dude actually brought up the postal service as an example of gov't efficiency? HA! that fucker has NEVER turned a profit in its existence.

^^ You do realize why the insurance companies are "raking it in," right? Two reasons. First, we let scumbags like John Edwards sue every doctor he can find over absolutely nothing and we allow him to push for "damages" in the millions of dollars. Second, we allow the gov't to pay jack shit for medical procedures, which allows the insurance companies to do the same. As always, the problem isn't the market, it's the GOVERNMENT!

1/27/2008 2:08:21 PM

Quote :

"dude actually brought up the postal service as an example of gov't efficiency? HA! that fucker has NEVER turned a profit in its existence. "

You are the biggest fucking dunce in the world. That was exactly my point. Things can be cheaper for consumers if they're not run for profit. Read between the lines... the lines of space between what I write (aka the words).

1/27/2008 5:25:42 PM