Impossible!

[Marye]

that Nicole's Four Play is not number one in this week's poll!

Alas, I can give but only one vote NM ....



Well you democrats... what will happen this evening? Kerry? Edwards? Dean? in that order.. Opinions?

[barfle]

Originally posted by Marye:
that Nicole's Four Play is not number one in this week's poll!

That might have something to do with the fact that it's the only feature that plays Revenge Aria.

[Nicole Marie]

Funny barfle. I'm going to pipe the Revenge aria into your house one night.

I'm going for Kerry! Was going to vote for Dean but he seems to have gone a bit unhinged.

[EJA]

Just for the record, I like the Revenge Aria. I don't want it to get so much bad publicity that it ceases to be played.

I think Dean has always been a bit unhinged, even when he was governor of Vermont. Some of his policies as governor strike me as unhinged. I was hoping that he would get the nomination, but we conservatives ran our mouths, gloating a little too much.

Hearing Fake Plastic Trees reminds me of Kerry. Botox accusations aside, he seems to me to have a fake plastic face -- or two. Remember, he is the liberal senator from Massachusetts. In other words, he isn't saying what he is thinking (so as not to alarm those less liberal than himself), and it shows. At least Dean was sincere.

Edwards . . . blah. Not a chance.

I was sorry to see Lieberman drop out. A Bush-Lieberman contest would have involved at least one man who has some understanding of how our national destiny has been inexorably tied to that of Israel by the Islamo-fascists. Such a contest would bring some mature, reasoned debate to the table. I think all we will have now is a mud-slinging slug-fest.

Clark had little credibility to start, having been a dove for even less time than he has been a democrat, and blatantly lying didn't help. Politicians must be better at lying than that.

The rest aren't even worth discussing.

In such a bleak field, a Hillary-to-the-rescue coup wouldn't surprise me much.

[shostakovich]

My memory of Bush promises:

2000 campaign
Tax cuts for all (kept that promise right away)
Cheaper drugs for the elderly in 2001 (nowhere in sight prior to 9/11)
I wondered how he could manage both. Now I know.

2001
Tax cuts benefit all (not at all for some, not much for many)
It will stimulate the economy (maybe)
The negative effect on the deficit is for sure.

2002/3
We're preparing for war (true enough)
but only as a last resort (har, har)
If you recall it was a UN resolution that Saddam was breaking, not a US resolution. It was for the UN to respond. And they WERE responding, with UN inspectors. If they had to stay there forever looking for WMD, Saddam would not have been able to build or sell any. Things WERE under control. It just wasn't Bush's control.

This medicare bill is good for all (not at all for some, not much help for many, great for HMOs and drug companies)
And what the hell did banning importation from Canada have to do with medicare?
Unless the bill is dumped and rebuilt, it's the death of medicare (which has worked up to now), and that's Bush's intention).

One more thing ------- an effective "war" on terrorism is best fought by spies, intelligence, and international cooperation, NOT with an army. Bush's alienation of the world community (Haggis's contention that we are not loved anyway, aside) has not helped fight terrorism.

OK, folks, I expect some alternative interpretations to surface. And that's as it should be.

Who would I vote for? A(nybody) B(ut) B(ush) A(gain).
Shos

[Marye]

Nice one Shos! I believe I read that Bush is the only President in the history of the U.S. to be so disliked, by so many and worldwide. That is quite the accomplishment is that.

Interestingly, I was in London England last week and I watched CNN news thinking the feed would be from the U.S. I don't know why I thought it would be, but it isn't. Therefore I was surprised to hear about what was happening in Saudia Arabia, no news about Israel, no news about suicide bombers, no terror alerts. Nothing about the war on terrorism. Very little about the U.S.in fact. Geez, I was in Paris when Frank Sinatra died and that was ALL there was on CNN .

So back to the Democractic race.. Dean is no longer campaigning but plans to stay on the ballot? What has happened to Al Sharpton and Denis Kucinich? Are they both still in it?

[Nicole Marie]

Hi Marye-

Yup Dennis and Al are still in. But they do not have enough support to win at this point. They do add a bit of fun and humor to the debates. Al's comments crack me up. He should have been in stand up. Did anyone catch him on Bill Mahr two weeks ago? He gets me every time... laughing but not my vote.

[Marye]

Unfortunately, we do not get Bill Mahr anymore on television. I always found him hilarious... we get Jon Stewart who slays me.

I see Howard Dean is now saying "I am no longer actively pursuing the presidency."

[haggis]

Interesting hi-jack; one point and one prediction for now.

Point; I'll probably post some comments after I've thought about it some more. I also want to see that the thread doesn’t descend to name calling, vituperative recriminations and stereotyping.

Shos and I frequently disagree and share diverse thoughts in private emails. I can report that neither of us has been particularly swayed by the other’s points, however, neither have we called each other names or resorted to emotional rants.

Prediction: The chaotic, messy but very democratic (small “d”) power of the internet will make it much harder for any one to get away with less than accurate statements in this election year.

More than in 2000, the Internet today has redefined “fact checking” to a degree that “legitimate media” and other outlets of information will have to be very careful before they ignore or glaze over some otherwise newsworthy issue.

In the end I think it will be us, the voters, who benefit.

More later

[EJA]

In case you haven't noticed, tax cuts have stimulated the economy. Nearly every economic indicator is positive. In fact, the performance of the economy has been remarkable lately when the temporal proximity of 9/11 is taken into consideration.

And don't talk to me about "not much for many" in a country where 95% of the tax burden falls on 5% of the population. Of course the tax cuts weren't as big for the poor. They're not taxed as much. Hell, some of them receive tax "refunds" in excess of the taxes that they paid.

Tell me something -- the strength of an economy is a result of productivity and the building of wealth, correct? So, if you want to build a strong economy, do you give encouragement and incentive to people who are the least productive, and the least succesful at building wealth, or do you give encouragement and incentive to people who are the most productive and the most succesfull at building wealth? Moreover, if you discourage those who are most productive and succesfull at building wealth, what will the outcome be for the economy? Try looking at it this way. Suppose you have a couple of mutual funds, A and B. Mutual fund A has a higher rate of return and a lower cost than mutual fund B. So, to improve the performance of mutual fund B, you put more money in it, right? No, you put your money in the better performing mutual fund. It is the same with tax payers. People are not encouraged to build wealth if they are increasingly penalized for doing so. They might as well just sit on the couch and watch television as go down in their basement and work on their invention because if the invention pans out, and they gain some wealth, they will only be penalized for it. I know someone will come back with a reply about the super rich, loopholes, etc. Well, before they were super rich, and could afford loopholes, they were only moderately rich, and got their eyeballs taxed out. But in any case, that objection is a perfect argument for a flat tax, which would be completely fair. No loopholes for anybody.

I agree that the medicare bill is the dumbest, ugliest, messiest bill that has been passed in a good while, but don't blame all of that on Bush. Last I checked, it is the legislative branch that creates laws, and the executive that signs them. Would you rather that Bush vetoed it? (I would.)

I doubt that Bush's objective is to eliminate medicare, but I would like to see that. Government has no call to be in the healthcare business. You think it is screwed up now? Wait until government gets more involved. We could have third-world health care within the decade.

The situation in Iraq was under control? Yes, under Saddam's control. And he was making a perfect laughing stock of the UN as it once again refused to enforce its resolutions, thus depriving itself of any credibility and its resolutions of any meaning. Saddam defied them, and they hid in their corner. Had Bush not intervened, they would still be there, and Saddam would still be torturing and killing his people, supporting terrorism, and developing weapons of mass destruction. Even Bill Clinton knew that we needed to take care of Iraq. The war planning started during his administration.

I don't think President Bush is the greatest President we have ever had, but he surely isn't represented fairly by the ABBA and MoveOn.org types, who really do need to move on.

[Marye]

Interesting EJA,

Usually when one invests in Mutual Fund A because it is the wealthiest and has a best rate of return it is already overvalued, bloated and implodes taking your investment with it.

If you believe that a strong economy is the result of a fully productive society then doesn't it follow that a government that supports a Health Care System, of some sort, would see a more productive workforce more able to build on that wealth you were mentioning?

Thank you Haggis I started the string and hijacked it at the same time...

[barfle]

I'm a bit disturbed by the fact that the two viable candidates have such hideous histories when it comes to how they treat our armed forces.

Bush has already used them to invade a sovereign nation on trumped-up charges, over the protests of all of its neighbors.

Kerry has stated that he believes the armed forces should be under the control of the UN.

So one wants to rule the world with our army, the other wants the world to rule our army. I find both points of view highly distasteful.

[Nicole Marie]

At least if we are in there with the UN heat will be taken off our troops and maybe we can pull them out sooner.

[Shapley]

And the U.N. can deploy them against us. What a concept.

[Nicole Marie]

Sounds like you don't understand the UN.

[dai bread]

Originally posted by EJA:
.......who has some understanding of how our national destiny has been inexorably tied to that of Israel by the Islamo-fascists.

Can you elaborate on this, EJA? You have me puzzled. I didn't think anyone could tie the U.S. to anything. The Bush administration has ditched a couple of international agreements the Clinton admin. signed up to, and has just signed a very hard-nosed trade agreement with Australia. So just who is twisting whose arm in the matter of Israel?

[dai bread]

EJA, I'm afraid I must differ with you on the subject of economics.

As a rule of thumb, it is better for 100 people to have a dollar each than for one person to have 100 dollars. Same amount of money, same number of people, but a huge difference in the well-being of the society.

You comment on the benefit to the economy of giving tax cuts to the generators of wealth. We found in 1991/92 when the Govt. cut welfare benefits, that the whole economy plunged into recession. Granted it was shaky anyway (hence the cuts) but the cuts had a direct and almost immediate negative effect. In other words, we get back to the 100 people with a dollar. A small tax cut for a lot of people produces more benefit for the economy as a whole than a big cut for a few.

Also, people who talk about the generators of wealth, and those who espouse the virtues of hard work, always leave out two words: "FOR YOURSELF".
those generators of wealth you talk about aren't generating anything for the "economy"; they're generating it FOR THEMSELVES. You'll be telling me next you believe in the "trickle down" theory.

I've said before and it seems I need to say it again, Govt.-controlled health services work fine.

Now I have to go. Sorry.

[monkeymd2b]

Medicare/medicaid is dying - I'd argue that it's been flat lining for quite some time and we've been defibrillating it attempting to get a rhythm. I must say that nothing makes a hospital discharge planning session more of a pain in the ass than trying to work around the annoying rules of medicare/medicaid. Instead of being able to prescribe the newer drugs that allow for once a day dosing and thus higher compliance, we have to give the drug that can at times require 3 pills three times a day. Arranging for follow up care can be a pain as well. Medicaid card holders are allotted 12 visits/yr. In my family med month, we had patients who would wait until they became very sick before coming in because they didn't want to waste a visit. Usually, this didn't have too bad of a consequence but one child ended up with rheumatic fever with indications that she may have also started to have some cardiac involvement because she didn't get treated for a strep throat - her mom didn't want to use up her visits since this child usually has problems with her asthma in the fall/early winter that can require multiple office visits.

While I see the problems of allowing government to completely take over the health care system, I personally feel that health care covereage for all citizens could be a good thing. A month spent at a charity system hospital and you see sequela of chronic disease in 30-40 yr olds that are usually seen in 50 or 60 yr olds because they didn't have health insurance covereage to get the medications or the other preventive measures that the insured have access to. As a student, the plus side is that even though our texts say "and thanks to drug A or surgical procedure B, the long term complications are rarely seen, " we still get to see them at charity hospital. Of course, it then becomes hard to say, "because you didn't have insurance to see a doctor sooner, or money to pay for the treatment, you're screwed." People don't usually like hearing those words. Medicare/medicaid doesn't facilitate the practice of primary prevention, instead all the money gets spent on tertiary prevention - think of it as instead of spending the money to fix a leak in a pipe, the money and energy is spent instead on mopping up the mess. where's the sense in that?!?

Sure, there still would be those regulations about which drugs we can use and probably even more rules but if it means that all people can get the preventive care for diabetes and other debilitating illnesses, then I'll take it. I think one of the scandinavian countries has universal health care covereage and there's rules patients must follow to maintain covereage including some that penalize noncompliant patients (I'd be screwed) by revoking health care covereage. Not saying I agree with some of those rules.

Obviously this isn't a fully researched opinion (no time to read in detail the regulations that will make my professional life a pain in the ass just yet) just my off the cuff "if I ruled the world" thought.

<small>[ 02-18-2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: monkeymd2b ]</small>

[EJA]

Mary, concerning mutual funds, your statement is grievously erronious. The situation you describe may have occurred in an instance or two, but it is a manifestation of either ignorance or dishonesty to classify it as the usual case. "Bloated" is a rather strange term to apply to a mutual fund, moreover.

Concerning a more productive work force resulting from a government health care system, you presume that government health care would result in improved health care. I think that presumption is specious and is certainly not supported by history. Bureaucratization will decrease both the availability and quality of health care, resulting in a less productive work force. Want to argue that? Show me just one system that has improved as a result of bureaucratization.

Dai bread, it is the manifest intention and determination of Wahabi Islam to destroy Israel, and the United States and to remove all Christians, and all Jews from the face of the earth. Wahabi is a tremendously large, well-funded, well-organized, and powerful movement. The Wahabists organizations, such as Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, to name a few, have proliferated across the face of the earth and make new converts every day. They follow a very characteristic pattern of expansion involving so-called sleeper cells whose members work to fund the group, gain converts, and gather intelligence concerning possible targets. Once a sleeper cell reaches a sufficient size and level of funding, it ceases to sleep and begins to carry out attacks. These sleeper cells are located all over our country, and all over Europe as well. Apparently one has even been uncovered in the rural and remote area where I live. The implications of this movement are obvious, and this is what I mean by our destiny being tied to Israel. No more are we only tied to the Jewish by a common moral and religious heritage, or by a common zeal for liberty and self-rule. Our destiny is now bound to theirs by the fact that we are targeted by the same elusive and cowardly foe. No longer is terrorism merely one of those things that happens in Israel where the Arabs and the Jews just can't get along. Terrorism and terrorists have come to our shores. They walk among us as they have walked among the Jews for decades. We now know the wretched and helpless feeling of wondering where and how they will strike next. No longer do we merely empathize, but rather sympathize.

[The Great Carouser]

Originally posted by EJA:
In case you haven't noticed, tax cuts have stimulated the economy. Nearly every economic indicator is positive....

Let's see....there's a 521 billion dollar deficit that Mr. Bush did not inherit. He and his partisan controlled House and Senate built it all themselves. I'd call that an economic indicator and the only thing I'd say is positive about it is that I'm positive it's not good management. Now perhaps if I owned stock in Haliburton or some of our Petroleum or Pharma giants I might not feel this way.....

By the way, I saw a bumper sticker with Bush's new campaign slogan:

"Bush and Cheney
This time elect us!"