Hippocrates all of them.... esp. Obama

[ksu_aviator]

none of those are what I'm talking about. But that kind of hyperbole sure gets people going, I'm sure! Totalitarian regimes that thro around "Socialism" in their titles, aren't what I'm referring to, but nice try.

Sweden, France, Italy, Spain, for that matter the entire EU is far more socialist than we are, and they tend to have a better quality of life for their average citizen (even with the constant bombardment of US and Chinese free market pressure).. than we do. A balance is what I'd like to see... we can afford universal health care, and we should RE-REGULATE the airlines.. those are the types of changes I'm talking about.

Well, that is a flat out lie. They don't have a better quality of life. In fact, even when you factor socialism as a positive factor (i.e. socialized medicine) the US Beats everyone except France and Sweden. Throw out the socialized medicine, climate and other things the government can't control...it isn't even a close game. The US rises to the top.

http://www.il-ireland.com/il/qofl2008/

 

[HA25]

Well, that is a flat out lie. They don't have a better quality of life. In fact, even when you factor socialism as a positive factor (i.e. socialized medicine) the US Beats everyone except France and Sweden. Throw out the socialized medicine, climate and other things the government can't control...it isn't even a close game. The US rises to the top.

http://www.il-ireland.com/il/qofl2008/

well rather than site web links, I have actually lived in Germany for 4 years and travelled throughout Europe. They have a higher (average) standard of living, and more importantly their countries are generally cleaner and better kept. Just take a drive thru the US and drive to the small towns and cities that have been ravaged by the demise of industry in our country.. the Walmartization of America.. Then, drive from the coast of France to Prague... you'd have to be brain dead not to notice the start difference.

We have a 3rd world country living with in the US.. you just don't see that in the EU.

On top of all this, the average EU worker gets 30 days of vacation each year or more.. some 60... and works under 40 hours a week.. has far less to worry about in his retirement years, and gets first class medical care no matter what his level of income. Those with more of course have access to private medicine which even further grants them an advantage.

 

[ksu_aviator]

The government isn't a for-profit enterprise, but with that said, the revenues taken in by the Government and spent on our welfare are far lower than the GDP of the nation (by 12:1 I believe) so I would argue that the money is well spent.. Granting our private enterprises the environment to make their profits in a safe and orderly society. Or would you have us just disband the government and have anarchy prevail?

So you are ok with the fact that 56% of the cost of goods that you buy are hidden taxes?

Just as for your information:

The 2008 GDP was $14.2 trillion while the 2009 spending is $3.0 trillion. If 2009 has the same GDP as 2008, we will be spending almost 22% of our GDP on federal government. Of that spending, almost 60% of that is unconstitutional welfare/social spending.

If you want to check my info:
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2031939/posts

 

[ksu_aviator]

well rather than site web links, I have actually lived in Germany for 4 years and travelled throughout Europe. They have a higher (average) standard of living, and more importantly their countries are generally cleaner and better kept. Just take a drive thru the US and drive to the small towns and cities that have been ravaged by the demise of industry in our country.. the Walmartization of America.. Then, drive from the coast of France to Prague... you'd have to be brain dead not to notice the start difference.

We have a 3rd world country living with in the US.. you just don't see that in the EU.

On top of all this, the average EU worker gets 30 days of vacation each year or more.. some 60... and works under 40 hours a week.. has far less to worry about in his retirement years, and gets first class medical care no matter what his level of income. Those with more of course have access to private medicine which even further grants them an advantage.

Your argument is completely subjective. Come up with something factual.

 

[HA25]

So you are ok with the fact that 56% of the cost of goods that you buy are hidden taxes?

Just as for your information:

The 2008 GDP was $14.2 trillion while the 2009 spending is $3.0 trillion. If 2009 has the same GDP as 2008, we will be spending almost 22% of our GDP on federal government. Of that spending, almost 60% of that is unconstitutional welfare/social spending.

If you want to check my info:
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2031939/posts

The bottom line.. it costs money to "govern".. without government, there is no law or order... there is no ifrastructure.. you simply cannot substitute it. Enterprise cannot operate in anarchy.

As for the 3.0Trillion, you know that a large (very large) portion of this is due to your friends Chaney and GW's special project: Cost of War in Iraq.

But back to the your other post, which is QOL in EU vs US.. if you look at the data you provided, and parse it... the US has a very low cost of living.. That doesn't necessarily translate to a better standard of living.. As for subjective.. many of the categories in this study strike me as subjective.. at least I'm going off my own personal experience which for me at least is OBJECTIVE.

But sticking to science, if you look Here you will see that the US is #15 in standard of living, but yet it's unarguable the wealthiest nation in the world... if the government of the US was say.. as effective as that of Iceland, Sweden, France or other "socialist" nations... wouldn't we all be better off? (all except for the top 1% of this country which own 90% of the wealth)

 

[ksu_aviator]

The bottom line.. it costs money to "govern".. without government, there is no law or order... there is no ifrastructure.. you simply cannot substitute it.

Enterprise cannot operate in anarchy.

Who said anything about not governing? I said welfare is unconstitutional...meaning the federal government has no expressed or implied power to spend money on welfare programs...I said nothing about just throwing rules out the window.

Your assertion that I advocated anarchy through lack of government is absurd and illustrates just how little you understand on this topic.

As for the 3.0Trillion, you know that a large (very large) portion of this is due to your friends Chaney and GW's special project: Cost of War in Iraq.

My buddies GW and Cheney? I'm a Constitutionalist, I was very much against their spending on Medicaid and the like. Don't make assumptions.

BTW...the cost of the war in Iraq, regardless of how high, was constitutional (we can debate the necessity all you want, but that isn't the point...is it?) while the cost of medicare, medicaid, SCHIP and the like are unconstitutional. If those are programs you like, they should be done on a local level so they can better target local problems. How do you design a health care plan that is affordable and applicable to 320 million plus people? The answer is you don't.

But back to the your other post, which is QOL in EU vs

US.. if you look at the data you provided, and parse it... the US has a very low cost of living.. That doesn't necessarily translate to a better standard of living.. As for subjective.. many of the categories in this study strike me as subjective.. at least I'm going off my own personal experience which for me at least is OBJECTIVE.

Right, your opinion is so "objective" that you won't even accept any other input.

But sticking to science, if you look Here you will see that the US is #15 in standard of living, but yet it's unarguable the wealthiest nation in the world... if the government of the US was say.. as effective as that of

Iceland, Sweden, France or other "socialist" nations... wouldn't we all be better off? (all except for the top 1% of this country which own 90% of the wealth)

And your "objective" opinion goes right back to a survey that weights socialism heavily on the positive side. In fact, you are so "objective" that you even list a government that was a spectacular failure earlier this year: Iceland. Did you not know that the socialist policies of Iceland caused the government to fail and subsequently fall into chaos?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1421286/bankrupt_icelands_government_fails.html

Did you even look at the survey's methods? Of the 5 factors, three are education related. Of the education related, one is derived from the other two. Giving education a huge weight. Then, they weight life expectancy through a nice little math trick. In all, they barely even account for the economy and they don't account for the cost of living, standard of living or any other factor that is germane to determining the quality of live in a given country.

All of your assertions are subjective and from what I've seen in these few posts, you demonstrate a great deal of cognitive dissonance for any information that does not fit into the neat theory you have been taught and have accepted as the truth. In short, you are like a 5 year old that just realized Santa doesn't exist. Grow up, face reality. No government can effectively control the economy or citizens. It can only create a level playing field and referee.

Back on topic: When the President of the United States over steps his constitutionally mandated bounds and dictates the daily operations of a business, pointing out his hypocrisy is a valid argument. Especially when that same President is going to double the national debt in 5 years (a national debt that took 20+ years to create).

 

[gret]

"Welfare is unconstitutional"? What about the space program, HUD, FAA, DOT, FCC, FDA, etc? Let's shut the suckers down and see what happens.

Love or hate 'em, Congress and the President are elected (we put them there) and things have turned out pretty well for the past 233 years.

Questioning whether the President should fly private is nonsense.

Also, the companies that got TARP could have said no and some of them did so, until they figured out it sounded like a pretty good deal. Once they got it, they didn't like the restrictions on their pay and that is why they want out now.

I'm a Republican by the way, but the party's leadership have lost their minds and need to pull their heads out of their butts. I'm willing to see what this administration can do.

 

[HA25]

All of your assertions are subjective and from what I've seen in these few posts, you demonstrate a great deal of cognitive dissonance for any information that does not fit into the neat theory you have been taught and have accepted as the truth. In short, you are like a 5 year old that just realized Santa doesn't exist. Grow up, face reality. No government can effectively control the economy or citizens. It can only create a level playing field and referee.

That's quite an analysis of someone whom you neither know, or know anything about. My age, my life experience, and my political evolution from Right wing to Left wing to no wing.. I don't pretend to fit a label such as "Constitutionalist" nor do I feel that such a self righteous label even has any meaning to me.. it smacks of "I was there son when Ben, George and the boys were debating the future of this nation". I've read the constitution and federalist papers as part of my college studies, and I've formulated my opinion on the subject over the years as to what was intended by those men who lived in a time before medical technology, computers, airplanes or international corporations..

So while in a perfect world, we can live by the bare bones of the constitution and allow no powers to the government that aren't enumerated therein, in reality, the Justices of the Supreme court have been manipulating this document since Marbury v. Madison and certainly since Dred Scott v. Sandford to fit the political agendas of the times. The whole strict constructionist idea while admirable in theory relies on the fact that those who are doing the strict construction are in fact human, with all the failings and emotion of being such.

So until you can find a stoical supercomputer that is able to legislate and interpret law as it is and isn't allowed under the constitution as it was originally intended (heck, we can't even agree on whether the 2nd Amendment relates to the militia or individuals).. I think you'll just have to accept the current system and vote for the man that best represents your world view.

No method of government, or economic policy is perfect, but sometimes a little bit of the one and a little bit of the other might be the correct answer.. sort of like cooking. So it's not only salt, or only pepper.. but a pinch of both. Some socialism is a good thing, I stand by it. Excessive of anything is bad.

 

[LJ45]

That's quite an analysis of someone whom you neither know, or know anything about. My age, my life experience, and my political evolution from Right wing to Left wing to no wing.. I don't pretend to fit a label such as "Constitutionalist" nor do I feel that such a self righteous label even has any meaning to me.. it smacks of "I was there son when Ben, George and the boys were debating the future of this nation". I've read the constitution and federalist papers as part of my college studies, and I've formulated my opinion on the subject over the years as to what was intended by those men who lived in a time before medical technology, computers, airplanes or international corporations..

So while in a perfect world, we can live by the bare bones of the constitution and allow no powers to the government that aren't enumerated therein, in reality, the Justices of the Supreme court have been manipulating this document since Marbury v. Madison and certainly since Dred Scott v. Sandford to fit the political agendas of the times. The whole strict constructionist idea while admirable in theory relies on the fact that those who are doing the strict construction are in fact human, with all the failings and emotion of being such.

So until you can find a stoical supercomputer that is able to legislate and interpret law as it is and isn't allowed under the constitution as it was originally intended (heck, we can't even agree on whether the 2nd Amendment relates to the militia or individuals).. I think you'll just have to accept the current system and vote for the man that best represents your world view.

No method of government, or economic policy is perfect, but sometimes a little bit of the one and a little bit of the other might be the correct answer.. sort of like cooking. So it's not only salt, or only pepper.. but a pinch of both. Some socialism is a good thing, I stand by it. Excessive of anything is bad.

I get it now, you are smarter than everyone else.

 

[lookin4better]

well said !!

LJ45,

I remember when you were upset that our most recent President took a 747 to Crawford TX for his personal vacations..... or maybe not... because you didnt seem to care, I hope you cared about that being on your " dime " too..... you did right?

If its wasting money, its wasting money.... doesnt matter who does it right?

President Bush can do it for fun, so can this President.

Humorus try though...

for the record, I think Presidents of BOTH current parties can use the planes for stuff like this. Like em' or not.