The Worst President in History?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I think, anyone with a decent knowledge of history and/or following the news over a couple of years will have noticed that their progressives on the left as well as on the right.

Personally and without looking it up, I associate 'progressive' more with the right side of the party spectrum, like in Canada and Ireland (An Páirtí Daonlathach), the UKIP in the UK etc etc

Walter, some terms have totally different meanings in Europe, as opposed to here.

And blatham, proposals to federalize health care is not turning an entire industry over to the government? Perhaps you need to re-examine what you said.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
I think, anyone with a decent knowledge of history and/or following the news over a couple of years will have noticed that their progressives on the left as well as on the right.

Personally and without looking it up, I associate 'progressive' more with the right side of the party spectrum, like in Canada and Ireland (An Páirtí Daonlathach), the UKIP in the UK etc etc

Walter, some terms have totally different meanings in Europe, as opposed to here.

And blatham, proposals to federalize health care is not turning an entire industry over to the government? Perhaps you need to re-examine what you said.

You wrote "...industries should be turned over to government in order to fix it." You'll note the plural. This sentence above is your first mention of healthcare or any specific area.

There are quite a number of nations where federal healthcare systems are in place, including Canada, of course. How they are organized varies along with the degree that peripheral services are covered or not.

If you use a marketplace model and consider the citizens of those nations with a healthcare system as 'consumers' and federal healthcare as the product, would it surprise you that these consumers (in every such nation I know of) have universally chosen the same product election after election. They don't do this as a matter of ideology, they do this out of having experienced a system which suits their overall needs. If the US develops a similar system at some point, it won't go back to what you have now because you and everyone else won't allow that to happen, as is the case in those other nations.

If there is any imaginable government program which corresponds to the Christian values of mercy and charity and brotherhood, it is such a healthcare program where all are treated as Jesus would have treated them. Pain and suffering or life-ruining expenses make healthcare quite a different critter than, say, automobile or appliance manufacturing and ownership. The motivation to put such a health system in place isn't to accord with Marx. if so, it would be ALL economic activity.

PS...presently, the US has some really terrible health statistics compared to other industrialized countries with health programs (infant deaths, etc).

0 Replies

Blatham, Capitalism is greater then Christianty in America. I am sure you hang out with enough atheists to grasp that. The countries that afford their citizens national heathcare also do not have the defense budget the US does. They can do that because the US will be there to protect their socialist asses should something occur that would require a military intervention.

It is unfortunate that we don't have the same security blanket the rest of the world has.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Blatham, Capitalism is greater then Christianty in America. I am sure you hang out with enough atheists to grasp that. The countries that afford their citizens national heathcare also do not have the defense budget the US does. They can do that because the US will be there to protect their socialist asses should something occur that would require a military intervention.

It is unfortunate that we don't have the same security blanket the rest of the world has.

Again, you've got this ass backwards, McG. But what's new. Everything you state is "... merely MY opinion... ".

The USA's military budget is way out of whack with reality. You people are getting stiffed, big time. Stop with your silly opinions, McG. Try some facts for once.

Quote:

http://pnews.org/news/index.php/Proportionality

In fact the U.S. spends more, to bully other countries into doing what the U.S. wants, and euphemistically calls it "defense"; more even than all the countries who are members of the Security Council combined, including Russia and China. As a matter of fact the U.S. spends more on it's military than all the countries of the entire world combined.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Two U.S. presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson, the seventeenth chief executive, and William J. Clinton, the forty-second.

And interestingly,both of them were Democrats.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html

Interestingly Nixon and Agnew resigned rather than face impeachment, both were Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States

I don't think either side of US politics has much moral high ground against the other.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Blatham, Capitalism is greater then Christianty in America. I am sure you hang out with enough atheists to grasp that. The countries that afford their citizens national heathcare also do not have the defense budget the US does. They can do that because the US will be there to protect their socialist asses should something occur that would require a military intervention.

It is unfortunate that we don't have the same security blanket the rest of the world has.

Then replace "christian values" with "humane" values.

Your military budget is what it is not in response to real threats so much as it is simply a big money-maker for a lot of people and business entities. You've already spent, for example, 100 billion for a missle defence program which doesn't work and has no promising prospect of effective defence, which pretty much everyone acknowledges SEE HERE The US is the main supplier of weapons to the world which ain't gonna make it safer, but which will make lotsa dollars for Raytheon etc. And they pay the lobbyists, and those lobbyists hire ex-Generals and ex-Congressmen and round and round you go.

In any case, the question is system efficiency and the US medical system is deeply inefficient.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Then replace "christian values" with "humane" values.

Isn't that what most of the great dictators and madmen claimed they intended to do. They were going to wipe out unfairness, class envy, poverty, starvation, and all the rest, and create utopia. Guys like Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, people like that, blatham, is that what you are advocating?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Isn't that what most of the great dictators and madmen claimed they intended to do. They were going to wipe out unfairness, class envy, poverty, starvation, and all the rest, and create utopia. Guys like Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, people like that, blatham, is that what you are advocating?

Godwin is waking up.....

But to turn that facile argument around.

Okie are you saying Christian values aren't humane?

0 Replies

Our government has never been about humane values. It is about individual rights and responsibilities, or equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. My antenna go up when politicians begin talking about public morality and applying humane values and Christian values to government. Such are the methods used by control freaks, social engineers, socialists and communists to institute their solutions to suffering, invariably leading to more suffering than ever.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Our government has never been about humane values.

An interesting statement, that much I have to admit.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Our government has never been about humane values.

An interesting statement, that much I have to admit.

I can't argue with it.

0 Replies

I provided you people with ammunition. I should rephrase that. What is more humane than guaranteeing individual rights and responsibilities? It is not the job of government to guarantee equality of outcome, which is what many people are talking about when they talk about being humane, and that is not what the government should be about.

By the way, is it humane to kill your own offspring prior to being born?

0 Replies

Is it humane to kill someone else's offspring after they are born?

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

Is it humane to kill someone else's offspring after they are born?

Are they threatening or trying to kill my offspring?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

It is not the job of government to guarantee equality of outcome, which is what many people are talking about when they talk about being humane, and that is not what the government should be about.

Are you the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland? A word means what I say it means?

That's not what I mean when I say humane. For example a humane treatment of animals does not mean making sure the have medical insurance or public education.

0 Replies

Quote:

By the way, is it humane to kill your own offspring prior to being born?

Quote:

Is it humane to kill someone else's offspring after they are born?

The answer to both questions is the same, of course: No, but it is neccessary from time to time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

hingehead wrote:
Is it humane to kill someone else's offspring after they are born?

Are they threatening or trying to kill my offspring?

No, but you, through your government, are killing other people's offspring.

0 Replies

Okie--some of the mindless and clueless posters on this thread, who wouldn't know an economic fact if it hit them in the posterior, think that our budget is being spent on the military to the tune of billions, no, trillions, no, quadrillions. They don't know a thing about our economy!!

Note:

If a Deficit Falls in the Forest, Do You Hear It?, by Amity Shales...

...This year, the new report says, the deficit will be $260 billion, or $111 billion less than the CBO estimated in March. For 2006, the government deficit will be 2 percent of gross domestic product, down from the old baseline prediction for 2006 of 2.6 percent. On Aug. 17, when the more extensive annual Update of the Budget and Economic Outlook appears, that 2 percent figure is likely to show up more definitively. But neither the budgeteers' news nor the prospect of a confirmation of it is generating much discussion.

This is surprising. The Economic Report of the President shows the federal deficit for 2004 was 3.6 percent. A narrowing of more than 1 1/2 percentage points in such a short time is itself a story.

The U.S. deficit is worth comparing, for starters, with the data for European nations. In the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, European leaders set a deficit goal of 3 percent of GDP. EU member countries have had trouble meeting that target since...

end of quote
And, Okie, when the Sixty million people that have 401K's examine how their portfolios are doing at the end of September, the Democrats will defecate!!!

0 Replies

Fact check:

United States

Budget:
revenues: $2.119 trillion
expenditures: $2.466 trillion; including capital expenditures of $NA (2005 est.)

Public debt:
64.7% of GDP (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$518.1 billion (FY04 est.) (2005 est.)

(numbers courtesy of the CIA World Factbook)

0 Replies

And your point is...? ... I am going to guess.... It is inhumane to spend billions on defense and terrible weapons, instead of spending more on education, health care, and old people's social security?

0 Replies

The Worst President in History?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know