View Full Version : Poor George
This is an accurate summation of how the Anti-Bushies think:
The double binds of George W. Bush
Rich Lowry
July 19, 2004
Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters. For them, Bush is the double-bind president.
If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius.
If he hasn't been able to capture Osama bin Laden, he is endangering U.S. security. If he catches bin Laden, it is only a ploy to influence the elections.
If he ignores U.N. resolutions, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he takes U.N. resolutions on Iraq seriously, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he doesn't get France to agree to his Iraq policy, he is ignoring important international actors. If he supports multiparty talks on North Korea, he is not doing enough to ignore important international actors.
If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running.
If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.
If he adopts a doctrine of pre-emption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have pre-empted it. If he signs a far-reaching anti-terror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law.
Bush's economy hasn't created new jobs. If it has created new jobs, they aren't well-paying jobs. If they are well-paying jobs, there is still income inequality in America.
If Bush opposes a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's miserly. If he supports a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies. If he restrains government spending, he's heartless. If he supports government spending, he's bankrupting the nation and robbing from future generations.
If he opposes campaign-finance reform, he's a tool of corporate interests. If he signs campaign-finance reform, he's abridging the First Amendment rights of Michael Moore (whose ads for "Fahrenheit 9/11" might run afoul of the law).
If he accuses John Kerry of flip-flopping, he is merely highlighting one of the Massachusetts senator's strengths -- his nuance and thoughtfulness. If he flip-flops on nation-building or testifying before the 9/11 commission, he proves his own ill-intentions, cluelessness, or both.
If he doesn't admit a mistake, he is bullheaded and detached from reality. If he admits a mistake, he is damning his own governance in shocking fashion.
If he sticks with Dick Cheney, he is saddling himself with an unpopular vice president, giving Democrats who can't wait to run against Cheney a political advantage. If he drops Cheney, he is admitting that the Democratic attacks against his vice president have hit home, thus giving Democrats who have made those charges a political advantage.
If he loses in November, the voice of the American people has spoken a devastating verdict on his presidency. If he wins, he stole the election.
Rat Faced
07-29-2004, 08:12 PM
So, you wish us to agree with the Guy that suggested that we should "Nuke Mecca" in March 2002?
Hardly a guy with a Middle ofthe Road outlook, even in the USA :blink:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 15:13
So, you wish us to agree with the Guy that suggested that we should "Nuke Mecca" in March 2002?
Hardly a guy with a Middle ofthe Road outlook, even in the USA :blink:
Reagan, as I recall, made a sincere suggestion that we outlaw the USSR and bomb it into submission; sadly, he didn't follow through. <_<
C'mon, Rat-you can do better than that... ;)
BTW-
Remember-you don't know where the middle of our road is.
Biggles
07-29-2004, 09:19 PM
I suspect Mr Lowry has simply noted that age old truth that the opposition in politics cannot be seen to agree with the other side.
In the UK the Conservatives, in an attempt to both maintain their pro US stance and stand out from Labour stated that Blair was not supporting Bush enough and that they would bomb more people faster and more efficiently. Which is basically akin to agreeing with current policy whilst appearing to be an alternative. (This has of course come back to haunt them in the recent double by-election where they came a poor third in both cases).
:blink:
He didn't really suggest we bomb Mecca in anything other than a satirical stand up comedy sort of way did he?
On the subject of the extremist right - would it be fair to say that once they reach a certain point they cease to be Republican and become something other - (like the gun-toting survivalists of Montana). In much the same way that the far right in the UK leave the Conservatives and join the BNP.
Originally posted by Biggles@29 July 2004 - 16:20
I suspect Mr Lowry has simply noted that age old truth that the opposition in politics cannot be seen to agree with the other side.
He didn't really suggest we bomb Mecca in anything other than a satirical stand up comedy sort of way did he?
I think you're right, Biggles; the one true fact is that none of us has ever won a single convert, though we continue to labor in vain, our arguments never produce any winners.
There are (occasionally) losers, though.
As to your last, I suggest you ask Rat; I've frankly never given it the least thought, except to note the comment was worth the giggle it was intended to elicit.
One can always count on someone to "bite". :lol:
Rat Faced
07-29-2004, 10:03 PM
Everyone thought he was being satirical Biggles until a TV interview when asked outright..
His reply:
Lots of sentiment for nuking Mecca. Moderates opt for something more along these lines: “Baghdad and Tehran would be the likeliest sites for a first strike. If we have clean enough bombs to assure a pinpoint damage area, Gaza City and Ramallah would also be on list. Damascus, Cairo, Algiers, Tripoli and Riyadh should be put on alert that any signs of support for the attacks in their cities will bring immediate annihilation.”
He made it quite plain he was serious and thought Rod Dreher was being too soft when he said:
if an American city is nuked by terrorists, we have no choice but to respond in kind -- or we invite more of the same. But any response is fraught with crippling complications. I'd say Baghdad, Tehran and Riyadh should make the list, tout ensemble, and maybe even Damascus. As for Mecca, well, it would feel good, but we'd have every Muslim on the planet enraged unto ages of ages, and Rome would be the next target on the terrorist nuke list (ironically, Jerusalem probably has the best chance of surviving because it is sacred to all three monotheistic faiths).
Rod Dreher was proposing Nuking most of the Middle East if terrorists ever got hold of a Tactical Nuclear Weapon... as if killing untold millions of innocents would balance the books for millions of innocents in a Terrorist attack...
Mr Lowry was of the opinion that we should Nuke Mecca now, and not wait for this event to possibly happen at some point in the future.
And people wonder why the world is starting to distrust the USA, when these people are the ones influencing public opinion...
Give me Whoopie Goldberg any day ;)
Sprocket
07-29-2004, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@29 July 2004 - 13:58
This is an accurate summation of how the Anti-Bushies think:
No...it isn't.
Originally posted by Sprocket+29 July 2004 - 17:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sprocket @ 29 July 2004 - 17:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@29 July 2004 - 13:58
This is an accurate summation of how the Anti-Bushies think:
No...it isn't. [/b][/quote]
Yes...it is.
Rat Faced
07-29-2004, 10:27 PM
I'll agree with sprocket.
Im as anti-Bush as you can get, and i certainly dont think this way.
For example:
If he was man enough to even admit that he made a mistake on the WMD issue and apologise to the families of the dead, then i would accept that as a positive.
Just like i did with Blaire when he did it.
Cant stand Blaire... but i have to respect someone standing up and saying "I was wrong, sorry"
He wont though.
SuperJude™
07-29-2004, 10:43 PM
I have to say, a lot of that sums up the way most people around where I live think. How do I know "most" think that way? Like I said in another thread, I sell them their newspapers and magazines.
People really think that voting out Bush will make the world great. They hem and haw about the Patriot Act, they all have their Beat Bush Again buttons on the whole nines.
When confronted with the logic of "Is Bush stupid or genius" they rely on the "Well he is run by Rumsfeld/Cheney!"
I think maybe a lot of liberals in my country are having a hard time with things, and they all seem united, like now they have a CAUSE (and when is the last time the far left in the US really had a cause?).
-SJ™
Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 17:28
Im as anti-Bush as you can get, and i certainly dont think this way.
For example:
If he was man enough to even admit that he made a mistake on the WMD issue and apologise to the families of the dead, then i would accept that as a positive.
Rat-
You certainly bear no resemblance to those SJ and I refer to when we rail against "liberals".
Agree with us or not, if you could spend a wee bit of time witnessing what we see, you would be constantly scratching your head in wonder.
BTW-
If Dubya granted your request, he still wouldn't get your vote, so, in an election year, he (regrettfully) has no use for you; rest assured Kerry would look at things the same way.
The one difference would be that Kerry (being a liberal) would probably comment on your stupidity before leaving you to your "ignorance". ;)
Rat Faced
07-29-2004, 11:17 PM
Im not a Liberal now? :blink:
That must mean im a pinko commie.... :ph34r:
Does that mean i have to start hiding under peoples beds now? :blink:
Biggles
07-29-2004, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 23:18
Im not a Liberal now? :blink:
That must mean im a pinko commie.... :ph34r:
Does that mean i have to start hiding under peoples beds now? :blink:
RF
"in" not "under"
It is much more fun. :ph34r:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 18:18
Im not a Liberal now? :blink:
That must mean im a pinko commie.... :ph34r:
Does that mean i have to start hiding under peoples beds now? :blink:
Nah.
You're just a horse of a different color.
Quite honestly (tell me if I'm wrong), I feel you could field a decent debate perched on a barstool next to a barsteward like me.
Stateside Libs wouldn't even consent to drink with me (even if I were buying). :D
Rat Faced
07-29-2004, 11:31 PM
Biggles,
....that depends who else is in the bed :ph34r:
J2K4,
I cant believe that. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and no one will agree with everything someone else thinks.
I'll drink with anyone, and enjoy any debate that presents itself :P
...... erm, Hank and Shocks' hero worship of Mr Bush seems to point out the error of that 1st statement to J2 :unsure:
SuperJude™
07-29-2004, 11:44 PM
RF- here unfortunately people o the left leaning ilk really do act like anybody who may not agree with them is wrong, uneducated and a horrible person. The personal examples I could give are endless, but suffice it to say I now have a "Do not discuss todays headlines with me while I am working" rule in effect. Too many times early in the morning people have made comments about things in a very leftist bent and I have then been insulted for differing in opinion. My favorite is that I don't REALLy know what is going on.
Make me mad, yes, get to me, no. But j2k4 is absolutely right, there is a breed of "liberal" here that will not have a drink with you, that will insult you, and in the case of one woman actually call your job and try to get you fired because they didn't like that you said "Hey if you are against the oil industry don't drive an S.U.V."
It sucks, it shocked me, and sometimes I wonder where the hell I am living. Saddens me that I cannot discuss this stuff with people who are educated because they either insult me or dismiss my thoughts (which is why I also have the standard 'I am entitled to my opinions too right' comment handy).
Which is why irl I say things like 'I would never vote for Kerry cause he is a Red Sox fan and they are losers!' At least then, they leave me alone and never bother me with their stupid comments at work. For all the education some of these people have it amazes me they get all their info from about 3 sources:
CNN
NY Times
NPR
-SJ™
ahctlucabbuS
07-30-2004, 12:24 AM
For all the education some of these people have it amazes me they get all their info from about 3 sources:
CNN
NY Times
NPR
As for the average republican the list would be:
Fox News
Washington post
etc
Apart from the education, of course.
hobbes
07-30-2004, 12:26 AM
The issue J2 points out is far larger than Bush, it is about honesty.
Do you carry a personal agenda that supercedes reality. Does the agenda drive you to interpret square pegs as round holes.
As an individual, that is all I ask of myself. When I leave the forum and I am snuggled in bed, listening to the whir of the ceiling fan, do I believe what I have posted on the forum to be as honest and fair as I can. Or do I know that I am twisting facts and massaging events for my "cause".
I cannot stand deceit, and self-deceit is the most rancid, and unfortunately the most rampant form out there.
I sleep soundly, hope you all do too.
Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 18:32
J2K4,
I cant believe that. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and no one will agree with everything someone else thinks.
I'll drink with anyone, and enjoy any debate that presents itself :P
No-
What I meant was that some people (alot of people, actually) find the idea of having to defend cockeyed ideas too much for them.
Some will not.
Some cannot.
It amounts to the same thing, you see?
Fear of Debate!
I'll spot you the drink and hope we get to rub elbows one day.
I'm sure we won't lack for a topic. :)
BTW-Rest assured I am not blinded by Mr. Bush's splendor; he has made a hash of much of what passes for his domestic agenda-prescription drugs, education; his continued mangling of the word nuclear; many other things.
The difficulty is also being aware of how much worse Kerry would be.
Alex H
07-30-2004, 02:49 AM
j2k4 - Crap. Bush could do many things right (never running for office in the first place would have been a good start, but we'll leave that as a cynical and jaded comment from an Australian who has nothing to do with US domestic politics anyway).
What if Bush said, "This administration is going to provide free health care of a world class standard to every person in this country, citizen or not".
And then actually did it.
Why not have actual goals to achieve, instead of blanket statements like "The United States is now more secure." ?
An interesting idea would be "failure criteria" - every policy has criteria, such as if it costs more than X, or doesn't achieve X% reduction in (something bad) or doesn't achieve X% increase in (something good), or fails to meet preset performance standards, and make a named person, politician or official, responsible.
Many people will say, "But if they don't do a good job, we'll just vote for someone else". Does any one have true confidence in this approach that we currently use, or would the addition of failure criteria help bring some accountablity to western democracies?
Originally posted by SuperJude™
"Hey if you are against the oil industry don't drive an S.U.V."
Hahaha - Why don't more people think that logically?
Busyman
07-30-2004, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Alex H+29 July 2004 - 22:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H @ 29 July 2004 - 22:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> j2k4 - Crap. Bush could do many things right (never running for office in the first place would have been a good start, but we'll leave that as a cynical and jaded comment from an Australian who has nothing to do with US domestic politics anyway).
What if Bush said, "This administration is going to provide free health care of a world class standard to every person in this country, citizen or not".
And then actually did it.
Why not have actual goals to achieve, instead of blanket statements like "The United States is now more secure." ?
An interesting idea would be "failure criteria" - every policy has criteria, such as if it costs more than X, or doesn't achieve X% reduction in (something bad) or doesn't achieve X% increase in (something good), or fails to meet preset performance standards, and make a named person, politician or official, responsible.
Many people will say, "But if they don't do a good job, we'll just vote for someone else". Does any one have true confidence in this approach that we currently use, or would the addition of failure criteria help bring some accountablity to western democracies?
<!--QuoteBegin-SuperJude™
"Hey if you are against the oil industry don't drive an S.U.V."
Hahaha - Why don't more people think that logically? [/b][/quote]
That article was cynical pull anything out of the air crap.
As as Bush doing a good job. I give him an D.
....unless you are rich, then it's a B.
You see, if you are rich then you got a nice tax break
then it's a B that you then passed along in the form of new job creation
I give him an D
We also must give kudos for the rather mandatory security measures put in due to the worst attack on our mainland. <_<
I think last month terrorists were planning to attack. I was given a LAVENDER warning and I then took precautions. <_<
This seems like an extension of WMD "imminent threat".
We seriously can't fault the Prez for not finding Bin Laden.
Hell, he couldn't find WMD and there was a camera from space taking pictures of 'em.......apparently. <_<
As far as admitting that he fucked in Iraq, well it would do him well with someone looking to vote for him but can't get past the 900+ that are dead.
We all already know he fucked up. Best ta say it., or :01: :angry: GTFO!!!! :angry: :01:
....of our faces claiming we committed our armed services to "get rid of a dictator".
Originally posted by Alex H@29 July 2004 - 21:50
What if Bush said, "This administration is going to provide free health care of a world class standard to every person in this country, citizen or not".
And then actually did it.
Then we could be like Canada, eh?
Would you say Canada is a splendid example of a National Health Care System?
I have mentioned in this forum that I'm going to be paying massive medical bills for the rest of my life, but if I were a Canadian citizen, the likelihood is that I would not have to pay the bills, not because of National Health Care, but because I would be dead.
Such a deal.
This calls for a new thread, I think.
Rat Faced
07-30-2004, 08:32 PM
Having a National Health Service doesnt stop people being able to go Private if they wish too.
It actually makes it cheaper to go private, as the Medical Insurance Companies have to compete against the free stuff.
I can have full cover Private Medical Insurance for around $40 per month, if i wished to follow that route.
Biggles
07-30-2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+30 July 2004 - 20:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 30 July 2004 - 20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@29 July 2004 - 21:50
What if Bush said, "This administration is going to provide free health care of a world class standard to every person in this country, citizen or not".
And then actually did it.
Then we could be like Canada, eh?
Would you say Canada is a splendid example of a National Health Care System?
I have mentioned in this forum that I'm going to be paying massive medical bills for the rest of my life, but if I were a Canadian citizen, the likelihood is that I would not have to pay the bills, not because of National Health Care, but because I would be dead.
Such a deal.
This calls for a new thread, I think. [/b][/quote]
The French and Germans have a very good Health Care system.
:lol:
Originally posted by Biggles+30 July 2004 - 15:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 30 July 2004 - 15:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@30 July 2004 - 20:27
<!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@29 July 2004 - 21:50
What if Bush said, "This administration is going to provide free health care of a world class standard to every person in this country, citizen or not".
And then actually did it.
Then we could be like Canada, eh?
Would you say Canada is a splendid example of a National Health Care System?
I have mentioned in this forum that I'm going to be paying massive medical bills for the rest of my life, but if I were a Canadian citizen, the likelihood is that I would not have to pay the bills, not because of National Health Care, but because I would be dead.
Such a deal.
This calls for a new thread, I think.
The French and Germans have a very good Health Care system.
:lol: [/b][/quote]
Yes, and they're broke.
vidcc
07-30-2004, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@30 July 2004 - 13:27
Then we could be like Canada, eh?
Would you say Canada is a splendid example of a National Health Care System?
I have mentioned in this forum that I'm going to be paying massive medical bills for the rest of my life, but if I were a Canadian citizen, the likelihood is that I would not have to pay the bills, not because of National Health Care, but because I would be dead.
Such a deal.
Are you suggesting that countries with social healthcare systems have a higher death rate or are somehow less well trained?
I know for a fact that you have not personally experienced such systems but your satement is totally ridiculous even if it was said in jest.
We spoke of my fathers experience with similar ailments as yours in private but i have to say his treatment on the british national health was first rate and free to him at point of service as are his medications that he needs to take for the rest of his life.... just the drugs here would cost him nearly $20 k per anum.(not all related to the heart condition)
As rat pointed out full private healthcare is a lot cheaper in the Uk than here so if one wanted to go that way it is within reach. The treatment is the same in fact the NHS performs many private procedures...the only difference is that the treatment is quicker for less pressing treatment and one might not get a private room with satelite tv or 5 star resturant standard food. oh and you can choose your own date for treatment and not be told with private
I have never understood what is so repulsive about non profit healthcare
This calls for a new thread, I think.
I tried that before and you were conspicuous by your abscence in the debate
clocker
07-30-2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@30 July 2004 - 14:27
Would you say Canada is a splendid example of a National Health Care System?
Based on my mother's treatment for breast cancer while living in Edmonton, yes, I would.
It would seem I am out-numbered.
You know, it's funny-
All the current threads, taken in toto, would seem to reflect a communal belief here that all that is wrong with the U.S. could/would be corrected by Bush losing the election.
Good luck, ya'll.
clocker
07-31-2004, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@30 July 2004 - 19:24
All the current threads, taken in toto, would seem to reflect a communal belief here that all that is wrong with the U.S. could/would be corrected by Bush losing the election.
Not true.
I would however, consider it an absolutely necessary first step in the right direction.
thewizeard
07-31-2004, 05:47 AM
Poor old George. He is only, after all, a figure head; a puppet on a string.
spinningfreemanny
07-31-2004, 08:08 AM
Come on people, give Americans a chance to take care of themselves; I think that with some minor tweaks Americans can secure their own better healthcare without government interference. Free national healthcare is never free and as j2 has pointed out, has numerous disadvantages.
Edit: Just realized that this can go to either of the "healthcare" threads...
vidcc
07-31-2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@31 July 2004 - 01:09
Come on people, give Americans a chance to take care of themselves; I think that with some minor tweaks Americans can secure their own better healthcare without government interference.
America has had nothing but chances. What would you do to solve the problem of people that have been literally priced out of healthcare? We need more than minor tweeks because we do have a problem. Maybe not for you but one day you may find yourself with the same problem millions of low paid workers face today.
We have safety nets in place ( even though there are a group of people that get left out because they are in the twilight zone of earnings) but if something doesn't change we may find ourselves with a national healthcare system by way of the safety nets becoming the norm.
Free national healthcare is never free
I have heard this a lot. yes it's true it has to be paid for and this is usually done by tax (the dirtiest word here in the USA). It usually comes with another line...."but i already pay tax, i don't want to pay more"....... But if you didn't have to pay for your expensive insurance you would find you had more of your money left over for yourself as the tax taken from a social system for the average tax payer is less than the insurance. This is especially true for families with only one working and those on low and middle incomes.
and as j2 has pointed out, has numerous disadvantages.
But then our system has just as many to balance it out.
I am not advocating a national health system for the USA. For one it will never happen and for another we could do it better with a mixture of private healthcare coupled with social finance.
We do have a first class medical profession (location permitting) but when it comes to value for money i feel we get a poor deal as consumers.
SuperJude™
08-01-2004, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by vidcc@31 July 2004 - 15:50
America has had nothing but chances.
Yeah that is how I sum up my life in America, nothing but chances.....
wait did i use the sarcasm tags?
:(
-SJ™
Rat Faced
08-01-2004, 10:51 AM
vidcc,
It wouldnt be that much more expensive, as you claim.
Hospitals have always been located to serve the needs of population centres, with small clinics and "cottage hospitals" in Dr's surgeries in the more remote area's... I cant see any change to that happening.
The greatest increase in expense would be a much larger number of "Air Ambulances", to bring patients from the more remote locations quicker in the case of emergencies and that couldnt be dealt with at the "Cottage Hospitals".
This is surely the case at the moment.
The increase in costs for air ambulances is miniscule when compared to the overall costs of a Health Service.
Australia and Canada dont appear to suffer.
Hell, the Australian Doctors in the outback are renouned throughout the world as some of the best GP's there are :blink:
Biggles
08-01-2004, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by SuperJude™+1 August 2004 - 09:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SuperJude™ @ 1 August 2004 - 09:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@31 July 2004 - 15:50
America has had nothing but chances.
Yeah that is how I sum up my life in America, nothing but chances.....
wait did i use the sarcasm tags?
:(
-SJ™ [/b][/quote]
:lol:
Like all probabilties, no doubt some good and some bad. Strangely that is the case where I am too.
I just felt compelled here to search out an old post of mine that is relevant to the health care issue:
Quote:
....This very point is what is responsible for all the political squabbling here in the U.S.; if the politicians (all of them; in both parties) didn't owe their livelihoods as politicians to the distribution of tax revenue (how much they drag back to their districts), things could be more easily accorded proper funding.
An example: Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we'd have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy The conservative side opposes this for the same reasons.
The irony is, if this issue were ever resolved, ALL of the politicians lose their raison d`etre, a fact which is not lost on them.
The fact is, there is enough money wasted in government bureaucracy to pay off our debt, provide free medical care and prescription drugs. etc., etc.,.... but the pols won't spend responsibly.
We are beset by incredible greed, and a system which accomodates and winks at this behavior.
THAT is the bottom line.
-UNQUOTE
I don't feel any differently about it these days; the grandiose endeavor to push the envelope of medical technology would be blunted to some extent; the question of malpractice, and it's effect of pushing doctors out of certain disciplines, or, indeed, pushing students into the legal profession instead, would have to be addressed.
Prescription drugs would take a hit or develop their own discipline, one or the other; research would be reined in.
Perhaps some developing African country would emerge as a the world-leader in pharmaceutical development.
As I said, though-I'm sure it could be done; the money is there, but only if our legislature is responsible with our cash, and if P. Diddy's rush to bring uninformed newbie voters to the polls succeeds and becomes the new norm, I doubt we will see any sort of spending discipline in our grandchildrens lifetimes, because boring facts such as those I've recounted would not engage a new voter who is most intent on exercising his new "right".
vidcc
08-01-2004, 04:24 PM
Rat
you kind of took the point too far and missed the rest of the post that went with the point.
i said we would need to spend more but i didn't say how much. There is a great deal of overspending which i pointed out, but even if we controlled that overspending you only get what you pay for. Autrailia is vast but the population is still "generally" bunched up along the coastal areas
We already have air ambulances and such but it's in private hands and has to be viable as a going concern. We can't nationalise private industry in the USA, so any attempts to bring free healthcare via a social system would need the co-operation of the private sector.
J2.
i agree with your reasoning but have to put things in my own way :D
One doesn't need vast profits to stay "on the cutting edge of research"....unless one has that mentality. I concede that research isn't cheap but it comes with a much heavier price tag if one has the attitude " what's in it for me". You correctly pointed out the greed factor
Universities, foundations, researchers and congressional committees have concluded for years that many major drugs owe their origins to research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Cancer Institute and other public agencies.
A report by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress in 2000, then headed by Republican Senator Connie Mack of Florida, summed it up: "The Federal Government, mainly through the NIH, funds about 36% of all U.S. medical research ... Of the 21 most important drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992, 15 were developed using knowledge and techniques from federally funded research."
A GAO report last year on Taxol, which had worldwide sales of $6.2 billion from 1998 to 2002, noted, "Through a collaboration with NIH, [Bristol-Myers Squibb] benefitted from substantial investments in research conducted or funded by NIH." The collaboration "provided the company with research results that enabled [Taxol] to be quickly commercialized ..."
Alex H
08-03-2004, 02:22 AM
I think you guys missed my point - I didn't want to start a debate on health care, we've done that one before. My point was
What if Bush said...And then actually did it.
Why not have actual goals to achieve, instead of blanket statements like "The United States is now more secure." ? Has anyone noticed this? Why do we alway get the most dumbed down version of what the Bush administration is doing. Has no one told Bush that three year olds can't vote, cause thats age group he seems to pitch to.
What do you think of
"failure criteria" - every policy has criteria, such as if it costs more than X, or doesn't achieve X% reduction in (something bad) or doesn't achieve X% increase in (something good), or fails to meet preset performance standards, and make a named person, politician or official, responsible.
Alex H
08-05-2004, 05:53 AM
Oh come on all you Republicans! Doesn't anyone think a bit more accountability would benifit the people of out wonderful democarcies?
Originally posted by Alex H@5 August 2004 - 00:54
Oh come on all you Republicans! Doesn't anyone think a bit more accountability would benifit the people of out wonderful democarcies?
Please re-state this, Alex? :huh:
Biggles
08-05-2004, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+5 August 2004 - 20:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 5 August 2004 - 20:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@5 August 2004 - 00:54
Oh come on all you Republicans! Doesn't anyone think a bit more accountability would benifit the people of out wonderful democarcies?
Please re-state this, Alex? :huh: [/b][/quote]
J2
I believe Alex is making a call for our politicians to be clearer in what they promise and held to account if they don't deliver. In this he argues on the side of the angels.
Originally posted by Biggles+5 August 2004 - 15:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 5 August 2004 - 15:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@5 August 2004 - 20:02
<!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@5 August 2004 - 00:54
Oh come on all you Republicans! Doesn't anyone think a bit more accountability would benifit the people of out wonderful democarcies?
Please re-state this, Alex? :huh:
J2
I believe Alex is making a call for our politicians to be clearer in what they promise and held to account if they don't deliver. In this he argues on the side of the angels. [/b][/quote]
Eh? :huh:
The angels have over-tippled, then? :D
Biggles
08-05-2004, 08:27 PM
Angels with dirty faces (or is it minds?)
A little something I saw earlier..
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we," Bush said on Thursday.
Not sure, but it is quite endearing in a way. :)
Originally posted by Biggles@5 August 2004 - 15:28
Angels with dirty faces (or is it minds?)
A little something I saw earlier..
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we," Bush said on Thursday.
Not sure, but it is quite endearing in a way. :)
Just so.
Poor guy. :(
EDIT: Rather like a cart situated between two horses, I think. :P
Draco
08-13-2004, 07:11 AM
Need to ask something, i have been wondering about this a long time : why do you americans still call yourself the greatest democracy in the world ? :blink: I mean look at florida 2000. And whats up what that voting for people who vote in youre place whose gonna be president ? In my country we use the proportional system : every vote counts for example if someone gets 67 ou 100 votes he gets 67% and so on, no winner takes all. In a winner takes all-system it doesnt matter if u win with 50.00001% or with 99.999999% :frusty: is that fair or even logic ? and plze no bullshit about it being tradition or u have to stop calling us the old-country :P
BTW glad to see that opposing views dont have to lead to name-calling. I can disagree with someone 100% but at least give me the decency to explain/listen your/mine viewpoint thats all i ever ask.
Originally posted by Draco@13 August 2004 - 02:12
Need to ask something, i have been wondering about this a long time : why do you americans still call yourself the greatest democracy in the world ? :blink: I mean look at florida 2000. And whats up what that voting for people who vote in youre place whose gonna be president ? In my country we use the proportional system : every vote counts for example if someone gets 67 ou 100 votes he gets 67% and so on, no winner takes all. In a winner takes all-system it doesnt matter if u win with 50.00001% or with 99.999999% :frusty: is that fair or even logic ? and plze no bullshit about it being tradition or u have to stop calling us the old-country :P
BTW glad to see that opposing views dont have to lead to name-calling. I can disagree with someone 100% but at least give me the decency to explain/listen your/mine viewpoint thats all i ever ask.
If you google electoral college and do a bit of reading things should clear up considerably, Draco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.