First Question to IAS:

Why did you convert to Catholicism?

Expected Answer:

To bang slutty Catholic chicks.

Second Question to IAS:

On what evidence do you base your unbridled faith
in and worship of the free market?

Expected Answer:

Uhhhhh. I dunno.

The point being I don't get these guys who worship the free market like some sort of faith-based religion that doesn't require any supporting evidence. I have never heard an argument based on evidence that supports that an unregulated free market has merit, much less is good for the country, world, etc.

At least if you choose to follow a religion like Catholicism, maybe you get something good out of it, see above.

IAS-

Lawyers are part of the free market. Those who oppose the role of lawyers want to distort the free market to favor their personal causes. In other words, they are communists.

First Question to IAS:

Why did you convert to Catholicism?

Expected Answer:

To bang slutty Catholic chicks.

Duh. What other reason could there be to convert to any religion? Islam=bang slutty Islamic chicks. Buddhism=bang slutty Buddhist chicks.


Second Question to IAS: On what evidence do you base your unbridled faith in and worship of the free market?

Because I can get a 50 inch flat screen at Walmart for $850. 10 years ago one would have cost me $15,000. Obviously allot of people somewhere spent a lot of money and effort trying to make those flat screens affordable in the last 10 years. Wouldn't it be great if they were similarly motivated to invest the same amount of effort into bringing affordable quality health care?

IAS-

Take some time, talk with some economists about "market failure," and then come back and see if you can praise unbridled markets.

Branquinho:

Unfortunately, communists, such as IAS, have great difficulty when it comes to understanding economics. That is why in lieu of critical analysis they revert to blind adherence to the use of sloganeering, like "the free market is god" and "what is good for my flatscreen TV is good for the nation."

It would be more constructive if IAS devoted his efforts to something more suitable to his area of expertise, like educating his fellow travelers and co-free-market-religionists, e.g., Ann Coulter, about the benefits of surgery to have one's Adam's apple shaved if one wishes to pass as a female.

As to the suggestion that IAS talk to some economists, this would violate one of the principle tenets of him and his like-minded comrades: "Ignorance is bliss" (not to be confused with Blissman).

(Message edited by LAguy on June 27, 2009)

IAS,

You do know that virtually everything except for product is made in China when you go to Walmart. In particular, that flat screen was for sure made in China, since America has no ability to product electronics anymore. China is doing all of this by maintaining an artificially strong dollar.

I ain't here to analyse it. All I know is that my TV is totally fucking awesome and cost me 2 days income but my health care sucks and cost my company much more than they pay me in 2 days.

Do this. NAME ME ONE THING IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET THAT THE GOVERNMENT ANYWARE HAS EVER NATIONIONALIZED AND MADE BETER AND CHEAPER.

Government has never "NATIONIONALIZED" anything and made it better. In fact it hasn't ever "NATIONIONALIZED" anything. "NATIONIONALIZED" is not a word.

But if you are talking about "nationalized," social security qualifies as something that the government made better; before social security there was virtually no such thing as retirement benefits. If you were a member of the working poor who worked 10 or 12 hour days, six days a week, after you were forced to retire you could just go sleep in a ditch like a homeless dog.

Now I suppose the "sleep in a ditch like a homeless dog" program was cheaper than social security, but it was not better, at least not for the non-IAS thinking patriotic Americans who cared for this country, not just for themselves.

I also like the Clean Air Act, which addresses one of the transparently obvious limitations of the free market, i.e., externalities, but if I am recalling correctly a similar conversation we had a year or so ago, IAS from all evidence never bothered to learn even the basics of economics so I am guessing he still doesn't know what externalities are. Here is a very basic start, although it might be hard to understand while IAS simultaneously chants "free market, free market, I really want to kiss the free market's butt" while reading the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities.

OTOH, I am not taking away from IAS's talents. I wish him all the luck in his endeavor to find a religion to convert to that has bangable co-religionist chicks. As for me though, I would rather stick to capitalism and use the all-American dollar, not religious conversion and communism, to lure unsuspecting innocents into my den of depravity.

IAS,

Here are three off the top of my head.

Highways
Fire departments
Airports

All I know is that my TV is totally fucking awesome and cost me 2 days income but my health care sucks and cost my company much more than they pay me in 2 days.

And you wonder why everyone here thinks you're an idiot. Let me try and get this straight

Because of something that has absolutely nothing to do with something else you are against fixing health care. Your strongest opposition against changing health care is that your current health care is expensive.

To clarify your argument, my TV is cheap, the current private health insurance I have is really expensive, so I conclude that the government should not do anything to help improve the US health care system. The free market is great, and my proof is that my free market health insurance is way too expensive.

Sancho,

All public utilities - water, sewer, electric - are basically public-sector (i.e. nationalized) versions of what was initially private-market enterprises. The telephone system still is in many ways, through regulation. If left to the free market, some places still would not have telephone access.

Roads, police, fire - all of these public services used to be private if you go back far enough, and available to only those with money to pay for it.

What is Khun Mor's opinion on this great National Health Care System Obama has up his sleeve. We need a doctor's opinion on this proposal!

Hey Dildo (aka Beachman)-

It's not a National Health Care System being proposed. Listen to something other than Fox for a few minutes a day.

Answer me this: are you stupid, willfully ignorant, a troll, or some combination of the above?

One need only to review Beachman's posts, they serve simply to stir up the pot each and every time/discussion [see prior posts]. Guess what...it works. The same arguments result from you guys getting drawn in by him. TROLL is my guess!!

One thing that bothers me about posting in this thread (although in this case only a few minutes after CFK) is that it keeps the friggin' thread with its retarded name going.

I wonder whether it would be cool to put up a poll asking whether the thread should be renamed "Beachman Famous for Being an Idiot." Sorry, IAS, as hard as you have tried, you won't get a piece of this action.

A poll should be:

Which of the following has most recently happened?

1) Beachman got laid
2) Beachman sold a piece of real estate
3) Yankees won a World Series

I'm betting on the Yanks winning back in 2000.

Isn't interesting....all the Democrats who insisted that President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense system would never work and was a fantasy......and now Obama has ordered those missile defense systems be deployed to Hawaii just in case North Korea may shoot a missile in that direction!

And tell us why does Obama tell Iran they have every right to develop nuclear and power plants......but he tell us that we here in America we can not build any new nuclear power plants?

All the examples cited above, highways, utilities, water, fire departments, airports all more or less relate to managing public resources. Everyone can not have their own road. Yet we need roads. Roads are something where there is no practical alternative to "collectivization". It has to be that way. Fire departments, well if MY house burns down and I had no plan, that is my problem. But with no Fire Department it could take my neighbors house, and the neighborhood and the entire city. It has happened that way a number of times in US history. Therefore Fire Departments are a Public necessity. It has to be that way.

Although leme tell you, I have personally seen with my own eyes, mind boggling government waste, and outright corruption in how the various agencies deal with wildfires. We are all glad they put out the forest fire but in the process 10's of millions are wasted.

My health OTOH is mostly NOT PUBLIC. In fact, with the exception of communicable diseases that could threaten public health, my health is no ones damn business. Furthermore, I can not have my own road but I can hire my own doctor. Given that health care is a product that can readily be delivered on a case by case basis to individual consumers. There is a long history that competition in the free market is the most efficient way to accomplish that.

Like food. It is life and death. You will die quicker without food than you will without health care. But we all know that if we put the government in charge of rationing food and made it all "free", it would be a disaster. We all pay for our own food. It is a hyper competitive market so food is cheap and delivered with astonishing efficiency. There are a few in society who cant afford their own food so we provide it for them, but try not to make it a habit. Free market rules and the only problem we have is our food deliver is TO efficient and all our poor people are fat. What if our health care delivery system was as hyper competitive and efficient as our food delivery system?

IAS-

These guys don't get it! Close to 50% of Americans pay NO FEDERAL TAXES...they actually get refunds for paying nothing. They don't care how much money the Obama, Democrats and many Republicans spend on social programs....they are brainwashed to believe they will get some of the pie they didn't pay for. How can you blame them.....nobody is telling them NO ...someone has to pay for this!

This is how the Obama and the Democrats operated....they have close to 50% (who almost always vote for them)who pay NO FEDERAL TAXES....and remember the campaign promise...95% of Americans will see no tax increases and most will get refunds. Who is paying for all of this!

Just imagine how the political makeup of Washington would be if only those who paid federal taxes were allowed to vote! I know the crybaby liberals will chastise me for even suggesting that.....but just think about it. Would you let an adult over 18 live in your house nad just sponge off you and never contribute the better of the household? Especially when he has a cellphone, 100 channels of cable, high speed internet, etc.......oh and when he needs medical care you are required to to pay for that too!

Beachman: Your lies are getting tiring: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_40_percent_of_americans_pay_no.html

IAS

Doesn't it scare you just a little that Beachman now considers you his best (and probably only) friend in the world? His ideological twin?

Yikes!

Beachman, of course a large percentage of Americans pay no taxes. That's because they don't fucking work, you idiot. Babies don't file income tax returns, elementary school kids don't file income tax returns. A lot of retirees file returns but don't owe tax since they receive very little income. Stay at home moms, people in prison, disabled people - a lot of people don't owe much, if any taxes.

Beachman, if you spent a fraction of the time you spend trolling here on political threads - on a whoremongering board - with either selling real estate or attempting to get laid, you would probably be better off than what you're accomplishing.

Just in case Beachman can't find the time to look it up:

"The Congressional Budget Office found that earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes. Their effective tax rate (which is calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income) in those categories, according to the CBO, was in fact significantly higher than the rate of the top quintile, although that top one-fifth of the population had a much higher effective tax rate for individual and corporate income taxes."

So, Beachman, you're once again caught spreading pure manure.

I'm beginning to suspect that for you, listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and their ilk substitutes for sex. This is why we've not seen a travel-and-sex related post from you in over 5 years. You're so busy jerking off in front of your TV, or cumming on your keyboard while scanning the uber-kook right wing blogs, that you no longer have any interest in sex with women.

OK....according to your sources 38% pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAX. And a huge percent of that 38% get tax credits and refunds that more than make up for the Social Security and Medicare they pay....and remember they get back the Social Security and Medicare!


IAS is right ...if we are going to give free medicare....we better give everyone free food. And a house to live in. And a car to go to work. And free gas for the car. Etc, Etc. Etc........

Catocony.....If Hombre didn,t want this thread here ...he would have to eliminate it. You libs are cry babies .....all you can do is name call.


You great master president Obama has broken yet another campaign promise......his pledge during the campaign to post any and all bills passed by Congress on the White House's Web site for five days before he would sign them. That one had been tossed aside practically from the outset, but now it is official.

Laguy....Obama is the real liar!


Branquinho-

I can play your game...this is from the same webposting you pasted and copy just what you wanted to make people think! You always just copy and paste the one or two sentences or paragraphs you want others to see instead of posting the whole article for people to to decide for themselves. And then of course you go into the the name calling to discredit anyone who would dare to disagree with you. Let me guess you were a campaign worker for Obama....or maybe you are even on Acorn's payroll!

According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, it is true that 38 percent of "tax units" -- which can be singles, couples, or families -- are projected to have zero or negative income tax liability in 2009.

OK, you got me!



Read the whole damned piece. Then try to tell us the author's main thesis (10 points, with 5 additional points for correct use of grammar).

At what age did you drop out of school?

Leechman,

So you would establish a tax code that would tax families who already fall below the poverty line, or who would fall below or perilously close to the poverty line were they to pay income tax? Very sensible! Take a group of economically fragile families and tax them into poverty? Stellar idea.

The progressiveness built into the tax code has historically been supported by majorities in both parties. Most Republicans think it's a bad idea to tax low-income individuals. The Earned Income Tax Credit, one of those tax credits you seem to whine about, was developed under Republican leadership, and was the favorite anti-poverty tool of Saint Ronald Reagan. I had always assumed that even the most ignorant wingnut understood and appreciated the virtue of not taxing more families into poverty, but I guess I was wrong. I suppose your tax policy wet dream is to do away with all taxes. Or maybe you like the (thoroughly discredited) idea of a flat tax? You seem to bitch about everything yet you never put an idea on the table.

We know that you think all poor people are bums who just smoke crack all day, or sit in their fabulous homes watching TV on their HDTVs with 100s of channels, eating fattening foods, all the while surfing the internet on their government supported high-speed internet connections, but we also know that the reality of poverty is very different (i.e., you're full of shit).

I prefer the system whereby the rich guys get to fuck the poor women in exchange for what amounts to fairly trivial amounts of money that they then can use to support their illegitimate babies, deadbeat relatives and boyfriend.

Me too, IAS. In fact, studies by economists have shown that when poor women's earning rise enough, they have fewer babies, and they throw the bum boyfriends out of their houses.

So let's decriminalize prostitution. Let prostitutes operate like other independent business people, and allow them to participate in insurance group plans, contribute to Social Security, etc. (like they can in Brazil).

But how does this affect your views on immigration policy? Surely we need to import some high quality, low cost talent?

60 day guest worker permits. Keep a constant rotation of new talent.

In reality Singapore has the immigration model we should be following. Easy resident status and a path to citizenship for highly skilled, "high value" workers. Doctors, Engineers, Scientists and the like. Easy but tightly controlled guest worker status for menial laborers.

When can I get my Indonesian maid?

Yeah, but let's talk about something important: do they have cheap flat screen TVs in Singapore? That is the true test of whether a country has a successful economic system.

I would like to point out that my proposed 60 day foreign guest sex worker program is environmentally friendly as well. Consider for a second the tons of CO2 emissions that could be saved by flying in one Filipina who could easily service 300 clients in 60 days (if not several times that number). This vs the current system where the Filipina remains in her country and the 300 clients are forced to fly in to bang her. One airline passenger trip vs 300 airline passenger trip. Think how many tons of CO2 emissions that could be saved. In fact under cap and trade, heavy polluters should be able to earn "credits" by subsidizing the importation and payment of thousands of foreign sex workers. Coal fired power plant flies in a bunch foreign prostitutes and pays them say $3,000 each to service clients for free for 60 days. Thousands of airline trips by horny whore-mongers are thus unnecessarily. Tons of CO2 emissions are thus prevented. Power plant earns badly needed cap and trade credits. Prostitutes go home with $3000 which makes her the heroic high rolling rich woman of her probence. Whore mongers get to bang hot foreign chicks for free without the hassles of traveling about in third world countries. Win win win. Everyone's happy.

I am ready to support cap and trade IF (and only if) my immigration provisions are added to the bill.

IAS: There is a fatal flaw in your logic. The Filipina sex workers, upon entering the United States and making some money, would all start eating binges beyond anything they could do in the Philippines. In fact, they would eat so much food the greenhouse gases that would be expelled by all the additional cows that would have to be raised would cancel out the greenhouse gases saved from the decrease in mongerer trips. Moreover, the amount of extra fuel the airplanes transporting them back to the Philippines would have to consume to accommodate these now 500-pound monsters would put the whole proposition in the red--greenhouse gas-wise speaking.

I'm afraid what we are looking at is another failed Republican proposal. Sorry IAS, but better luck next time.

It is well established that when properly preserved Filipinas have a shelf life of at least 90 days. As long as you shipped them back within the 60 day time limit you would be OK.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/ap_on_re_us/us_xgr_immigration_enforcement


15-20 million nationally without Healthcare......illegals......500,000 out of 6.5 million in Arizona....who will pay for the illegals?

Arizona sees the drain the illegals have put on California and now they are finally waking up to the fact that illegals are trespassing....they are here illegally and the the states have a right to enforce the law if the Federal Government refuses to do so. I hope this issue goes to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible so we will know for certain if eventaully will will be a country of illegals with the same rights as citizens or not!

Looks like the House in Arizona rejected the bill.....I guess we will be paying for the illegals!

Beachman, you poor dumb bastard, we've been paying for illegals and others without health coverage for decades. It's called the ER at public hospitals, and it's the most expensive and least efficient method of providing health care. Do you prefer to keep the current system in place or try something a little different and possibly a lot better?

Oh, nevermind, I forgot you're a Republican. Minorities and poor whites can go fuck themselves if they don't have a PPO card. Got it.

15-20 million nationally without Healthcare......illegals......500,000 out of 6.5 million in Arizona....who will pay for the illegals?

Beachman, we've taken a vote her on CH, and YOU are going to pay for their health care. OK?

Cat-

Take pity on the poor bastard. He can only keep one small idea in his mind at a time, so he's incapable of weighing costs and benefits. I mean, he takes FOX News seriously, for shit's sake! Hell, he may even be a product of Florida's public school system (Motto: Fuck the children, we're old and tired of paying taxes).

I was 28 years old before I ever had any kind of health insurance in my entire life. Didn't hurt me any.

As for illegals? If they are the productive hardworking folks just here to make a living we always hear about, then most likely they could afford to pay for their own basic health care and then no one would be complaining that much. If they aren't productive and hardworking enough to at least carry their own weight, then they are just here mooching off our country anyway. If that's the case, OK, have the INS give them quality health care in the detention facility on their way to being deported.

Why should I pay for foreign nationals who do break our laws while not paying for ones back home who did not break our laws?

Unless they are attractive and female. Then they should receive subsidized STD clinics.

"I was 28 years old before I ever had any kind of health insurance in my entire life. Didn't hurt me any."

And that's one of the big problems with the private insurance system we have. Many young people do not participate. Most are lucky like you, and it comes at no cost to them. Some are not so lucky, and because they are uninsured, the cost of their care often falls on the public. But the bigger problem is that this means those who do buy insurance are typically older and less healthy than those who don't. This drives costs up significantly (known to health care economists as "adverse selection" because the young and healthy potential participants in health care plans "select out," leaving only the older and less healthy to pay for it all). So, IAS, you're part of the problem. You gambled and won, personally, but as a whole, the group choosing that strategy screws over everyone else.

"Why should I pay for foreign nationals who do break our laws while not paying for ones back home who did not break our laws?"

So your solution is to let the fuckers die on the steps of the emergency room? I think the reason we pay has something to do with basic human morality and values.

"So your solution is to let the fuckers die on the steps of the emergency room?"

I offered my solution. "Have the INS give them quality health care in the detention facility on their way to being deported." If genuine emergency room care is necessarily. Have the INS pay for that too...... on their way to being deported. If you are indigent and here illegally why should we pay to support you.

As for the 50 gazillion uninsured US citizens. Lets figure that in any given year, say 90 percent of them will either be completely fine or they will have expenses that are within their ability to afford themselves. That leaves say 10% of the uninsured who are to poor to pay for their health care in any given year. OK, have public health care pay for the 10% of the uninsured who are legitimately so sick and so poor they are indigent.

But why would you have the Federal government print money or borrow money from the Chinese with NO even remotely plausible plan put forward of EVER being able to pay for it, to pay for health care for healthy people and people like me and you who readily have the resources to pay for it ourselves? Focus instead on the specific REAL problem. The much smaller number of indigent people who are to poor and to sick to pay for their health care. I bet you 97 percent of the country is either insured, or not sick. That leaves 3% you need to address with a "poor people health care system". Not 100%. Leave everyone else alone.

"As for the 50 gazillion uninsured US citizens. Lets figure that in any given year, say 90 percent of them will either be completely fine or they will have expenses that are within their ability to afford themselves. That leaves say 10% of the uninsured who are to poor to pay for their health care in any given year."

If only your numbers were close to reality. But that "adverse selection" works in the opposite way with the uninsured. The majority are uninsured because they can't afford insurance, not because they are young, healthy and choose not to buy it. And there's a ton of research documenting that the health of these individuals, often because they are poor, is much poorer than the health of the insured. Also, because they are uninsured, and often live in places (both urban and rural) where health care services are not readily available, they frequently delay seeking services until their problems get both serious and costly. And they sure as hell don't get preventative health care services.

Your 97% figure is way off, I'm afraid. At any moment in time (point prevalence) most people are healthy, but nowhere close to 97%. Over a 10 year period of time (period prevalence), the majority of people have a health care situation that is both serious and will tax their financial resources if they are without insurance. Just look at the recent reports on the number of personal bankruptcy filings due to health care expenses. Health costs are now the single largest cause of bankruptcies:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

That's just one of a number of such studies, and the situation has been getting worse for nearly a decade. Note that even those with insurance are being crushed by HC debt due to being under-insured, with policies with high deductibles, co-pays, high stop-loss limits, etc.

I'm afraid the problem is more complicated than you suggest. And making up phony numbers doesn't shed any light on it.

Keep up the good work Obama.........


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090702/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

When is the last time you got laid Beachman?

I'm betting it was sometime in the prior century.

Sex, to Beachman, equals on a good day.

No need for sex when you can jerk off while reading the right wing blogs.

I am a liberal European.....sorry, shoot me now! I was born in Germany, then lived in the US, and now Brazil. So I have a little experience. Obama inherited a mess....it certainly is going to take some time to fix it. The unemployment rate is not something that is due to Obama's policies, but something that has been in the works for quite some time.

I love the US, but lets face it....if you are poor or lose your job, you are fucked! One of my customer's lives in Denmark and he told me about the extended health benefits, retraining, unemployment benefits, etc....man, is the European system bad :-)

The US hold the promise of being rich and not being taxed to bring you down, but lets face reality....the majority of people are working stiffs living paycheck to paycheck. What happens when you lose your job?

I guess when you are looking at the majority of the population the European model of socialism is not not so bad. How horrible to have a universal health insurance, liberal unemployment benefits, retraining, etc....

The majority of concerns seem to be that deadbeats take advantage of the system, but lets face it--- there are many regular people who just want to survive! Is the concern for deadbeats enough to drive those that are non deadbeats to the edge of desperation and not being able to feed their family and lose their homes?

Yes, I am a liberal German American.....and no, I do not own a gun!

"Yes, I am a liberal German American.....and no, I do not own a gun!"

Then you may not want to consider a move to Arizona. The Arizona legislature passed a bill yesterday that will allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry their concealed weapons into bars. What a great idea! Everyone knows that firearms and alcohol go well together. And the governor is expected to sign it into law.

Just when I think things can't get any weirder, something like this happens. Here in the land of the formerly free and the home of the armed, truth is stranger than fiction. When shit like that is going down and the major news outlets can't cover anything but Michael Jackson--hey guys, he's dead!--you know we're in deep do-do.