Obama Exposed

[checkymcfold 0]

Sometimes I find myself thinking bad thoughts towards you...

sorry, i won't marry your daughter. i'm taken.

[hblask 1]

would it be better for kansas to teach creationism instead of evolution in public schools? governmental regulations are there for a reason--to prevent bad shit.

There is no reason for the federal government to be involved in education. Before it got involved, the US was a world leader in education. Each year, the federal gov't has gotten more involved, and the US moves down a few more steps on the world testing scores. But I suppose, like all the failed socialist programs, that it was 1) just a coincidence, and 2) not working because of the specific implementation, it just needs reform, and 3) an exception. Did you ever notice that EVERY big government program uses those excuses? How many trials do we give them before we figure out that maybe, just maybe, it's the system, not the specifics? There are many books on public choice theory; the real answer is explained there.As for whether Kansas should teach creationism, any parent who thinks their schools are teaching their specific values are in for a big shock. In the end, education is a PARENT's responsibility. It's bad enough when the state says it's theirs, but when the federal government takes control, parents have no say whatsoever. Why are you so afraid of creationist ideas? Do you think that children are mindless drones who will absorb whatever is told to them? I think kids should learn about science; they should learn about where creationism falls on the science spectrum. Kids should have all the information their parents want them to have; anyone who is waiting for the federal government to do that is going to end up with seriously dumb kids.

fwiw, socialized medicine (stop using that scaremongering word, btw--it's government run health care, properly speaking) is working better than fine in canada, where i lived for two years. it's also working fine in most of scandinavia. if the US were actually capable of learning from others and not trying to do everything its own way, it's more than conceivable that we could pull it off.

I love how people promoting socialism at least have the sense to *pretend* it's not socialism. That means the good guys are winning the war of ideas; now we have to name it something else to even have it considered. But calling a pig a rose doesn't make it smell any better.In Canada, you are more likely to die of heart problems than you are to make it through the waiting list for heart surgery. Waiting lists for most specialties are over 6 months. Canadian medicine only works for people with no illnesses or minor illnesses. People with serious illnesses either die, suffer, or come to the US for treatment.In Canada, there are businesses that specialize in finding healthcare in the US for patients who can't get treatment in Canada due to long waiting lists. There is no such business in the US.

also, veterans hospitals are horribly underfunded, by and large--at least the one i've seen and the one a family friend attended.

The poor performance of the veteran's hospital is 1) just a coincidence, and 2) not working because of the specific implementation, it just needs reform, and 3) an exception.

i honestly don't know, but your odd spin here is kind of weird. "doctors who provide a treatment that a bureaucrat has not approved" also often provide unapproved treatments that actually worsen a patient's condition, or misapply experimental techniques in order to gain themselves a bigger name. that's bad. the FDA isn't the best thing in the world, but at least it keeps doctors from doing that.

So your theory is that, with all the technological changes that occur on a daily basis, that a distant bureaucrat is better able to make a decision on YOUR healthcare than you could make in a discussion between you and your doctor? Seriously? Congress? Smarter about medicine than my doctor? Your doctor? Any doctor? Please, you are smarter than this.You are suggesting using an atomic bomb to kill a gnat. The solution is simple: doctors get insurance; if a doctor does something that is inappropriate, the patient wins a malpractice suit and the doctor loses his job. Or are you claiming that when Teddy Kennedy writes a law in Washington DC, that doctors in Helena MT suddenly become competent and mistake free? If you have a theory for how this happens, I'd be interested in hearing it.I think an organization like the FDA needs to exist; in fact I think several of them should exist. I think we need to get it out of the hands of the least efficient organization in the United States, i.e., Congress.

federally regulated free market: "cap and trade"free market: "just trade"

Pollution is a special case, and I agree that we need regulation to control harm that is due not to malice but to normal secondary effects of life. My point here was that for the last 100 years, statists believed that a centrally-planned command-and-control model could solve all our problems. Here is a case where we find that, even in the areas that need to be regulated, the free market does a better job of solving the problem than central planners. It's good to see the democrats ever-so-slowly coming onboard.

dear god. taxes are not a "negative incentive." they are "the way the government takes in money to provide public services via centralized funding." you can't just give something a bad name and think that doing so makes it bad. i could do that with lassiez-faire economics--let's just call it "money means more than people economics" or "may the best human rights abuser win." that's not productive, so don't do it. taxes are not bad in and of themselves; neither is purely free market economics. you have to evaluate each on the merits of their consequences, both positive and negative.as to your half-argument, sure, i'm sure some people would change their spending habits. that's fine by me. they still have more money than single mothers working two jobs because they got pregnant and couldn't go to college. also, fwiw, my parents are lower middle class and don't give a flying **** about how much they're taxed.

Once again, you can change the name to an obvious phenomenon all you want, but increasing taxes on additional money earned makes it less likely that people will put in the effort required to earn that extra dollar. You can call it "potato", or "magic fairy dust" or "helping the poor", but it doesn't change the fact that people change their behavior in response to the incentives placed before them, and that any claim of increasing tax revenue by taxing the rich that doesn't take into account the fact that the rich have the means to avoid those taxes is just plain fantasy.

[SlapStick 0]

American's don't like being treated like cattle.

You're an idiot

[akoff 0]

Sigh...Schlesinger: as it did in the time of Jefferson -- liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least.

That must have been a long long time ago. Liberals governing least...wow LOL

[Loismustdie 0]

You grew up in that system but heaven forbid that you have to pay for anyone else to do the same. Instead let's just continue with the same old same old and have health care costs continue to skyrocket until the only people that can afford health care are the rich. Everyone else can just use the emergency room for their doctor. Or better yet, just die off without causing such a friggin fuss about it. Such an abundance of good old common sense in your post. Sadly we have way too much of that old common sense in this country when what's really needed is some uncommon sense.

I am ALREADY paying for others to do the same, and it for the most part doesn't work. The evidence is as clear as it can possibly be that if you give people money for nothing than a large amount will continue to do just that- nothing. The goal was, and should have been, to get out of that system- my mother eventually did, but she had actual drive. Most in the system don't. I have personally known way to many people who have worked jobs for less, passed up opportunities to be self -sufficient just because it would cause them to put themselves in a different tax bracket. You are right, I do have common sense about it. Uncommon sense is just one of those things we say because it sounds clever, but really it says nothing, and the question that is obvious- why the **** should I give this government even more reign to not get things accomplished? This way, the handouts and the freebies- it DOESN'T work!! Why should we continue to throw money at a busted way of thinking? New Orleans should have shown us how effective relying on the government is, and realize I don't have a problem with how New Orleans went down. I am willing to bet that many who thought it a good thing to just wait for a bus will never, ever, let themselves be in that position again. What a way to learn that self sufficiency is better. As far as lowering health care costs, that's so easy it's sick. Let the free market remain and expand it. Allow prescriptions to be purchased from Mexico and Canada, things like that. Putting in proce controls NEVER works.

[akoff 0]

I am ALREADY paying for others to do the same, and it for the most part doesn't work. The evidence is as clear as it can possibly be that if you give people money for nothing than a large amount will continue to do just that- nothing. The goal was, and should have been, to get out of that system- my mother eventually did, but she had actual drive. Most in the system don't. I have personally known way to many people who have worked jobs for less, passed up opportunities to be self -sufficient just because it would cause them to put themselves in a different tax bracket. You are right, I do have common sense about it. Uncommon sense is just one of those things we say because it sounds clever, but really it says nothing, and the question that is obvious- why the **** should I give this government even more reign to not get things accomplished? This way, the handouts and the freebies- it DOESN'T work!! Why should we continue to throw money at a busted way of thinking? New Orleans should have shown us how effective relying on the government is, and realize I don't have a problem with how New Orleans went down. I am willing to bet that many who thought it a good thing to just wait for a bus will never, ever, let themselves be in that position again. What a way to learn that self sufficiency is better. As far as lowering health care costs, that's so easy it's sick. Let the free market remain and expand it. Allow prescriptions to be purchased from Mexico and Canada, things like that. Putting in proce controls NEVER works.

Well said!!!

[Balloon guy 158]

sorry, i won't marry your daughter. i'm taken.

He's a lucky man

[Nimue1995 1]

I am ALREADY paying for others to do the same, and it for the most part doesn't work. The evidence is as clear as it can possibly be that if you give people money for nothing than a large amount will continue to do just that- nothing. The goal was, and should have been, to get out of that system- my mother eventually did, but she had actual drive. Most in the system don't. I have personally known way to many people who have worked jobs for less, passed up opportunities to be self -sufficient just because it would cause them to put themselves in a different tax bracket. You are right, I do have common sense about it. Uncommon sense is just one of those things we say because it sounds clever, but really it says nothing, and the question that is obvious- why the **** should I give this government even more reign to not get things accomplished? This way, the handouts and the freebies- it DOESN'T work!! Why should we continue to throw money at a busted way of thinking? New Orleans should have shown us how effective relying on the government is, and realize I don't have a problem with how New Orleans went down. I am willing to bet that many who thought it a good thing to just wait for a bus will never, ever, let themselves be in that position again. What a way to learn that self sufficiency is better. As far as lowering health care costs, that's so easy it's sick. Let the free market remain and expand it. Allow prescriptions to be purchased from Mexico and Canada, things like that. Putting in proce controls NEVER works.

Anyone who wants to see how true laissez-faire economic policies would work then take a look at Montana. We've had Republicans in power for a long time until recently and what has that brought us? Currently we have one of the lowest average wages in the United States. BUT food gas and just about anything but shelter costs pretty much the same as in the rest of the United States. So we have people working 2 jobs just to put food on the table. 90% of the students in our public schools qualify for the reduced price lunch program. We have schools that date from 1901 and are still in use. We have a populace that's been so scared of higher taxes that even though the school is falling down around their kid's ears, they still won't approve a $40,000 maintenance levy. In other states, school levies are routinely passed and I'm not saying that's a good thing. But here, school levies routinely fail because of the "higher taxes" scaremongering that goes on from Republicans at the local level. Therefore we have schools that are teaching from 20 year old textbooks and school buildings that are half condemned because there's no funds to fix them or build new ones. We have an economy that only rich people or retired people that made their money elsewhere can afford housing in. My husband is the 2nd highest paid person in the school district that he works in and he makes around $40,000 a year. He's considered to making GOOD money. We can barely keep ahead with our bills as it is and I'm going to school so I can go back to work at the ripe old age of 54. (We had 3 kids at home until recently and then had our grandchildren at home as well so if I went back to work at what I would qualify for, we'd be paying for the priviledge). This is the wonderful result of Republican-Libertarian power over the last 15 or more years. And that's why populist Democrats such as Jon Tester and Brian Schweitzer have been elected in over the last few years. Because finally the people have gotten fed up and said "enough"!As for health care, we have such a great health care system in this country that in order to treat a catastrophic illness, people have to go bankrupt only now we can't even do that since the Republicans have revamped the bankruptcy laws. My husband has a terminal lung illness and the only thing that can save his life now is a lung transplant (and no he NEVER smoked). However he's refusing to do so because he's afraid that it will wipe out our finances. I've told him that I'd rather be poor and have him than be comfortable without him but he won't budge. So yes, selfishly I guess, I'm for universal health care because I'd rather see him alive than dead. Oh and we do have some health insurance but not for a lung transplant. He's a relatively young man at 56. And the situation is breaking my heart. So this is why I have no more use for Republicans and their scare tactics and their laissez-faire economy. My husband worked all his life to support his family and now when he should be able to enjoy the fruits of his labor instead he's going to die of a horrible disease because he doesn't think we can afford to get him what he needs to live. So don't tell me about working the way out of poverty or how bad universal health care would be. Because the present system will cost my husband his life.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

You should move to a different state.

[hblask 1]

<br />Anyone who wants to see how true laissez-faire economic policies would work then take a look at Montana. We've had Republicans in power for a long time until recently and what has that brought us? Currently we have one of the lowest average wages in the United States. BUT food gas and just about anything but shelter costs pretty much the same as in the rest of the United States.

You've chosen to blame this on Republicans, rather on the fact that you live in a frozen hellhole devoid of entertainment? OK. Just saying, there are other explanations.

My husband is the 2nd highest paid person in the school district that he works in and he makes around $40,000 a year. He's considered to making GOOD money. We can barely keep ahead with our bills

Struggling at 40K/year? I don't think the "income" side of the equation is the problem. You may want to scale back on the spending a bit there.

As for health care, we have such a great health care system in this country that in order to treat a catastrophic illness, people have to go bankrupt only now we can't even do that since the Republicans have revamped the bankruptcy laws. My husband has a terminal lung illness and the only thing that can save his life now is a lung transplant (and no he NEVER smoked).

And you believe that socialized medicine would provide this lung transplant? The same way that they are offering a 108 year-old woman a hearing aid in Canada.... in 27 months? Or heart surgery there? More people die on waiting lists than actually get surgery. Here's a hint: promises are not the same as reality.

However he's refusing to do so because he's afraid that it will wipe out our finances. I've told him that I'd rather be poor and have him than be comfortable without him but he won't budge. So yes, selfishly I guess, I'm for universal health care because I'd rather see him alive than dead. Oh and we do have some health insurance but not for a lung transplant. He's a relatively young man at 56. And the situation is breaking my heart. <br />So this is why I have no more use for Republicans and their scare tactics and their laissez-faire economy. My husband worked all his life to support his family and now when he should be able to enjoy the fruits of his labor instead he's going to die of a horrible disease because he doesn't think we can afford to get him what he needs to live. So don't tell me about working the way out of poverty or how bad universal health care would be. Because the present system will cost my husband his life.

I think the notion that socialized medicine would provide lung transplants on demand is delusional. It will provide healthcare the way the Soviets provided bread and meat, the way the Canadian system provides heart surgery: only to those who are lucky enough to survive long enough to wait for it. It'll provide medicine the way Yugoslavia produced automobiles under a centrally-planned system: poorly. In the US, we are lucky, all the trial-and-error central planning experiments have been done elsewhere, we don't have to put our people through that.

[Balloon guy 158]

As for health care, we have such a great health care system in this country that in order to treat a catastrophic illness, people have to go bankrupt only now we can't even do that since the Republicans have revamped the bankruptcy laws. My husband has a terminal lung illness and the only thing that can save his life now is a lung transplant (and no he NEVER smoked). However he's refusing to do so because he's afraid that it will wipe out our finances. I've told him that I'd rather be poor and have him than be comfortable without him but he won't budge. So yes, selfishly I guess, I'm for universal health care because I'd rather see him alive than dead. Oh and we do have some health insurance but not for a lung transplant. He's a relatively young man at 56. And the situation is breaking my heart. So this is why I have no more use for Republicans and their scare tactics and their laissez-faire economy. My husband worked all his life to support his family and now when he should be able to enjoy the fruits of his labor instead he's going to die of a horrible disease because he doesn't think we can afford to get him what he needs to live. So don't tell me about working the way out of poverty or how bad universal health care would be. Because the present system will cost my husband his life.

My heart goes out to you for your misfortune.I relate to your husband though, I would not allow my wife to use up all the money we've saved over the years in order to fix me and then leave us completely at the mercy of the SS admin. I have told her this clearly many times. I would probably do it to save her though.I am amazed that working for a school system you don't have healthcare?And you don't have any insurance for at min catostrophoic care?It cost me and my wife $200 a month and we have a million plus coverage, but a $5,000 deductible. So we only have it for major bills, nothing for most health issues.I hope you guys find some help.

[Nimue1995 1]

You've chosen to blame this on Republicans, rather on the fact that you live in a frozen hellhole devoid of entertainment? OK. Just saying, there are other explanations.There are quite a number of people that think this is a wonderful lovely place to live. You might not think so but we have a great deal of entertainment here. Might not be the bright lights big city kind though. Anyway, yes I do blame the Republicans. How can you attract industry and high paying jobs when the executives come out and see old decrepit school buildings and highways that have potholes large enough to lose a small car in? Struggling at 40K/year? I don't think the "income" side of the equation is the problem. You may want to scale back on the spending a bit there.I was answering the post that said 200K a year was lower middle class. Give me a break! And the 40K is GOOD money here. However since we've had my husband's medical bills to contend with and also managed to raise 3 kids on actually less than that income, it's not the spending side of the equation. If you're alone and only have to support yourself then 40K is pretty good. When you're raising 3 kids on less than that then it puts you again in the catagory of qualifying for reduced price school lunches. We've not had a new car in 20 years. We've struggled because we don't go into debt except in emergencies. It's easy to live on 40k if you're carrying a debt load. Not so easy when you're not. Unfortunately we've not been able to keep that up since my husband's illness. We now have medical bills for what's already been done (which by the way, doesn't help in the least to make him well). And you believe that socialized medicine would provide this lung transplant? The same way that they are offering a 108 year-old woman a hearing aid in Canada.... in 27 months? Or heart surgery there? More people die on waiting lists than actually get surgery. Here's a hint: promises are not the same as reality.I have a friend in Toronto who's father had a stroke and they provided great care for him and they're not losing their home or anything because of it. Not the case in this country is it? I think the notion that socialized medicine would provide lung transplants on demand is delusional. It will provide healthcare the way the Soviets provided bread and meat, the way the Canadian system provides heart surgery: only to those who are lucky enough to survive long enough to wait for it. It'll provide medicine the way Yugoslavia produced automobiles under a centrally-planned system: poorly. In the US, we are lucky, all the trial-and-error central planning experiments have been done elsewhere, we don't have to put our people through that.

I think that at this moment it's the only way my husband will get a lung transplant. Even though he's got no other real health problems so he's an excellent candidate to get it. And if I can find some way for him to get it and keep him living longer then I will do my damndest to try it. Even if it's universal health care. Where did you get your stats on people dying on waiting lists anyway? And tell me how many people die on waiting lists here waiting for transplants? You'll probably find them comparable. Now my experience with the Canadian Healthcare system is admittedly anectdotal from my one friend's experience with it (though he raves about it). But I don't see anything in your post that's got any more validity. You can state those supposed "facts" but where's the substance to back it up and how current is it? You can compare it anyway you like to systems of government that are no longer in power and were obvious failures. But how about the ones that currently have that kind of system in place. And there's more than just Canada or Scandinavia. I'll take my chances with my husbands life on a universal healthcare system over the present one because the present one just gave him a death sentence.

[akoff 0]

I'll take my chances with my husbands life on a universal healthcare system over the present one because the present one just gave him a death sentence.

There is nothing to offer you but the best of luck and prayers. I can understand your feelings due to your personal situation; however, I will still take my chances with the present health care situation over ANY type of socialized heath care. My fundamental belief is that even if the intent is good our government (both sides) will complicate it, create such a log jam that ultimately many more will die unnecessarily.Good luck.

[Loismustdie 0]

I cannot even imagine having to be in a situation where my significant other was going to die. I can't. That being said, someday reality says I will have to deal with that. We all will. We should all be prepared for that in some way. It's not a governments job to do that for us and when they do, they suck at it. And, I hate to tell you this but I have no sympathy for people that complain about where they live and how they can't get what they need because of where they live. The common sense solution to that would be, move. As soon as someone that lives in the type of free country that we do starts blaming a state I immediately know you had a choice, and you apparently made the wrong one.

[hblask 1]

<br /><b>I think that at this moment it's the only way my husband will get a lung transplant. Even though he's got no other real health problems so he's an excellent candidate to get it. And if I can find some way for him to get it and keep him living longer then I will do my damndest to try it. Even if it's universal health care. Where did you get your stats on people dying on waiting lists anyway? And tell me how many people die on waiting lists here waiting for transplants? You'll probably find them comparable. Now my experience with the Canadian Healthcare system is admittedly anectdotal from my one friend's experience with it (though he raves about it). But I don't see anything in your post that's got any more validity. You can state those supposed &quot;facts&quot; but where's the substance to back it up and how current is it? You can compare it anyway you like to systems of government that are no longer in power and were obvious failures. But how about the ones that currently have that kind of system in place. And there's more than just Canada or Scandinavia. I'll take my chances with my husbands life on a universal healthcare system over the present one because the present one just gave him a death sentence. </b><br />

Without much effort I found these sources, there are many more on the internet.

<br />One of the major complaints about the Canadian health care system is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.[19]A March 2, 2004 article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated, "Saskatchewan is under fire for having the longest waiting time in the country for a diagnostic MRI — a whopping 22 months." [3]<br /><br />A February 28, 2006 article in The New York Times quoted Dr. Brian Day as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."[20] In a 2007 episode of ABC News 20/20, host John Stossel cited numerous examples of Canadians who had difficulty accessing health care.[21]<br /><br />According to the Fraser Institute, treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005.[22][23] <br /><br /><br /><br />[3] Canada's Public Health Care System - Building Support for front-line physicians: CMAJ<br />[19] Commonwealth Fund, Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International update on the comparative performance of American health care, Karen Davis et al., May 15, 2007.<br />[20] Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters - New York Times<br />[21] YouTube - John Stossel - Sick in America - (Part 3 of 6)<br />[22] The Fraser Institute<br />[23] Hidden costs of Canada's Health Care System

Another good source is FreeMarketCure.com. It tends to be a bit over the top, but the stories are heartbreaking nonetheless. The people who want socialized medicine in the US have, for the most part, stopped referring to Canada as a model for all these reasons. They switched to England for a while, but they may be even worse. Now the current "model" is France, which is essentially the same as the other two except that it hasn't had time to fall apart yet. In a few years they'll have to find a new country to want to emulate.Your story is very sad. At this point I would say just go ahead with the care he needs and deal with the cleanup later. Hospitals understand that things like this create financial hardships, and they are willing to work with people with payment plans. If you can even pay $10 a month they will be happy. They write the rest of it off to taxpayer money, so in a way, you can get your own universal healthcare by just getting the treatment and telling them you can't pay for it. If you go to them and explain that you can only pay a little at a time, they won't wreck your credit record. As long as you make some attempt to pay it back, they are happy to work with you, even if it's not really making a dent in the big bill.

[Loismustdie 0]

Without much effort I found these sources, there are many more on the internet. Another good source is FreeMarketCure.com. It tends to be a bit over the top, but the stories are heartbreaking nonetheless. The people who want socialized medicine in the US have, for the most part, stopped referring to Canada as a model for all these reasons. They switched to England for a while, but they may be even worse. Now the current "model" is France, which is essentially the same as the other two except that it hasn't had time to fall apart yet. In a few years they'll have to find a new country to want to emulate.Your story is very sad. At this point I would say just go ahead with the care he needs and deal with the cleanup later. Hospitals understand that things like this create financial hardships, and they are willing to work with people with payment plans. If you can even pay $10 a month they will be happy. They write the rest of it off to taxpayer money, so in a way, you can get your own universal healthcare by just getting the treatment and telling them you can't pay for it. If you go to them and explain that you can only pay a little at a time, they won't wreck your credit record. As long as you make some attempt to pay it back, they are happy to work with you, even if it's not really making a dent in the big bill.

Very true, yet hardly anybody ever mentions it.

[El Guapo 8]

I just skimmed the last 30 posts or so. Here my 23.5 cents

• Niume I am sorry for your situation, but I do not understand if you husband is a teacher how does he not have helth insurance?
• Socialized Healthcare = Bad
• VA hospitals are much much better, especially here in CA
• 40K a year is just above poverty line. I believe 28K a year is poverty line now
• 200K is not lower middle class, it is upper middle class (except in CA it is just above our poverty line)
• Jamie is still crazy
• Henry writes long posts that I don't read every word of
• Lois used to be in poverty
• BG has money and won't let his wife spend it on his care so he should get a long term care policy and not worry about it
• Socialized Helathcare is still bad

Did I miss anything?

[hblask 1]

Henry writes long posts that I don't read every word of

Wow, we have something in common!

[El Guapo 8]

Wow, we have something in common!

Koinkydink, I think not.

[nutzbuster 7]

welll...Sylvia just went through a breast cancer scare in August and a cervical cancer scare 3 days ago. Results not in yet...I am going to a cardiologist tomorrow for "issues"fuk all of this shit.Martini anyone?

[Loismustdie 0]

welll...Sylvia just went through a breast cancer scare in August and a cervical cancer scare 3 days ago. Rsults not in yet...I am going to a cardiologist tomorrow for "issues"fuk all of this shit...Martini anyone?

I will go with a glass of red, please. A Syrah if you have one, sir.

[Nimue1995 1]

First my husband isn't a teacher, he's an administrator. And yes at this moment we have health insurance though it has a lifetime cap that's coming closer every day. Also once he's not able to work then we won't have any. 2nd I love where we live but there are things here that I don't love and one of them is the political situation. But that said, we go through cycles in this country. When Reagan got elected we'd just been through a liberal cycle and it was becoming problematic as far as our debt and also how far it went. So Reagan was elected mainly as a reaction to that. Now we've gone through a conservative cycle in which Bush has basically ignored the poor and middle class in favor of helping his rich buddies out with tax cuts. And tax cuts are okay to a point. But eventually you can't cut taxes anymore without affecting basic services which is what has happened here in Montana. It's now gotten to a point where basic services are suffering and the people are finally realizing that tax cuts just don't get it. For one thing even with all the Republican tax cuts there still hasn't been that attraction of industry to Montana. That's because regardless of how great the tax cuts are, there is still the expectation by industry that the area will provide a educated workforce and basic services to it's employees and executives. When that doesn't happen you don't attract industry. And that's where we are here which is why there's been a backlash just recently against the Republicans in favor of populist Democrats. These are not your Washington liberal Dems. These are Dems that remember when the Democratic Party was the "working man's" party. Anyway, people here are finally figuring out it doesn't matter how many tax cuts there are, we can't eat scenery. So it's now swinging the other direction. Unfortunately in this country we rarely manage to get a happy medium but are always in the pendulum mode one way or the other. And considering the widening divide between the haves and the have-nots, it's a good thing that the pendulum is swinging back the other direction or you might just have a revolution on your hands that isn't in the voting booth.

[wildspoke 2]

The one thing about Barak I really am worried about is what he is going to do when he gets the power/ability to direct our country.

I thought this topic was about how Obama has zero credentials when it comes to governing. He doesn't. But he's a leader. (Seems kind of rare these days)He reminds me of Reagan. He's energizing people. He has a vision and a direction he wants to take the country. Look Daniel is Canadian and he's excited about him!Reagan gave Americans the right to be proud again. Reagan was not about specifics. Just read Peggy Noonan's first book and you'll see that. I think Barak wants to do the same thing. I hope he wins the nomination. Because for the first time, in a long time, there will be two candidates that are leaders. McCain being the other. You may not agree with their politics but they are leaders. Hillary maybe a leader but she is way too shady for me. Turning $1,000 into $100,000 in a few short weeks in the early 80s? C'mon.I think if BO wins the nomination, he will win in November. (IMO)The only shot the Republicans have to defeat BO is to highlight the fact that he hasn't done anything. Remember he's the JUNIOR Senator from Illinois. He took office in 2005. Before that he was in the STATE legislature. If I were the RNC, I would run a very simple commercial. Opens to a photograph of Barack Obama fade to black.Voice over: The complete list of organizations Barack Obama has been in charge of:15 seconds of nothing but a blank screen. Super: President: Harvard Law Review.Super: Experience. It matters. Fade to black. All that being said, I might still vote for him. Anything is better than Bush. Joe

[Loismustdie 0]

First my husband isn't a teacher, he's an administrator. And yes at this moment we have health insurance though it has a lifetime cap that's coming closer every day. Also once he's not able to work then we won't have any. 2nd I love where we live but there are things here that I don't love and one of them is the political situation. But that said, we go through cycles in this country. When Reagan got elected we'd just been through a liberal cycle and it was becoming problematic as far as our debt and also how far it went. So Reagan was elected mainly as a reaction to that. Now we've gone through a conservative cycle in which Bush has basically ignored the poor and middle class in favor of helping his rich buddies out with tax cuts. And tax cuts are okay to a point. But eventually you can't cut taxes anymore without affecting basic services which is what has happened here in Montana. It's now gotten to a point where basic services are suffering and the people are finally realizing that tax cuts just don't get it. For one thing even with all the Republican tax cuts there still hasn't been that attraction of industry to Montana. That's because regardless of how great the tax cuts are, there is still the expectation by industry that the area will provide a educated workforce and basic services to it's employees and executives. When that doesn't happen you don't attract industry. And that's where we are here which is why there's been a backlash just recently against the Republicans in favor of populist Democrats. These are not your Washington liberal Dems. These are Dems that remember when the Democratic Party was the "working man's" party. Anyway, people here are finally figuring out it doesn't matter how many tax cuts there are, we can't eat scenery. So it's now swinging the other direction. Unfortunately in this country we rarely manage to get a happy medium but are always in the pendulum mode one way or the other. And considering the widening divide between the haves and the have-nots, it's a good thing that the pendulum is swinging back the other direction or you might just have a revolution on your hands that isn't in the voting booth.

This is a fundamental problem with the voting public right now, some just don't get it. The democratic party is the party of "have SOME". Meaning, here is some, it's yours, and we will keep giving you that some as long as you don't try and earn more than some, and then you are on your own. Do you realize how all over the place you are? Your complaint is that you don't have enough, and the answer is that it should be given to you? How many people have suggested that you try a different state with a better economy for your situation, and I have yet to see you even acknowledge that thought? You are in your situation BY CHOICE, and it is no ones job to bail you out of that choice, especially when so many choices are available to you. Want hand outs? Awesome welfare system in Oregon and Washington, and it's not far from you. More job choices? Good lord your husband is a school administrator, it should be no sweat finding work elsewhere. The problem is this- you feel you are owed something. You are not. I am not. It is my job, it is your job, to get what you want, obtain what makes you feel comfortable and at ease and then maintain that through hard work and planning. Sometimes harder work than we want, sometimes longer hours, sometimes harder sacrifices, but that is life. That's america!! It's the land of opportunity, not the land of entitlement. We are surrounded by opportunities in this country, if we just TAKE them, instead of waiting for someone to give them to us. Maybe this will fall on deaf ears, who knows, maybe in your current situation you just can't see the correct way to think, but hopefully anyone who reads this who is leaning towards this socialist thinking will think again and realize that what you are buying in to is a form of slavery.

[Nimue1995 1]

How many people have suggested that you try a different state with a better economy for your situation, and I have yet to see you even acknowledge that thought? You are in your situation BY CHOICE, and it is no ones job to bail you out of that choice, especially when so many choices are available to you. Want hand outs? Awesome welfare system in Oregon and Washington, and it's not far from you. More job choices? Good lord your husband is a school administrator, it should be no sweat finding work elsewhere.

How many school districts in other states do you think would hire a terminally ill 56 year old school administrator? If you think there are any, then you're damned stupid. We're fortunate that he's still able to work at this point and we're really hoping that he'll be able to retire out of this position but we're not holding out a great deal of hope for that. And you're saying that pulling up stakes, leaving any friggin health care that we might have now and moving to another position in another state with no support system or family available at all is the solution. You're a damn sight stupider than your posts would indicate if you think that would be a solution. For one thing, any health care he'd get in another position would EXCLUDE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS. This would mean that anything to do with his IPF would be excluded. ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT WE SHOULD MOVE SO THAT WHAT LITTLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE WE HAVE NOW WOULD BE ELIMINATED ENTIRELY? Good Lord you're an idiot if you think that's even worth considering.