That's funny because Reagan's "Voodoo Economics" didn't work, and he eventually raised taxes.

A balanced federal budget does not work? These deficits are gonig to drive interest rates up and devalue our currency. It is only a matter of time.

How did Reagan balance the federal budget? By raising taxes. What did your quote say?

"It's about time we constitutionally mandate the Federal Government to do what every American family must do, and that is balance its budget. That doesn't mean taking more out of your pocket by raising taxes. ... We the people, deserve to know that our jobs, paychecks, homes, and pensions are safe from the taxers and regulators of big government." --Ronald Reagan

Everything he said in the quote he ended up doing the opposite.

So that makes it right? We shouldn't have a balanced budget because Raegan never did ? How does that make sense ?

I don't think you're actually getting what I'm saying. I'm not arguing in favor or against what anyone is doing, I'm simply arguing with the quote you posted and from whom you posted it. I'm pointing out that using someone's words who turned out to be a liar doesn't do well for the point you are trying to get across.

In effect changing the subject? Bush should have thoulght of that when he was president...

Not really, no. Not any more than you bringing up Reagan in the first place as changing the subject.

You mentioned him and quoted him, I put out a thought on your comment. Isn't that how forums work?

---

That's funny because Reagan's "Voodoo Economics" didn't work, and he eventually raised taxes.

A balanced federal budget does not work? These deficits are gonig to drive interest rates up and devalue our currency. It is only a matter of time.

How did Reagan balance the federal budget? By raising taxes. What did your quote say?

"It's about time we constitutionally mandate the Federal Government to do what every American family must do, and that is balance its budget. That doesn't mean taking more out of your pocket by raising taxes. ... We the people, deserve to know that our jobs, paychecks, homes, and pensions are safe from the taxers and regulators of big government." --Ronald Reagan

Everything he said in the quote he ended up doing the opposite.

So that makes it right? We shouldn't have a balanced budget because Raegan never did ? How does that make sense ?

I don't think you're actually getting what I'm saying. I'm not arguing in favor or against what anyone is doing, I'm simply arguing with the quote you posted and from whom you posted it. I'm pointing out that using someone's words who turned out to be a liar doesn't do well for the point you are trying to get across.

In effect changing the subject? Bush should have thoulght of that when he was president...

Not really, no. Not any more than you bringing up Reagan in the first place as changing the subject.

You mentioned him and quoted him, I put out a thought on your comment. Isn't that how forums work?

ok, next time I'll hide my source so you aren't distracted. lol

My leaning on the whole mess is that we are basically importing the standard of living of those we are trying to compete again, though mainly buy more from. The only sustainable way I can see for a developed civilized culture to maintain a healthy economy against one(s) that are not paying their labor well (with all the other cultural implicaton that has) is to apply a 'charity' tarrif on the imported products and give it back to the community of the workers that earned it. If they were working in this country at that wage, it would be illegal. Most people seem to be all for human rights and fairness around the world. Yet most are being confused in the free trade argument, in that it does not give the workers any assurances of fairness, only more potential for profit to those in the middle working the between disparity of costs.

Another point one might think about is that there is basically two 'types' of money [resource management processes] going on. One is for the material resources. The other is for the cultivation or management of the materials. One can work with IOUs in the realm of cultivation quite well if high quality records are kept. In the realm of material matters though, negative resources is not possible. [Just as a thought, BOINC might even be a viable way to keep 'bartering' record stored in a way that cannot readily be lost or destroyed. In that they would be dispersed redundantly over the whole world.]

As far as the energy problem is concerned. I calculated the amount of heat in the core of the earth. The results I got was about 8 quadrillion years to reduce the whole core one degree Fahrenheit at the rate we were using fossil fuels at the time [about 2 years ago]. I read some place else that we are losing about ten times that amount off the surface of the earth as radiant heat from the core. So one can divide that result by 11. The earth has only existed for about 4 billion years, so that is still almost 180,000 time longer than the age of the earth. The article also suggested that there must be a radioactive source adding to the heat, or the earths core would likely be cooler than it is now. So that helps add more time. That may be the cleanest nuclear energy possible. Binary geothermal systems use heat exchangers so the water, or other medium, is contained and recycled. So if the source has contaminants it is not dispersed.

My understanding is that they can now drill over 20 mile, at least mostly horizontally. If going vertical is the big challenge to getting to the geothermal sources. Perhaps it may be more possible by filling the drill pipe with air before pulling it out. If it still needs to be lighter, perhaps using a pipe that is at least partly carbon composite material would make it possible. In any case, carbon composite contruction materials is a great way to use carbon based fossil fuels. It does not rot or burn readily at all, and is said to be 10 times stronger than steel, weight wise. Maybe then we could conquer the jungles, oceans, etc in a way that allows more depth of possibilities, if I may say it that way. It even may be necessary, if we are to fully address all the future concerns as it relates to environments and endangered species, etc.; given the extremes of climate are well noted in this earths past. They are well noted to likely continue, even if man's effects are fully neuteralized. We've only been recordably 'civilized' for about 5000 years. 20,000 years ago the earth was ending an ice age. Then the oceans were over 100 feet lower, from what I heard, and glaciers were at least mid-way to the Carribean of the present North American continent. So if we wish to live in those conditions, we need to conquer the 'depths' a bit.

Sincerely, Gregory D. MELLOTT

It was bound to happen, obama's policies have led to greater disapproval. On the plus side, he is probably still twice as popular as Bush.

More people disapprove than approve of Obama on four domestic issues: the economy, taxes, health care and the federal budget deficit. He scores majority approval on handling Iraq, Afghanistan and foreign affairs.

The biggest drop has been on his handling of the economy, down 12 points since February; his disapproval is up 19 points. The most erosion has come not from Republicans or independents but among his own Democrats. Support from conservative and moderate Democrats is down by 18 points. Another group in the party's political base — those earning $20,000 to $50,000 a year — had a drop of 15 percentage points, to 47%.

--USA Today

Fiscal responsibility is unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of 'allies' like France is unacceptable …A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator. …When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation – that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years.--former Georgia Democrat Sen. Zell Miller

---

The problem is that people just see "COST" on the insurance program. People and employers would be paying into this program much like they already do with their current insurance. I'd like to see what it costs employers/employees when we have to pay the insurance companies. Wanna bet its more than $1.5 trillion. Heck Heres the special part. Go to your insurnace companies corporate office in any major city and ask yourself how much of each of your payments goes into paying for the edifice. Thats called profit. The GOv't plan takes out the profit motivation. Take out the profit and the Insurance companies panic. So I like the Idea of the insurance compnies scrambling to save money instead of doubling my cost every couple of years

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I personally don't lean to a universe health plan. A Herman Cain [talk show commentator] mentoned the idea of vouchers for those in need. That makes more sense to me. That allows for the competion between the unsurers to not pushed into the non-sensical 'pay for nothing' realm. If natural disastures, and the likes are generating so much apprehension for the inusures that they overly push for funds to address future unknowns there; then perhaps we need something like an FDIC plan for insurers. Cain didn't sound to helpful for those temporarily in the country at the time, though. I'd say, have them pay into a plan monthly so we can keep track of them better; or perhap similarly have them set up a 'satisfactory' medical savings account. That whole idea may work better all around. And those having sufficient funds could be allowed to herd new input into aid for others in need. That way there is generally a privately observable metric for a person to note as to how well they are doing maintaining their own health, even for the sake of serving the community as a whole. I'm on the lower range of income, with some health challenges. It doesn't seem to make any difference how bad one gets, being a 'healthy contributer' in SOME WAY seems to alway be a natural drive for being better.

I suspect if we actually went to a clearer system of two types of money [note my previous post here] there would eventually be something of competing institutions trying to have you use their cultivation processes on the resources going through your hands. This would at least help to inform the public more as to what the competing factors are, and their likely impact on themselves and their posterity.

The biggest problem I've noted with too much centralization is that it tends to make the system slow to respond to new information. The private system is much more willing to try new ideas where it sees the risk as being low, and the chances of benefit high. Since this private 'conversation' is not rigid, the patient can freely roam to a 'better' solution should they see the risks fit. It is not a perfect system, but it is free to allow change, and quickly.

As mentioned on another talk show, health insurance does not necessarily generate health. The primary demands of valid food, valid thinking about how to use the body, etc. are much more important basic needs. The insurance usually only addresses things after failure occurs. I often wonder why food is not given nutritional values and priced accordingly. Just because the item fills a bushel basket or the likes is not much of a guarantee that the desired nutrients are in it; especially with GMO puting 'insect toxins' in the plant to make it fatal for them. Organics has noted long ago that the healthier the plant was, the more insects tended to leave it alone.

One of the big things the they also talk about is making the medical information easily transferable between doctors and the likes. This is a fine idea. Yet one might well better just set standard formats for exchange and security much like one engineers electronic device communication standards; and let the parties, the users of the information, figure out how to execute it. No doubt, suggestions and even functonal programs for the majority to lean on may be the most cost effective. And making them more usable and secure should be a viable route also. Likely security is the biggest issue; and given our long experience with even the personal computer, one is likely only able to address that fully with a contracted a provider. Therein, the more diversity the harder it is for the hacker to succeed.

A side light to this matter is the plan for a national ID to be out around 2012. This may actually be a driving factor in that endeavor. At least a real ID gets substantive input into it to make its determinations from. The old SSN was never intended for ID purposes; and the original cards used to say that quite clearly on them.

Yes, let's get the illicit mind altering drugs stopped so the people are really free to make a better future for themselves.

Sincerely, Gregory D. MELLOTT

Here is a link to what I had worked up some time ago about the economy. Seems to still apply. It is a bit wordy. It gets more to details after the Government paragraph in dark type. I'm not trying to offend anyone that has trouble with the word 'God'. I did for a long time myself. From the human perspective, I find the best definition is perhaps 'the fully connected nature of all reality unbounded by time and space.' That connectivity may be more detailed that normal human analysis may generally suspect though. God often gives a lot of elbow room before we start 'meeting ourselve' that we might consider connectivity more fully.

http://www.geocities.com/gregorydmellott/to_god_s_.html

(Where ever that falls here and now) One's best to each.

Sincerely, Gregory D. MELLOTT[/url]

"Politicians can throw rhetoric around about 'bringing down the cost of health care' or they can even throw numbers around. But the numbers that politicians are throwing around don't match the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office finds when it analyzes the hard data. An old advertising slogan said, 'Progress is our most important product.' With politicians, confusion is their most important product. They confuse bringing down the price of medical care with bringing down the cost. ... Nothing is easier than for governments to impose price controls. They have been doing this, off an on, for thousands of years -- repeatedly resulting in (1) shortages, (2) quality deterioration and (3) black markets. Why would anyone want any of those things when it comes to medical care?" --Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

gee I'd like to believe someone from the Hoover institute but I always come up with Hoover being the president that did nothing and caused the stock market crash and began the great depression. They could have found a better person to name the institute after.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." --American teacher, writer and philosopher Bronson Alcott (1799-1888)

Is that cartoonist comparing government health care to space alien anal probes? :O

I like my private medical insurance the way it is. If Obama would like to pay my share of the premium he's more than welcome to. Strange how he hasn't made the offer.

---

me@rescam.org

I like my private medical insurance the way it is. If Obama would like to pay my share of the premium he's more than welcome to. Strange how he hasn't made the offer.

Ditto!


It's Friday! Drink 'em if ya got 'em!

Health plans would undercut private coverage

Union-Tribune editorial

July 31, 2009

For two reasons, the news that both the House and Senate will delay at least one month and perhaps more before taking all-important floor votes on sweeping proposals to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is highly welcome.

The first reason is that it has never made sense to undertake such a complex task in such rushed fashion. The second is what led President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stop trying to ram the overhaul through without thorough debate: a sizable public backlash.

This backlash guarantees a more cautious approach from lawmakers without safe seats. Given the stakes, such caution is crucial.

Polling data indicate the backlash is largely driven by concern about the Obama plan's trillion-dollar-plus price tag. The more Americans hear about the president's goal of sharply expanding health insurance coverage, the less likely they are to swallow his claim that it would save money in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office and virtually every independent expert have debunked this claim.

Now it's time for a similarly hard look at the other key claim made by advocates of the health overhaul: “If you are happy with your plan, and if you are happy with your doctor, we don't want you to have to change,” as Obama put it at a recent town hall meeting.

Baloney. Even a cursory look at reform plans confirms they would badly undercut private coverage – coverage most Americans say they are satisfied with.

Consider the much-debated government-sponsored “public option” for insurance coverage that Pelosi demands must be a part of any overhaul. It would allow companies to obtain government-subsidized health coverage at a cost now set at 8 percent of their payroll. This is much less than the current average of 12 percent to 14 percent and thus provides a huge incentive for employers to scrap their present coverage for a government plan of uncertain quality.

And whether or not the public option is dropped, federal regulators inevitably would end up directly controlling the scope of private coverage. Yes, existing plans initially would be treated as if they met federal standards for new plans. But in both the House and Senate versions of the overhaul, existing employer-sponsored coverage would be required to meet these mandates beginning in five years. These standards would require much broader and thus costlier coverage.

The legislation already includes 30 new requirements for “preventive services” alone. Who knows how many more requirements would be added once lobbyists for various medical procedures and specialists start spreading the cash around in coming months, years and decades?

Microregulating private insurers in a politicized climate is a far cry from leaving these insurers and their patients alone. It is base propaganda to assert otherwise. On this issue and the cost question, Americans deserve far more honesty than they've been getting from Barack Obama.

---

me@rescam.org

Gee undercut an overpriced insurance program what a shame. I work in a medical Office and I can tell you Insurance companies are become ever more restrictive on benefits. more labs have to be sent to corporate laboratories(Quest, Labcorp, CPL) instead of being done on site by individuals the medical providers can see and trust. Chemotherapies are being restricted and deductables are going through the roof on theraputics.

BTW anyone that knows someone that is retired or looking for medicare supplimentary insurance, DO NOT allow them to sign up for Secure horizons or Pacificare HMO coverage. These nice folks talk a good talk but when you are sick they pay little or nothing towards the bill. They are very good at collecting you payments and very poor at providing any form of insurance to people in need.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

"You note that the socialized medicine bill is over 1,000 pages. The Declaration of Independence is two pages, and the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is about a dozen pages. Proves that if you can't dazzle them with brilliance you baffle them with bovine manure." --Cheyenne, Wyoming

As many arguements that are brought to the supreme court dealing with Constitutional laws It seems prudent when law makers actually specify things that are covered in a law. With any luck Obama won't do signing statements that explain that he disagrees with the new law and won't enforce them. Hmmmm who has done that recently?

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Gee undercut an overpriced insurance program what a shame. I work in a medical Office and I can tell you Insurance companies are become ever more restrictive on benefits. more labs have to be sent to corporate laboratories(Quest, Labcorp, CPL) instead of being done on site by individuals the medical providers can see and trust. Chemotherapies are being restricted and deductables are going through the roof on theraputics.

BTW anyone that knows someone that is retired or looking for medicare supplimentary insurance, DO NOT allow them to sign up for Secure horizons or Pacificare HMO coverage. These nice folks talk a good talk but when you are sick they pay little or nothing towards the bill. They are very good at collecting you payments and very poor at providing any form of insurance to people in need.

I have Pacificare HMO and I can tell you I'm (indirectly) costing them a pretty penny.

---

me@rescam.org

just dont get cancer.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

just dont get cancer.

...or change jobs, or be laid off, or fall into any category that will allow your insurance company to jack up your individual rates or drop your coverage entirely.

---

Join the PACK!