U.S. falls in life expectancy rankings.
By on Aug 12th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
U.S. falls in life expectancy rankings.
The AP reports that while Americans are living longer than ever, they are not living as long as people in 41 other countries, including Japan, Guam, Jordan, and most nations in Europe. “A baby born in the United States in 2004 will live an average of 77.9 years. That life expectancy ranks 42nd, down from 11th two decades earlier.”
A New York Times editorial today writes that the “disturbing truth” is that “by an array of pertinent yardsticks, the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Graham
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Keep eating McD's and worry about TERRAH!, Look out it's Osama, and he looks hungry, he wants to kill us for our Big Macs!
August 12th, 2007 at 5:21 pmWhile America is still loseing more wars than ever, AP reports that America was on the winning side in WW2.
That would appear to be the last time any wingnut fool paid any attention to anything. Maybe all the singnuts should be exiled to those few countries that have a shorter life expectancy and worse health care than the USA. then the liberals could go about the business of cleaning up all the crap they left behind, and making America a world leader once again.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:22 pmGod has damned the USA. by allowing Bush to overcome the pretzel. God hates the USA, or she wouldn't have allowed Barbara Bush to get pregnant.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:23 pmLook at the map more carefully trolls you are not as dark brown as you think ........ look at the colour of Sweden, Australia ( ask for mummies help in finding these countries first though)
August 12th, 2007 at 5:25 pmCountries that surpass the U.S. include Japan and most of Europe, as well as Jordan, Guam and the Cayman Islands.
"Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries," said Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:30 pmThe conclusion is inescapable: Right-wing policies have caused America to fall behind the rest of the world.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:30 pmAndorra, a tiny country in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain, had the longest life expectancy, at 83.5 years, according to the Census Bureau. It was followed by Japan, Macau, San Marino and Singapore.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:30 pmguam isn't a country!
August 12th, 2007 at 5:30 pmA relatively high percentage of babies born in the U.S. die before their first birthday, compared with other industrialized nations.
Forty countries, including Cuba, Taiwan and most of Europe had lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. in 2004. The U.S. rate was 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births. It was 13.7 for Black Americans, the same as Saudi Arabia.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:31 pmWant civilization? Ya gotta pay for it. Americans used to understand that, say what ya want. Stay off the bridges,y'all!
August 12th, 2007 at 5:34 pm"The starting point is the recognition that the U.S. does not have the best health care system. There are still an awful lot of people who think it does."
and I can think of a troll on this site who has many names and is about as ignorant as kray fish living in a pond at the bottom of a cave in Botawana
August 12th, 2007 at 5:34 pmEven Dean Wermer in Animal House knew better:
"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life..."
You know, there are SO many more whales walking around Sea World than were swimming in the pools.
America the fat and bloated, dying sooner everyday!
August 12th, 2007 at 5:35 pmWe need universal health care in this country. Michael Moore was right. It is not a privilege but a right.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:38 pmThis was a decent editorial, but it left out something huge: the fact that we pay twice as much for this mediocre health care as paid in other developed nations.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:40 pmheres a strange thing after finding that video of Cheney on a Guardian Blog linking to Youtube
its found its way to the homepage of http://www.michaelmoore.com/
August 12th, 2007 at 5:41 pmVerbalKint - we pay twice as much for this mediocre health care as paid in other developed nations.
heres a video that says the US pay ten times more AT LEAST by a US guy
Stay with it more than the 30 second weird intro ........
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5f1_1186709587
August 12th, 2007 at 5:45 pmLet me guess, this is somehow Bush's fault. Right?
August 12th, 2007 at 5:46 pm#20 It isn't ten times as much. I am basing my statement on highly credible information taken from a United Nations reports, not some video from a "US guy".
August 12th, 2007 at 5:47 pmThe poverty rate went up under Bush. He has done nothing to help the poorest among us. Under Bush the rich just got richer.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:48 pmMY GOD LOOK WHAT I JUST FOUND
Gordon Brown has loyally bought $125 billion of US Treasury Bonds in the last few months to help shore up his ally, with my money. Brown is a man who prides himself on economic prudence, that is a move he will come to rue.
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/
August 12th, 2007 at 5:49 pmLet me guess, this is somehow Bush’s fault. Right?
Comment by barfly — August 12, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
I guess you must not have heard about Medicare Part D and what a huge gift it is to big Pharma at the extent of the U.S. taxpayer.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:49 pmYa'll are pathetic.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:50 pmVerbalKint ( I dont dispute your facts )
To fix that guys knee the Hospitals in the US wanted $15,000
he fixed his kneee in the Check Republic for £1200
----------------------------------------------------------
do your figures tell of how many children are born outwith the US cause its cheaper and better
August 12th, 2007 at 5:51 pmWhy do the authors (and commenters) of TP seem to find glory in only the negative news about our nation?
August 12th, 2007 at 5:53 pm#28 Why can trolls only argue straw men?
August 12th, 2007 at 5:58 pmWhy do the authors (and commenters) of TP seem to find glory in only the negative news about our nation?
how very true lets have a debate on democrats policy
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12dems.html?ex=1344571200&en=ad4324c44c78bf95&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
August 12th, 2007 at 6:01 pmLet me guess, this is somehow Bush’s fault. Right?
Comment by barfly — August 12, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
CT namejacks barfly so Mr. P can comment on it. This site is just a waste of time. Mission accomplished CT, Mr. P.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:02 pmposts are getting upto 800 and 1200 due to trolls ( or say 1 troll with a split personality)
August 12th, 2007 at 6:03 pmthat is not "barfly"...
another chickenshite trooll namejacker...
August 12th, 2007 at 6:04 pm...
We need to get all troops out of Iraq. This war is lost. The surge has failed.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:05 pmLet me guess, this is somehow Bush’s fault. Right?
Comment by barfly — August 12, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Iti is entirely the fault of the republican party, and Bush is leader of that criminal enterprise, so, yes, it's his fault. Utterly and completely.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:15 pm#36 The Democrats haven't exactly done stellar work in this area either. Many of them are corrupted by insurance and pharma dollars.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:17 pm[...]
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
President John Fitzgerald Kennedy
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=539
August 12th, 2007 at 6:52 pm.
Oh so now conservatives give two cents about muslims when it will end their war but not if it prevents them from invading based on false claims nice circular logic.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:52 pmIraq is a lost cause. Bush can no longer win this war. The surge has failed. This is Bush's legacy. It's his fault that the surge has failed.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:09 pmweird... i did not post #39, before the kennedy statement...
stoopid f'n troolls...
-katym
August 12th, 2007 at 7:11 pmTHE LIFE EXPECTENCY OF AMERICANS WILL GET EVEN LOWER WHEN PIAPS MOVES BACK INTO THE WHITE HOUSE.
SHE WILL CONTINUE TO KILL AMERICANS AS ALWAYS....
http://tinyurl.com/2rvr3a
....BUT NOW WILL HAVE THE FULL POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY TO CARRY OUT HER CRIMES!!!!
August 12th, 2007 at 7:26 pm77 years is plenty long. If the baby boomers live longer then that they'll dry up SS. Let em die. we all have to die some day.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:32 pmDude, I think there are more trolls here than regular posters :(
With that being said... I hate to disagree, but I disagree.
I'd like a system like Canada as much as the next guy... but we're lower in life expectancy because we're a bunch lazy fatasses.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:43 pmIt's about life style not medical care. Americans eat worse than every country ahead of them. Stress is higher in the U.S. too, it has nothing to do with health care.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:44 pmIf we can fund the Iraq war for billions of dollars with no end in sight then we can find a way to fund universal health care for all Americans.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:45 pmNew statistics released this week show that Americans are once again coming up in short when it comes to the health of nations. Just weeks after researchers found that Americans had relinquished their crown as the world's tallest people to the Dutch, a new study revealed that life expectancy in the U.S. had plummeted to 42nd worldwide.
For the details, see:
August 12th, 2007 at 7:45 pm"Studies: Americans Shorter, Living Shorter Lives."
Dude, I think there are more trolls here than regular posters :(
It is one troll. Just one.
I’d like a system like Canada as much as the next guy… but we’re lower in life expectancy because we’re a bunch lazy fatasses.
Obesity is definitely a contributing factor, but what does that have to do with how we choose to insure health care?
August 12th, 2007 at 8:38 pmThis has everything to do with You are what You Eat.
August 12th, 2007 at 9:07 pmIf folks would choose pure food rather than the crap with preservatives, more would lead healthier lives. Anyone here trust the FDA in regulating the food? It seems there is a rising amount of diseases today that were not here before the preservatives/crap. And the drug companies are quite happy, maybe too happy to supply drugs to relieve symptoms.
I thought there were more than one?
August 12th, 2007 at 9:08 pmin almost every measure America is a bunch of greedy corportists oligarchs that have failed miserably to provide for the nations citizens despite the greatest wealth ever.
thanks to you conservatives for failing America so craptacularly.
$12 billion PER MONTH down the Iraqhole and nothing for the average American except retching platitudes.
the greed, shame, failure is staggering.
August 12th, 2007 at 9:15 pm.
well, jake... did you ever think that your kind of trolling
August 12th, 2007 at 9:43 pmwould actually be preferred?
ha! ... don't let that go to your head...
...
Think of all the problems countries #1-#41 will have supporting their retirees for a longer period of time before they die. The United States' health care system is doing its part to ensure that Social Security here lasts as long as possible -- after all, if we live longer, the money will run out sooner.
And where are the rich and famous in the health care fields in countries #1-#41? What more noble profession could there be than to earn obscene profits off of sick and dying people? Can these other countries boast exceedingly wealthy individuals in the health care field who can afford to build lavish mansions that people a hundred years from now will be able to tour -- a kind of futuresque answer to the mansions such as those built by the Vanderbilts, Hearst, Deering, Flagler, etc.? Do we want really future generations to think that nothing worthwhile was accomplished during our lifetimes? What is a few extra years of life if in the bargain we will be depriving our great-great grandchildren of such pleasures?
Please consider the following cases in point:
In 2006, Johnson and Johnson’s CEO received salary and bonuses of $28 million, according to Dow Jones. Merck CEO Richard Clark received $10 million in compensation. The golden parachute Pfizer CEO Henry McKinnell got when he left the company in 2006 included pension, stock and other benefits worth $180 million, according to AFL-CIO Corpwatch. CEO William McGuire of UnitedHealth Group received an annual salary in 2005 of $124 million and stock options worth more than $1.7 billion, according to Forbes.com.
Assuming that a family could purchase private health care insurance for $10,000 a year, McGuire's haul from 2005 would provide a year's insurance to more than 180,000 families. But what would happen to McGuire's legacy? We must carefully consider such weighty matters.
Oh, and speaking of comparisons, according the World Health Organization website, the United States did rank ahead of Cuba in 2004, #37 versus #39, even though infant mortality numbers are better in Cuba.
There is a little difference in cost between the two countries, however -- United States ($6,096/year per person) and Cuba comes in only slightly lower at $229/year per person (commies add pinkos will argue that Cuba provides healthcare to everyone while the U. S. has 47,000,000 without insurance coverage, but don't let such trifling matters trouble your beautiful mind). After all, what's a measly $5,867 for every man, woman and child in the country for something that is roughly comparable? Please remember that William McGuire needs that $5,867 per person in your household much more than you do.
And didn't a famous politician decades ago so eloquently challenge us, stating, "Ask not what your health care company can do for you. Ask what you can do for your health care company"? Didn't one of the talking heads on Faux Noose say something about this just the other day?
So, pull out your 8-track tape of Lee Greenwood singing "I'm Proud to Be An American", shove it into your stereo system, crank up the volume full blast, open all your windows, and proudly (and loudly) proclaim your love of country for all your neighborhood to hear.
Isn't it fun to be a patriot?
August 12th, 2007 at 9:44 pmHere's a graphic representation of life expectancy worldwide.
Also many other categories that show an interesting way to represent various global issues.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:04 pmBut "it's not as simple as saying we don't have national health insurance," said Sam Harper, an epidemiologist at McGill University in Montreal. "It's not that easy."
Among the other factors:
• Adults in the United States have one of the highest obesity rates in the world. Nearly a third of U.S. adults 20 years and older are obese, while about two-thirds are overweight, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.
"The U.S. has the resources that allow people to get fat and lazy," said Paul Terry, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Emory University in Atlanta. "We have the luxury of choosing a bad lifestyle as opposed to having one imposed on us by hard times."
August 12th, 2007 at 11:26 pm"It really reflects the social conditions in which African American women grow up and have children," said Dr. Marie C. McCormick, professor of maternal and child health at the Harvard School of Public Health. "We haven't done anything to eliminate those disparities."
August 12th, 2007 at 11:27 pmObesity is definitely a contributing factor, but what does that have to do with how we choose to insure health care?
Comment by VerbalKint — August 12, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
It has nothing to do with how we supply healthcare, but a lot to do with life expectancy, which is, of course, the subject of this thread. ;)
August 12th, 2007 at 11:29 pmIf ever there were a situation screaming out for a common-sense policy solution on a national scale, health-care is it. The NYT editorial shows not only how bad our system is, but how ingrained the perception that we have "the best health care in the world" is.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:30 pmThe NYT editorial shows not only how bad our system is, but how ingrained the perception that we have “the best health care in the world†is.
Comment by J. — August 12, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
No, it shows that too many people live unhealthy lifestyles and have children too young and expect doctors to find a way for us to have our cake and eat it too. Further encouragement for Americans to avoid personal responsibility. The government should take care of it for us! ;)
August 12th, 2007 at 11:40 pmYes, the solution is to blame the people of this country for their healthcare problems, which means that since it is their fault, absolutely nothing will be done.
This is a desirable outcome if you are a for-profit healthcare insurer or provider or own large holdings of common stock in such corporations.
For all others, such attempts at misdirection only cause the problem to continue and worsen.
Other countries have found solutions that, while none are absolutely perfect, provide healthcare for everyone and at a much lower overall cost.
The United States spends 15.4% of its gross domestic product on healthcare while all of the Scandinavian countries spend less than 10% of their GDP.
By adopting the system of almost any other industrialized nation, everyone in the United States could receive healthcare coverage and services, and at the same time, have much more money left in their pockets.
My guess is that most of this country's citizens would be pleased with such an outcome.
Obviously, some of those posting on this site must surely be part of a very small minority (aka the privileged few).
August 13th, 2007 at 1:59 amGang violence.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:11 amOther countries have found solutions that, while none are absolutely perfect, provide healthcare for everyone and at a much lower overall cost.
Comment by curmudgeon — August 13, 2007 @ 1:59 am
And now, back to the topic. The life expectancy of Americans is lower than it should be because of unhealthy lifestyles.
Funny how it's ok to get off topic when it suits lefty's purpose. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 2:41 amTo upright left --
Instead of simply parroting Faux Noose talking points, let's see some facts, figures and sources for your contentions.
If they are merely opinions, then please identify them as such.
We're waiting.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:48 amTo upright left –
Instead of simply parroting Faux Noose talking points, let’s see some facts, figures and sources for your contentions.
If they are merely opinions, then please identify them as such.
We’re waiting.
Comment by curmudgeon — August 13, 2007 @ 2:48
C'mon, buddy, I just posted a quote from the article cited not 10 comments before yours. Hasn't a thing to do with Fox. It came from the article TP quoted. Is that proof enough for ya?
"But “it’s not as simple as saying we don’t have national health insurance,†said Sam Harper, an epidemiologist at McGill University in Montreal. “It’s not that easy.â€
Among the other factors:
• Adults in the United States have one of the highest obesity rates in the world. Nearly a third of U.S. adults 20 years and older are obese, while about two-thirds are overweight, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.
“The U.S. has the resources that allow people to get fat and lazy,†said Paul Terry, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Emory University in Atlanta. “We have the luxury of choosing a bad lifestyle as opposed to having one imposed on us by hard times.â€
“It really reflects the social conditions in which African American women grow up and have children,†said Dr. Marie C. McCormick, professor of maternal and child health at the Harvard School of Public Health. “We haven’t done anything to eliminate those disparities.â€
Comment by upright left — August 12, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 3:02 amAdditional comment to upright left --
This writer never contended that there was no other cause for the lower relative life expectancy in the United States, although many reasonable people would likely contend that our deficiencies with regard to access to health care is likely to be a significant factor.
By contrast, when you state, as referenced in my preceding post, "The life expectancy is lower than it should be because of unhealthy lifestyles" you seem to be excluding any and all other potential causes.
So if you believe that unhealthy lifestyles is the sole cause, what would you suggest to remedy this situation?
What are you doing to trying to bring about improvements in health care in this country, in addition to denigrating those who at least attempt to offer solutions?
August 13th, 2007 at 3:15 amSo if you believe that unhealthy lifestyles is the sole cause, what would you suggest to remedy this situation?
What are you doing to trying to bring about improvements in health care in this country, in addition to denigrating those who at least attempt to offer solutions?
Comment by curmudgeon — August 13, 2007 @ 3:15
Okay, so to further muddy the topic, you want me to be responsible for solving the healthcare problem?
August 13th, 2007 at 3:26 amIf Americans would stop eating so much and become more active, they would be healthier and would have fewer illnesses that lead to earlier death. I teenage girls would stop having babies, they and the babies they would later have would be healthier. This would increase the life expectancy of Americans. As for the healthcare issue, I'll address that on the next post in which the topic is healthcare as opposed to life expectancy. ;)
To upright left --
Obviously, there is no further reason to ask you what you want to do about the healthcare challenges in this country. You seem convinced that there is absolutely no connection between healthcare and life expectancy. It also seems clear that you'd rather put people down rather than busy yourself with comtemplating constructive solutions.
Since you claim that lifestyle is shorter due solely to unhealthy lifestyles, please explain to all of us how you have determined to eliminate ALL other causes. I'm not sure that anyone else has managed to isolate the reason for the lower life expectancy to a SINGLE cause, as you have, so please explain yourself. You still haven't answered the question.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:36 amTo Whom It May Concern:
Since I have to work for a living, I must take my leave now to attend to other more urgent matters.
For any later responses to my postings, please do not construe my silence as acquiescence.
I'm sure we'll debate again sometime soon.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:46 amObviously, there is no further reason to ask you what you want to do about the healthcare challenges in this country. You seem convinced that there is absolutely no connection between healthcare and life expectancy. It also seems clear that you’d rather put people down rather than busy yourself with comtemplating constructive solutions.
Since you claim that lifestyle is shorter due solely to unhealthy lifestyles, please explain to all of us how you have determined to eliminate ALL other causes. I’m not sure that anyone else has managed to isolate the reason for the lower life expectancy to a SINGLE cause, as you have, so please explain yourself. You still haven’t answered the question.
Comment by curmudgeon — August 13, 2007 @ 3:36
I don't believe I've ever addressed you before, so you'll forgive me while I try to determine if your comments are sincere and you don't realize that you are twisting my comments and those in the article, or if you are like many lefties and deliberately misquote.
The article said, “But “it’s not as simple as saying we don’t have national health insurance,†said Sam Harper, an epidemiologist at McGill University in Montreal. “It’s not that easy.â€
The article then listed things which contribute to the lower life expectancy for Americans. I never said the availablilty of heathcare had nothing to do with the rating. But if Americans simply took better care of themselves, that would eliminate a lot of the healthcare needs. If you don't get high blood pressure and heart disease from preventable causes, then you need much less healthcare and your life expectancy goes up.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:48 amPerhaps if we didn't kill 50-60 thousand on the highways every year, not counting the bridges that fall in... Oh wait, the republican viewpoint is that it's their own fault. If they had come from old money they wouldn't have to drive themselves and therefore would not have been victims.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:23 amOh wait, the republican viewpoint is that it’s their own fault. If they had come from old money they wouldn’t have to drive themselves and therefore would not have been victims.
Comment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 13, 2007 @ 8:23 am
C'mon brunie, try a little personal responsibility. It a good thing. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 8:31 amAh upright left, you still try that old tired ploy of misspelling the other persons handle. So cutish. Sure, that'll win the argument for you.
Absolutely, it's all their own faults. Nothing here for a right-wingie to worry his compassionless self about. Nothing at all. Put on them rose colored glasses and look at how nice the world seems from their point of view. Astounding. So somehow the twisted philosophy of the right pointed out, becomes my own personal lack of responsibility.
And someone said the Nazi's were atheists.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:57 amHow about self responsibility? Why do we always...always turn to government for help? Why?
Are we that weak and stupid that we cannot solve these problems without government?
Government causes most of the problems! Name one program in the last 100 years that has worked without adding more money than expected.
The bridge in Minnesota was a local, government problem. Not a federal government problem. They had monies to get it fixed but decided to build parks, and other attractions so people would vote for them. Now, they blame the federal government. How about your congressman, councilman, and representatives.
Just like the levees in La. Just like social security. Scare tactics and passing the blame.
Why sign a subprime mortgage? Why? Then have the gov't bail you out. Did you not do your own homework?
You're stupid so I pay for it. Yes, you add more corporate taxes and guess what prices go up and people get laid off and then everyone yells at the corporation when it was you and I voting for power hunger idiots who make us look like fools.
You think all these programs are FREE! HELL NO! We pay for it. Poor and rich alike pay for it.
If we just take responsibility and get gov't out of healthcare, education, financial affairs as well as what happens in my home this country would do so much better.
We would know our neighbors more and be less likely to not work.
All these jobs illegal aliens take because we don't want. Please, if the gov't did not pay welfare. Americans would work them. I worked them.
Get an education and ask the right questions. Our gov't schools teach us to follow like sheep, our gov't. Go figure!
They don't teach us to ask questions and be an individual and self reliant. But dependent and reliant on the gov't to solve our problems.
Sounds like socialism to me.
August 13th, 2007 at 10:14 amYeah what could that something be ?
August 13th, 2007 at 10:38 amYou eat shit, don't excercise and lead the world in obesity.
Oh that's right, it's because you don't have universal health insurance.
And someone said the Nazi’s were atheists.
Comment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 13, 2007 @ 9:57 am
brunie, it's nice how you can tie every issue to Nazis. A little obsessed there, bud? ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 11:05 amAnd can't get a grip on spelling the name right still. The trademark of the right's supporters. It is awfully cutsie.
Well now interesting you bring that up. For all intents and purposes the observation of a clear nexus to the so very well documented actions and philosophies of those ultra-right wingers is so overwhelming in its relevance to the right today as it was then, and particularly the fundamentalist right, that one would have to ignore the elephant in the room if one choose to not make the obvious comparision.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:15 amOk, the people who eat what corporate america 'grows' with chemicals, the corporate america with those huge tax exemptions just like all of the 'common people' are allowed to have, and the stagnate wages that corporate american has been allowed ,to dole out, and the higher and higher cost of fuel that corporate america enjoys the windfall profits from, and the cost of meds., again corporate america profitting from have nothing to do with the way the health care is being handled in this country. The working people of this country often have two jobs, and one of those jobs probably entails weekend time, have lots of time to go walking, running, or go to the gym, or take a needed rest to handle the stress of trying to keep afloat in this wonderful economy we are enjoying. Right. Now it's our fault that we can't always afford the real organic foods that are available 'somewhere', especially trying to house, cloth, feed, educate, and transport children to something besides the mall. Oh, and because there are 47m people in this country without health care (I use the term loosely) is all the fault of those people. Right. Get back to earth right wingers.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:09 pmupright Left: "And now, back to the topic. The life expectancy of Americans is lower than it should be because of unhealthy lifestyles."
Boy, have you never been to Europe. They smoke like fiends over there and drink like there's no tomorrow. But, they have longer life expectancy. Maybe...just maybe, it's because when they have a problem, they go to a doctor and have it taken care of instead of worrying about whether or not they can afford care.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:10 pmbarfly: "Why do the authors (and commenters) of TP seem to find glory in only the negative news about our nation?"
Why do Bush supporters care so little for our country that they refuse to understand and/or attempt to fix our problems?
August 13th, 2007 at 12:12 pmHow about self responsibility? Why do we always...always turn to government for help? Why?
Are we that weak and stupid that we cannot solve these problems without government?
Government causes most of the problems! Name one program in the last 100 years that has worked without adding more money than expected and then add more money.
The bridge in Minnesota was a local, government problem. Not a federal government problem. They had monies to get it fixed but decided to build parks, and other attractions so people would vote for them. Now, they blame the federal government. How about your congressman, councilman, and representatives?
Just like the levees in La. Just like social security. Scare tactics and passing the blame.
Why sign a subprime mortgage? Why? Then have the gov't bail you out. Did you NOT do your own homework?
You're stupid so I pay for it. Yes, you add more corporate taxes and guess what prices go up and people get laid off and then everyone yells at the corporation when it was you and I voting for power hunger idiots who make us look like fools.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:14 pmYou think all these programs are FREE! HELL NO! We pay for it. Poor and rich alike pay for it.
If we just take responsibility and get gov't out of healthcare, education, financial affairs as well as what happens in my home this country would do so much better.
We would know our neighbors more and be less likely to not work.
All these jobs illegal aliens take because we don't want. Please, if the gov't did not pay welfare. Americans would work them. I worked them.
Get an education and ask the right questions. Our gov't schools teach us to follow like sheep, our gov't. Go figure!
They don't teach us to ask questions and be an individual and self reliant. But dependent and reliant on the gov't to solve our problems.
Sounds like socialism to me.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:15 pmLostcosts: "Yes, you add more corporate taxes and guess what prices go up and people get laid off and then everyone yells at the corporation when it was you and I voting for power hunger idiots who make us look like fools."
This is a corporate myth. The prices we pay are not dictated by the level or corporate taxes. They are dictated by what the market for a particular product will bear. Consumers do not necessarily pay for corporate taxes. Sometimes corporations make less profits.
If prices were directly related to overhead, the price of Nike shoes would have dropped when they off-shored their manufacturing. But, prices have gone up.
You argument is based on corporate propaganda.
And, your assumption that government can't do anything right is not based in reality or historical fact. Again, it's just corporate propaganda that you, evidently, have swallowed whole.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:22 pmLostcosts: "Name one program in the last 100 years that has worked without adding more money than expected and then add more money."
Rural Electrification.
And let me give you another example of government "welfare" returning profits: JK Rowling was only able to write her Harry Potter series because of government support for the arts. She was a single mother on welfare and got a grant from her government. For a few thousand invested in her, Britain added an industry worth $350 billion with all of the jobs and tax revenue associated with that. So, government support for the arts was very profitable for the British government.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:31 pmWhy has corporation gone overseas? Taxes are too high!
It is NOT the only factor but it is a major contributive factor.
If you have a product you can sell and get top dollar for it. What you not or would you think of all they people who cannot afford it?
Are you willing to take a pay cut for someone else to have a job? Or to just give them your money.
If they take a smaller profit margin then they have to answer to their stock holders and expansion cannot happen.
It is common sense. Supply and demand.
So when minimum wage does go up it does the economy good?
Then why do prices continue to rise on every product?
Worth of an employee who worked hard to make it up the ladder and make more money is minimized by the slacker who decided to do the minimum and get paid it.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:36 pmLostcosts --
Why don't you work for the same wages/benefits that multinationals pay their workers in China, and demonstrate to us all that you can live comfortably on that salary? And the bonus will be that you will probably not have to pay any taxes, so that shouldn't be a problem, either.
Show us how it's done.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:42 pmLostcosts: "Why has corporation gone overseas? Taxes are too high!"
Again, corporate propaganda. No, sorry, corporations have off-shored manufacturing to get lower labor costs. Corporate taxes, during this period of off-shoring, have been less than at any point in the last 75 years. During the 50's and 60's, when there was massive corporate growth, corporate taxes were much higher than they are today.
Off-shoring is all about lowering labor cost and avoiding taxes. Why would U.S. corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce protest the Chinese government allowing its Walmart workers to unionize if off-shoring were about anything other than that?
August 13th, 2007 at 12:42 pmwhy should I? I live in America where I have a skill that acquired by working full time and going to college.
I took responsibilty. No children. No bad credit. I took responsibilty.
I will pay my taxes but it should not be for hand outs.
I have no problem helping anyone helping themselves. I am just not going to like handing my HARD EARNED money over to programs that dont work.
Why dont you work over there? It is what you are vying for by pushing for more gov't involvement in business affairs.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:46 pmBecause labor unions are justifying a price for work that is not by merit.
Look at the teachers unions in NYC and all over the country.
Teachers reprimanded for all types of bad behavior toward students are still paid for years while sitting in a room reading the paper or doing whaever they desire except the job they are paid to do.
The reason why is because the teacher's union has too much power and control in gov't. Taking money from citizens like me for not doing their job.
I would like to see that in Walmart. Prices would go up and quality of service would diminish just like at school.
Why do union states have a higher costs of living and higher taxes?
August 13th, 2007 at 12:52 pmlostcosts: "Because labor unions are justifying a price for work that is not by merit."
I assume this is your answer to my question about U.S. corporations protesting the Chinese allowing its Walmart workers to unionize. How exactly do you decide the qualities of "merit?" Walmart has been happy to import Chinese-manufactured products. I haven't heard any complaints from their corporate board about quality. You're just regurgitating corporate propaganda again. The only reason U.S. corporations don't want unionization in China is the same as why they don't want it here - they want cheap labor.
lostcosts: "Why do union states have a higher costs of living and higher taxes?
Because people make more money in unionized states and the general standard of living is higher. Non-unionized states have higher poverty rates.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:44 pmPoverty rates set by the gov't. Compared to a national avg. which is higher because of the unionized workers, yet quality of product in this nation is down.
Toyota, Nissan and other countries products are of higher quality because the cost of labor matches the product delivered. Even Toyota prices have grown rapidly because most of it is now produced in this country.
If it were up to unions we would never shut down factories and have growth. We would still be making cannon balls in Ohio.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:15 pmA house in NY compared to a house in Ga. is a huge difference in price.
And the poverty rate in Ga. is not like NY adjusted by state avg. costs of living since taxation is much more limited.
Why are more businesses moving south? And job opportunities growing rapidly? Oh, I know, they get cheap labor. Yeah, where the costs of living is cheaper because taxes are not elevated.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:17 pmlostcost: "If it were up to unions we would never shut down factories and have growth. We would still be making cannon balls in Ohio."
I don't get it. Are you happy that America's manufacturing sector has been decimated? Do you agree with the destruction of the American middle class by wiping out manufacturing in our country? We had lots of economic growth in this country before corporations began shutting down factories and giving jobs to people in India or China rather than jobs to Americans.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:26 pmlostcost: "Poverty rates set by the gov’t."
I'm not even sure what you mean by this. Poverty rates are measured, not set. The only thing that is arbitrarily set is the number below which you are technically called poor. And, the poverty rate, in reality, is much higher than what the government says because that arbitrary number is too low.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:29 pmI am NOT happy about it. I think it is all the taxes that have been put on corporations and entitlement of benefits from daycare to healthcare to pensions to all employees.
I think it should be more by merit. By how well you work and what value you bring to a company. Not because you have been there for x amount of years. I think you should sign a contract individually with a business for what you feel you are worth. Everyone, from CEO to janitor.
I think gov't schools should teach children how to think and learn in society instead of teaching them to spit back out whatever the teacher says.
I think state law should be respected more and more decisions made at the state levels instead of federal gov't always vetoing state policies, of course, with some exceptions.
I think we give too much power to federal gov't. It has slowly become more of a social program instead of self reliance.
Whatever happened to: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country"
I am not saying corporations are innocent. They are just as guilty in most case, but gov't is NOT the answer. Trust me, they get their cut. Dems and Reps. both.
The founders believed in minimal gov't. Not the colossus we have today.
We, as a people, need to look more to our neighbors and local leaders and stop the epidemic handout and "rights" to everything.
Get rid of your cellphone, cable tv, SUVs, country club membership, video membership and any "extras" before you ask for help.
All these things are not needed. They are an illusion in keeping up the Jones'.
Gov't and corporation both are somewhat to blame but you and I decide to buy it. There is no gun to your head.
I feel the federal gov't puts a gun to my head and tells me to pay all these outrageous taxes to help those that really don't need help.
If I did that I would get 40 years in prison.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pmI cannot even start a small business to hire Americans. Legal Americans. Because the tax code is so elaborate in determinental to my overhead and cannot afford it. I don't live in a house. I live in a town home. I have a 10 year old car. Not the latest model. I work two jobs. I work everyday. Take Sundays off sometimes. Just to try to get my business up and running.
Hope to grow the American dream. The biggest obstacle in my way is taxation. Paying accts. Paying employee taxes. Paying licensing taxes.
Why?
Take my money before I even get it. The 16th Amendment needs to find its way in the trash with Prohibition.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pmlostcost: "I am NOT happy about it. I think it is all the taxes that have been put on corporations and entitlement of benefits from daycare to healthcare to pensions to all employees."
You keep repeating this mantra like it's a religious dogma even though, as I pointed out, corporate taxes have been lower in the last 30 years than for the previous 50 years before that. Again, corporate taxes were much higher in the 50's and 60's during a time of tremendous corporate growth, so your argument doesn't really make sense. In addition, corporations are taxed at much higher rates in other industrialized countries.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:46 pmIn the 50s and 60s we were going through tremendous growth because of the wars. Also, it was not as feasible to move overseas. In a cost-effective rate. Also, entitlements were not as plentiful as they are today.
What about daycare, healthcare, and the like? All those prices went up.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:05 pmEmployee tax rate has gone up as well.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pmThe United States and Japan's tax rates on corporate income are about 40 percent (including corporate taxes at the state and local level), while the rate in the European Union averages about 25 percent.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:08 pmLostcosts --
If you hate being in a country where people are taxed, why don’t you move to Saudi Arabia?
From the Heritage Foundation’s website, “Saudi Arabia has high levels of fiscal freedom, labor freedom, property rights, and monetary freedom. Except for a mandatory Islamic 2.5 percent Zakat charitable contribution, the government imposes no taxes on personal or corporate income. Saudi Arabia’s labor market is flexible, as the government imposes few costs on employing or firing workers. Inflation is less than 1 percent, and the government maintains no direct price supports.â€
Move there, and you’ll think you’ve landed in heaven.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:09 pmLets not forget...People pay taxes. Not some impersonal corporation.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:09 pmExcept they have no personal freedom of religion.
Why don't you move to China where the gov't takes care of all your personal needs and takes a good portion of your money?
I did not say NO taxes. I said we should do something about excessive taxes on social programs that have proven to fail over and over again. Yet they through more money at it to solve the problem.
If a plumber came to your house and the leak kept getting worse would you continue to through money at the plumber to fix the leak or find another alternative?
Why waste?
August 13th, 2007 at 3:14 pmWhy is India and China catching up to us so rapidly?
August 13th, 2007 at 3:17 pm"Who Pays the Corporate Income Tax?
The corporate income tax provides a good example of the importance of tax incidence for tax policy. The corporate tax is popular among voters. After all, corporations are not people. Voters are always eager to have their taxes reduced and have some impersonal corporation pick up the tab.
But before deciding that the corporate income tax is a good way for the government to raise revenue, we should consider who bears the burden of the corporate tax. This is a difficult question on which economists disagree, but one thing is certain: People pay all taxes. When the government levies a tax on a corporation, the corporation is more like a tax collector than a taxpayer. The burden of the tax ultimately falls on people—the owners, customers, or workers of the corporation"
Harvard University blog.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:18 pm"the United States and Japan have the two highest corporate tax rates of the more than 80 nations examined. Their tax rates on corporate income are about 40 percent (including corporate taxes at the state and local level), while the rate in the European Union averages about 25 percent."
According to latest KPMG study.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:20 pmTherefore, jobs go overseas.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:21 pmdoes anyone else have any suggestions to keep jobs here outside of force?
August 13th, 2007 at 3:25 pmLostcosts --
China has minimal respect for human rights or human life, which means that most Reich Wingers would feel right at home there. Some of its worst excesses are those of capitalism run amok. Why do you not include EU countries among your recommendations?
With regard to healthcare, why is it that the United States spends 15.4% of its gross domestic product on healthcare while all of the Scandinavian countries spend less than 10% of their GDP. Why are their governments outperforming our private sector megacorporations?
Since the Repukes took over control of the country, beginning in the January, 1981, haven't they had plenty of time to apply their own unique brand of "fiscal discipline" to reigning in governmental waste?
Surely, they must have fixed the problem long ago. Why are you still complaining? Have the Repukes not done the job?
August 13th, 2007 at 3:26 pmHow are right wingers against human rights? That is just ridiculous.
Next, it is still a communist country. Lets not forget that. They killed a man for making a mistake with a little less so than our own FDA would or has.
Why not work hard and give your money to those that don't? Take all your money and put it in a huge bowl for those that need it to put their hands into and take.
Hey, open your house to those that need it too. I am sure you have a extra bedroom not being used.
Why not? Because you choose not too.
Also, curmudgeon. The EU is mentioned a few segments back.
We spend more because we eat unhealthy and live in a high tax bracket country!
And you are right about the Republicans. So right! They spent too much and too often. Hence, the dimes worth a differrence between each party.
Blindly following leaders ...better watch your parking meters.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:04 pmlostcosts: "does anyone else have any suggestions to keep jobs here outside of force?"
Yes. The way we did it for the first 210 years of our country: tariffs. The idea was that assuming you can manufacture a pair of shoes here for $1.00 a piece, If you want to manufacture them in China for .10 ea, fine, but you'll have to pay 90 cents a pair to bring them in.
Now, you're going to say this increased cost automatically gets passed on to the consumer, but that's not true. Prices are set by the market. What happens is that the corporation makes less profit. Again, if what you think is true, Nike shoes would have dramatically dropped in price when they off-shored manufacturing.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:04 pmOn corporate tax rates, according to the OMB, the current corporate tax revenue is 7.4%, which is the lowest since 1934. In fact, 94% of American corporations paid less than 5% in corporate taxes last year.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:14 pmlostcost: "This is a difficult question on which economists disagree, but one thing is certain: People pay all taxes. When the government levies a tax on a corporation, the corporation is more like a tax collector than a taxpayer."
No, a corporation is an individual with some of the rights of an individual under our law currently. And, the corporation does NOT necessarily pass a tax on to its customers. Prices are set by the market.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:32 pmThat would lead to a bigger black market, no?
Yes, but if you increase the taxes on a corporation and they cannot raise prices because of the market then they fire people to keep the company afloat.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:16 pmlostcost, you seem to think that there are no circumstances in which a corporation will have to take less profit. There can be circumstances in which a corporation cannot further cut it's staff, cannot raise its prices and must pay a tariff or a higher tax. The only possible outcome of that situation is lower corporate profits.
And, so what if there's a black market. That's an issue for law enforcement. We're talking about regulated markets here, the kinds in which corporations operate. Remember, Nike moved its manufacturing offshore to lower its labor costs and the cost of their goods has gone up, not down, so Nike's overhead has little to do with the price of their product. If Nike has to pay a tariff on shoes made in China, it's profit will decrease to a point where it's an even tradeoff, so why not bring manufacturing home. Then, you get the added benefit that more people in your own American community can buy the shoes because they're working. It's the Henry Ford principle.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:53 pmyep: "It’s about life style not medical care. Americans eat worse than every country ahead of them. Stress is higher in the U.S. too, it has nothing to do with health care."
Then why is it that people in France, Germany and Italy smoke and drink a lot more than we do but live longer. And, what on earth makes you think lack of healthcare isn't one of the reasons Americans are so stressed? Nobody in any other industrialized society on earth worries that a health problem will cause bankruptcy. Only our citizens have that fear.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:05 pmlostcost --
Surely you jest when you make statements (Post #104) such as "How are right wingers against human rights? That is just ridiculous." One of the newest stories on TP details funding (i.e., tax dollars) supposedly dedicated to help Hurricane Katrina victims being used to build luxury condominium projects far inland, where there was only minimal damage. If Repukes were truly in support of human rights, we wouldn't have soldiers returning to Iraq for fourth terms of duty; voter disenfranchisement by using caging lists would be ancient, not recent history; this country would refuse to trade with countries that use slave labor and sweatshops forcing young children to work long hours in unsafe conditions; children born in our country would have at least an equal chance of seeing their first birthday as children in Cuba; and this country would not be sacrificing its national treasure and the precious lives of its young people to invade and occupy a country that posed no credible threat to this nation's safety, brutalizing and killing many tens of thousands of its citizens, including children. And this is a very abbreviated list.
Most certainly, if Repukes are for human rights, I would hate to see what would occur if they were against them.
Perhaps you'd care to provide us with some sourced information regarding the humanitarian work that the Reich Wingers has conducted?
I will respond later to other parts of your Post #104, since TP won't print some of my longer responses.
For a recent and truly eye-opening account of Republican waste, please check out the following article located on the website for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank -- http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-24.pdf
Once you've read that article, you should be aiming both barrels at the Reich Wingers in Washington, D.C.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:24 pmWhy are other countries living longer.....like Japan, France, most of Europe? Its called diet. It has nothing to do with health care. politics, taxes or anything else. Its called diet. This country eats too much junk and does not get enough exercise. Plain and simple
August 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pmJamie --
The anwer may not be as simple as you suggest.
Even though the United States has a high rate of obesity, the United States ranked 42nd of 222 countries in the world in the study regarding longevity. You cite the high obesity rate in the U.S., but does the aforementioned data mean that for countries ranked #43 through #222 (180 countries), their obesity rates and lack of exercise is even worse than the United States? It would stand to reason that there are other factors that affect longevity besides diet and exercise. Access to quality health care might well be a significant factor, as mentioned in the Associated Press article.
Smoking, to the extent that it may adversely impact longevity, appears to be more prevalent in Europe than in the United States. The prevalence of smoking for men is 35% (U.S.) versus 46% (Europe), respectively and for women the prevalence is 22% (U.S.) versus 26% (Europe). The data regarding smoking was provided by the World Health Organization, 2000.
There is also the matter of several foreign countries having higher rates of obesity than the United States, but also greater longevity. Perhaps you can explain this disparity. Among the countries with higher obesity rates, but greater longevity: Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece, and Malta. Check out the following article on MSNBC for details regarding obesity rates: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7197750/
For info regarding longevity, you can find the relevant data at http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat2007_1mortality.pdf
Your comments?
August 14th, 2007 at 3:50 amGreat comments, but I was mostly saying the reason our longevity rate is not higher is due to our obesity problem and lack of exercise. Although I think our health care system is one of the best in the world. Look at Castro when he got so sick. His doctor was from Spain not Cuba.
Example 1: The person who cuts my hair is originally from Cuba. She came over on one of the lottery flights back in the day. She agreed with Moore that everybody has health care in Cuba. But she said the conditions of the hospitals are terrible and their technologies are far behind the U.S and Europe.
Example 2: Canada ....everybody thinks the health care system is so great there. Its not....Health care consultants from Canada will tell you that drugs may be cheap, but if you want to visit a doctor or have a surgery then you may have to wait for weeks to months. Thats why so many people are losing jobs, getting addicted to drugs and losing their houses because they have serious injuries they need fixed, but can't work due to the pain. So they lose their jobs and source of income and eventually their house. So all the people saying our health care system in the US is so bad....what are they thinking. Their is no easy solution to the heath care issues in the US. Its not as easy as giving everybody universal health care.
Universal health care is not free in Europe. Its paid for by taxes....many taxes
But I do have a heart....I would like to see someway that everybody could have health care, but I don't think the solution should involve the government. I would also like to see cheaper drugs.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:18 amcurmudgeon-
Right wingers are still not against human rights? How about Vietnam? Left wing war. Invasion into Cuba...left wing plan. Abortion...left winger that came about do to Nazi Germany.
This can go on and on both ways. Hell, the representatives in La. are all left wingers yet all the money they received to keep up the levees and distribute to the poor in La. were wasted on God only knows what. Probably to line their pockets in some kickback scheme. One of them is up on federeal charges now for deals with some African business.
They found thousands of dollar in his freezer. He even had a special convoy go to his house during or just after the Hurricane for some special reason. Those resources could have been used to help people he did not help before Katrina.
The blame goes both ways. Who knows more about what is going on in the neighborhood but locals? Why blame and rely ALWAYS on the federal gov't whether Dem in office or Rep.?
Like I said before, it is not a left wing, right wing thing. It is giving blind power to power hunger politicians and voting blindly to a political party instead of the candidate...what has they done for me lately. What handout?
Come on curmudgeon! I will read your link when I get a chance.
I am not a right winger or left winger. I am an American who is tired of seeing America split apart by politics. There are Dems in my are I adore and Reps and Independents. On policy that helps America grow and does not infringe on rights.
I am for unlimited personal liberty and minimal gov't.
Jamie makes sense!
August 14th, 2007 at 9:23 amcurmudgeon-
You are right! I read that before. Exactly of tax wasted. Dem or Rep. I dont care...it is WRONG!
August 14th, 2007 at 9:26 amPart I --
If you are for personal liberty and minimal government then perhaps you'll agree with at least some of the following:
When one party to allowed to gain overwhelming power to the extent that the opposing party (or parties) cannot act as an effective check and balance, the only question is when, not if, tyranny will result. A couple of new forces have helped to solidify the power of the Republicans -- linking arms with the Christian Reich (I'm sure you must feel great about having your hard-earned tax dollars given to faith-based organizations, with minimal oversight) and consolidation of our nation's media, ensuring that the mainstream news media essentially speaks with one voice and serves as the megaphone for the "conservatives" who maintain their stranglehold on power.
The swing to the right, I would submit, began when Ronald Reagan took office in January, 1981. In many respects, Bill Clinton did not represent a significant departure from Reagan or Bush I. He supported NAFTA. Sanctions and bombing of Iraq continued under his watch. It has been estimated that nearly 500,000 children perished of the Iraq because of the sanctions alone.
Our nation's history is replete with many shameful actions, and it is difficult to identify any extended period of time when our country did not have blood on its hands. The proverbial pendulum has typically swung in one direction or another, but until recently, the self-correcting mechanisms included in the Constitution by our far-sighted Founding Fathers has eventually prevented these swings from continuing irreversibly in one direction or another. I'm not sure if that is the case this time.
To be continued...
August 14th, 2007 at 12:00 pmUnfortunately, TP is not allowing even a short continuation of the comment above to appear on its website.
Censorship rules!
Libertarians, what do you think of this?
August 14th, 2007 at 12:04 pmcurmudgeon-
Anytime one party...either Dem or Rep we end up with power hunger idiots.
We need to vote outside the mainstream parties but Americans are too afraid to do because they dont want the other side to get a foothold.
Therefore, we allow ourselves to be used and abuse by the two party system.
As far as your rant, left media is just as powerful as right. I see it everyday. It all depends on what you are looking for.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:23 pmOur history is also full of some the most kind and giving than any other nation, too.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:24 pmThe bottom line is that international comparisons of life expectancy data, as they are now being collected and reported, are virtually meaningless. Such comparisons are useful only to journalists with column-inches to fill, advocacy groups with axes to grind, and the ever-increasing hordes of the intellectually lazy.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:51 pm