The Medicare voucher program

[Hlleonard]

Well said.

We're already not that far away from those on government assistance outnumbering those who are not. One word describes over-reliance on the government, socialism.

It is likely a President with a very strong bent toward socialism will be re elected this November.

--
Socialism is an awfully ugly word, we have struggled for a lot of years to find a medium happy between our two forms of government and hopefully down the road we can find our way out of this mess we have gotten ourselves into... I don't believe either of these candidates can lead us down that path.

[RoadToad]

Obama is not a socialist, just ask any member of the American Socialist Party. Socialists don't bail out for-profit companies. People have thrown that word around as an epithet since the Civil War, and it has rarely come close to being true.

Here's an interesting factoid for you: The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist.

[DJD]

Obama is not a socialist, just ask any member of the American Socialist Party. Socialists don't bail out for-profit companies. People have thrown that word around as an epithet since the Civil War, and it has rarely come close to being true.

Here's an interesting factoid for you: The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist.

He might not be a socialist on the outside but on the inside he is a socialist Muslim..

Heres another tidbit......the democrat party was pro KKK and even been told that they started that crazy group to scare and warn the GOP to stop helping blacks with their rights and freedoms. It took the GOP vote to give blacks. Citizenship because the dems didnt want them to have equal rights.

[Devils Horse]

Obama is not a socialist, just ask any member of the American Socialist Party. Socialists don't bail out for-profit companies. People have thrown that word around as an epithet since the Civil War, and it has rarely come close to being true.

Here's an interesting factoid for you: The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist.

The factoid is irrelevant.

Socialism:
A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

Okay, substitute government for community in the above definition. Sound familiar?

[Mean Morone]

One of our founders once said that when the people realize they can vote themselves money, it's all over. Very wise man. Another wise man once said if you don't work you don't eat.

[Devils Horse]

--
Socialism is an awfully ugly word, we have struggled for a lot of years to find a medium happy between our two forms of government and hopefully down the road we can find our way out of this mess we have gotten ourselves into... I don't believe either of these candidates can lead us down that path.

Which two forms of government are we talking about? I'm assuming you're talking about the Republican/Democrat two party system.

I'm not a learned scholar on the subject, so bear with me on this. Take a country where the national government redistributes wealth for "social justice"? That same country's government administers it's citizens' health care and forces them to buy into the system whether they want to or not? 50% of that country's people depend on the government for some form of basic need? Does the Democrat party in it's current form not openly advocate all these?

Semantics can in fact be an ugly thing, but that last paragraph sounds a lot like like socialism to me. What would you call it?

I believe step one to getting out of this mess is taking the reigns of power away from tax and spend politicians. Barack Obama is the biggest spender in history. Simple, America desperately needs him gone. We need that lying fool, Harry Reid gone just as badly.

[Hlleonard]

Which two forms of government are we talking about? I'm assuming you're talking about the Republican/Democrat two party system.

I'm not a learned scholar on the subject, so bear with me on this. Take a country where the national government redistributes wealth for "social justice"? That same country's government administers it's citizens' health care and forces them to buy into the system whether they want to or not? 50% of that country's people depend on the government for some form of basic need? Does the Democrat party in it's current form not openly advocate all these?

Semantics can in fact be an ugly thing, but that last paragraph sounds a lot like like socialism to me. What would you call it?

I believe step one to getting out of this mess is taking the reigns of power away from tax and spend politicians. Barack Obama is the biggest spender in history. Simple, America desperately needs him gone. We need that lying fool, Harry Reid gone just as badly.

--
When laws are put in place by our lawmakers, they are supposedly meant for all of us and we are "forced" to abide by them whether or not we wish to, be they democratic or republican, although our lawmakers seem to find ways to exempt themselves from those laws if it is to their advantage... I'm not sure what "social justice" exactly is but I don't believe you will find many folks in our great country that actually believe the government should play robin hood, that seems to be an argument the right attempts to make by their "spread the wealth" rantings on occasion, I believe most people on either side thinks folks should earn their keep in order for us to maintain the country we have. I personally don't believe the new healthcare bill will be a boon exactly to the middle class, I believe it may do further damage to those folks but it was put in place by our politicians and therefore we all have to live with it... I don't doubt your 50% assessment of folks who get help from the system but I ask you, what should our country do for someone who has a family, earns less money than is required to feed and house them, could we be the country we are if we told them "swim or drown" ... I feel like a person who works should be able to earn a wage with which to care for his family without government help and if paying somebody a better wage is called "redistributing the wealth" then I'm all for it.
Two forms of government may not have been the correct wording for the point I was attempting to make, I believe we have had something like the two party system for most of our history, I don't think the policies of either side in themselves would be good for most of us, I believe it is in our best interest to keep them at each others throats, it has done us fairly well over the years and hopefully will continue to do so... I do believe the national debt will bite us in the backside at some point down the road if we don't manage to do something about it, what that something is might be a combination of democratic and republican ideas, we can't start starving folks to balance the budget just yet.

[Hlleonard]

Actually, as I understand it, the housing collapse was caused by the likes of Barney Franks and Chris Dodd who changed fannie and freddy loan terms. 5% or even 0 down, and serious relaxation of credit worthiness. Seriously under qualified buyers got into tons of toxic loans, and those loans got sold around till nobody would buy them anymore. So the housing collapse had little to do with DE regulation, and much to do with vote pandering by congresspeople.

BTW, the Obama administration is still (very quietly) pushing the lending practices that got the collapse rolling to begin with.

I didn't know trade unions were gone. Don't they make up a large portion of Democrat financial support and voter base? If they are dead, then the party they support has not done a very good job for them have they? Also, there are those who believe unions have inflated wages/benefits to the point where companies move manufacturing operations out of the country to remain competitive.

When I started at he company I'm at, there were 40+ manufacturing facilities in the US, but our competitors were already mostly off shore. Now we have maybe 10 facilities in the US, and most of those are for product distribution.

--
I guess I'm not sure what government interference is, I believe the lowering of the standards for receiving home loans was what I was referring to and if the two gentlemen you mentioned did that all by themselves and they were not part of our government in control of such things, then i stand corrected... As I have stated before, I'm not a fan of our president and any of our politicians might at any time be scheming to do things we might not approve of... Mr. Horse, I doubt anybody, including you, believe unions are the force they once were and if trade unions were responsible for jobs flooding out of our country then you must believe middle class wages in general were also responsible and if middle class wages have to be reduced to levels of countries where the jobs have gone then our economy will never recover from the direction is seems to be taking... We have the country we have because of the middle class, the upper class and lower class are found all over this planet, when the masses can no longer afford the products and services they produce we might be finished as a world leader.

[RoadToad]

But using it for your everyday prescriptions, check-ups and other minor things is not "financial risk". It's basically paying someone else to pay for your everyday needs.

If we went to a more catastrophic insurance model where people were not using it to pay for things every day, then it could be considered spreading financial risk.

Hold on there. For one thing, those "everyday prescriptions" are not a "minor thing" for a lot of people, certainly not for me. I take two medications for seizures, and a couple for blood pressure as well. And there are LOTS of people whose "everyday prescriptions" are keeping them alive, not something I would call a "minor thing."

Secondly, you're just not an actuary! It IS spreading financial risk, or it wouldn't work, and the insurance companies would go out of business.

As for paying for check-ups, I explained in another thread how insurance companies have found that, if they pay for check-ups, people will actually go out and get the check-ups more regularly, so illnesses are detected earlier, and in the long run, health care costs are reduced. If you think about it, it makes sense. A check-up is relatively inexpensive, compared to the extra cost of treating a serious disease that is detected late.

[Mean Morone]

Yeah I know Osha very well. I worked contrustion for many years and saw some of the stupidest government nonsense you could ever think of from them. An OSHA rep came to a job site and asked the superintendent how he was going to do the railing on the stairs. The super said he would take down the temp. railing and put up the permanent railing. The government dude said he couldn't do that. The super asked how in the world you can put one up without taking down the other. He said it wasn't his problem. Knucklehead government dude!!! The super waited until the Osha dude left and finished the job the way he has always done it. Yes we need more of our money being spent on knuckleheads like that.

[Hlleonard]

Yeah I know Osha very well. I worked contrustion for many years and saw some of the stupidest government nonsense you could ever think of from them. An OSHA rep came to a job site and asked the superintendent how he was going to do the railing on the stairs. The super said he would take down the temp. railing and put up the permanent railing. The government dude said he couldn't do that. The super asked how in the world you can put one up without taking down the other. He said it wasn't his problem. Knucklehead government dude!!! The super waited until the Osha dude left and finished the job the way he has always done it. Yes we need more of our money being spent on knuckleheads like that.

--
Nothing is 100% on target so I guess you believe the work place would be better off without the osha program...... The epa probably makes dumb decisions also so I suppose you believe we would be a better country without them... It is untold how many serious injuries have been prevented by osha requirements which causes machine guards to be in place and working properly, requiring proper safety equipment to be provided to employees who work in a hazardous work area...If you happen to be someone who works for a living, government regulations are your friend and mine whether or not you want to admit it.

[Mean Morone]

Only in government can common sense be not so common. Government enforcement of common sense costs us billions. I agree that this could be the scariest sentence ever spoken, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". I think our founders had it right. Limited Government. Glad our founders and Bill Clinton are on my side.