Presidential Czars

I have read your material many times and found it informative and interesting. I am not convinced that this is the work of totalitarian, power-hungry, quasi-monarch man. How are his appointees to the Cabinet any different from those of the past? His strategy has changed, I will grant all of you that. No politician every in the history of human civilization has ever delivered on all of their campaign promises. It is a moot point because no matter who we elect now and til the end of time, they will be criticized for the same thing.

Thank you Twil for the kind comment about finding my work informative. I think that is exactly what I try very hard to do. I give the information that I find and let the reader decide for themselves what they think about it. Although, I do throw my opinion in there as well. I see that you are reading and trying to understand it all. I appreciate that you are not convinced about Obama's power-hungry agenda. I respect that. We will just keep reading and trying to understand.

On a side note, there are numerous studies that show that increased government regulation hurts the economy. No matter how well-intentioned it is, increased oversight or involvement hurts economic growth overall. One reason is that businesses and consumers are unsure of the future even more than before and so fail to act. Whether or not taxes are levied is not the point. People and firms will fear possible govt. intervention and withhold funds and innovation. Uncertainty has a way of making possibly beneficial transactions from ever getting off the ground.

Maybe I am ignorant or not, but how do these Czars affect the bigger picture?

Taxes or not, small businesses are the lifeblood of the economy (Obama may have stated that but apparently that was just lip service). If a business has no idea of what the future holds, they are likely not going to act. If the government keeps changing the rules of the game, how is a small business owner going to know how to play the game for their maximum benefit. Studies dating back to the 40's have shown that any time that govt. regulation approaches a certain threshold that economic activity lowers. I would think that would be rather compelling.

Simple B.S.

Welcome to the "Other Side". Apparently the president wants his blue dogs to go home and talk to their people as it seems that they are starting to listen to the "Other side" and looking at voting against BO's plan. And Princess Pilosi has told everyone when they come back from their break the will "WIN" on the healthcare plan. How do you win? Is this a battle where there has to be victor? I thought congress was there to represent US? Maybe I'm wrong. Hopefully congress wil lgo home and tak in a little light reading and actually have a clue to what they are voting on. Maybe they will check their answering machines and see that over 60% of the people in this nation DON'T WANT this plan as proposed. SO wouldn't that mean they have to vote for what their constiuents want and not what the president wants. Now there's a novel idea. A congress that actually represents those who voted them in instead of voting for whatever THEY want.

I have always thought that Glenn Beck spoke commen sense. I have been planning on reading it too.

Two more must reads: Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" and Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny".

Well Bazoo, I think that you r supposed to share it with friend when u r done.

I watched some of it. My take on it as that he does not have a firm hold on all of the specifics. It seemed as though he did not want to say too much so to avoid being "caught" or some idea like that.

This plan from what little I do know is flawed. Yes, everything in life has flaws. I dont expect this bill to answer all questions. It seems to me that they feel that Americans cant make good decisions when it comes to health care. I may be inferring the wrong point but that is my take.

In all fairness, it takes both sides of this to achieve optimal results. Neither is perfect nor any better than the other. The Pilgrims were progressive and I dont see any complaining about that. They chose not to endure living in the UK and so chose to move and not live by the status quo. The point is that nothing stays the same forever. There have been Republican or Conservative leaders (President, Senator, etc.) that have made plenty of blunders. Likewise there have been Liberal politicians/leaders that have left things worse than they were before. No group/party is perfect.

Twil,

What is your basis for saying that the Pilgrims were progressive? The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. This would seem to me that they were basically more conservative in nature than (as you say) progressive.

Please explain.

I feel that they were progressive because they chose not to uphold the status quo. The status quo would be their enduring life in Britain. Because they chose to risk the Atlantic and not simply stay in Britain and be martyrs. Yes, in religious terms they were very conservative.

Conservatives (aka Republicans) felt that slavery was neither immoral or unjust but integral to a successful life. Evidently that has changed and life for everyone is better. The point again is that nobody is perfect and that both sides are needed to make the optimal situation occur.

A One Party system has been shown to fail. Mexico, Canada, Europe, Chile have provided examples of well-meaning, seemingly ablebodied, single parties that given power succumb to the same undesirable traits as their predecessors. Who knows, we may be the country that breaks that trend?

.Awww Twil,

We can discuss "Conservatives (aka Republicans)" at a different time. BTW, Conservatives (aka Republicans) are not necessarily the same.

But for now let's concentrate on your assertion that the Pilgrims were progressive, aka liberal. The Pilgrims, were fleeing religious persecution in their native England. So I would say that they wanted to maintain their own 'status quo' rather than bow to the demanded changes of the Church of England. Yes, as you have agreed and stated in religious terms they were very conservative. In the 1600's was there that much of a difference between religious and political views?

Your argument that the Pilgrims were progressive (liberal) would have been better served IMO if you had used the terms of the Mayflower Compact as your basis.

Bazookaman,

".............if the pilgrims HAD been "progressive", England would still be in charge here................(which might actually be better than what we have right now!). "

-- Posted by bazookaman on Tue, Jul 28, 2009, at 8:14 AM

I don't know BM........but I think .....that ....the 150 plus years ....between the landing of the Pilgrims in 1620 .......and the eventual signing of our Decoration of Independence by our founding fathers in 1776 and the sacrifices of our warriors of the time to secure that Independence has little correlation ....... Other than ,......someone back in 1620 taught their children well. ....and so on....and so on ,and so on ..and so on.......

I have not read the entirety of the bill(s) but the proposed penalty or payroll tax for those who dont furnish health insurance is asanine. A 10% tax or penalty on those who dont comply or whatever verb one wants to use is terrible economics and poor politics. It would lead to the sure demise of most small businesses. I say this not because I want to provoke anger or fear. It is fundamental to any one who knows economics or just cause-effect relationships. I know that there is more to this than i have elaborated upon. From what i have read in the Wall Street Journal, it would be incredibly onerous on small businesses. Consumers would feel it too but I will leave it at this. Overall, I will be writing whomever I need to so that I can dissuade them from this ignorant idea.

Health care and such.... What Americans focus on is the accounting cost. That is what one sees on an Income Statement or Balance Sheet. It makes sense. If one reads the literature about this bill it seems from that point relatively benign. Yes, it will cost money but with just accounting costs factored in it seems to be people getting worked up over nothing.

Now, here is where the opposed gain traction. In life, one choice means that you give less energy to another. By choosing health care, we forego other possible beneficial items. I wont bore everyone with economics but what we would be giving up to make this happen outweighs the benefits. From a individual's point of view, most stand not to gain. From society's aggregate view, the numbers may work out. My argument to that is that individuals make up society and so we should start there. Statistics and high end analysis can get swayed by numbers that are far outside the norm.

For example 2,2,2,3,5,6,12121. Six out of seven are relatively small numbers but when averaged comes out to be 1734 which does not represent the group accurately. The point is that some areas of the countries which are in great need of the services offered by the bill do not represent the whole. Penalizing the whole to serve the minority is not the way to go in my opinion.

Your equating Hitler and Obama is laughable but I will let your delusion continue.

This current economic situation demands some stern, decisive, and extremely unpopular action. Republicans and or conservatives still have to be popular. They still have to care what the voting public thinks. They do not operate in a vacuum, oblivious to approval ratings. The point is that if McCain or whoever had been elected there would be serious opposition such as there is now.

If they had to chosen the path of thrift or lack of spending there would be vastly more unemployment. The number of people that would be out of their homes after failing to pay their mortgages and such would be higher. I support the path of thrift so dont misconstrue this. The point is that it would be trading one negative for another. The difference being that rampant spending without the assets to back it up will affect the future. Forcing the public to make better decisions and letting the economy settle back down to a natural level will be unpopular in the short term but will stabilize later. The government does not need to be the savior. The Federal Reserve is there to rescue banks in case of a bank run. They should not be factoring into everyday life.

Ok, so for another lesson in logic and economics.

One scenario.

Today's economy is in shambles as we all know. The government has two options. Be activist and try to tinker with it or do nothing and hope that things right themselves on their own. Government action would come in the form of stimuli (borrowing), changing interest rates by the Fed, or changing their own spending patterns. No matter who is in power, those are the options.

"FORCE? FORCE? FORCE the public to make better decisions?"

If the government takes no action, there will be consequences as we all know. Taking no action would mean that the economy would operate solely on the actions of consumers and businesses. Not all that is desired by individuals can be furnished. This is called scarcity. There is a limit to all consumer goods. Not everybody is going to get what they want. For the purpose of this lets propose that 15% of people cant make their mortgage payments. No action by the government means that they come up with the money or are forced to make another decision. They may have to move or sell the house or whatever. Limits are common place and have existed as long as this planet has.

No action by the government would mean that a new demand curve and a new supply curve would result. The choices made by the individual would have to change. They cant exist at the same living standard as before and so are forced to take less desirable options.

I feel that the government should stay out not because of politics. Actions taken by the Fed or the Treasury would come in the form of borrowing. Interest rate decreases having proved less than effective. Government spending cuts are not going to happen here. That being known, the cuts needed to help the economy are more than the entire Government section of GDP. Borrowing without the assets to back that up now and in the future has effects that will continue to grow.

Consumer actions and living on credit had a bigger impact than the inflated salaries in Washington. GDP is made up of 60% consumer transactions. With all economic activity included, that number grows. Govt. intervention would not be needed if consumers could keep their budgets balanced.

All of this occurs regardless of politics. Greece, Rome, England, and so on have had to grapple with these issues. Living on credit has never been wise. Plenty of conservative regular Americans refinanced their homes, maxed out their credit cards, bought overpriced real estate, purchased luxury goods such as big screen TVs, iMacs, etc. so poor financial decisions know no party line either. The point is that this current administration needs to take the unpopular step of allowing the economy to work on its own. This will be unpopular because more people will see their standard of living decrease. It's their fault after all. Politicians did not force them to refinance their home or undertake bad actions.

P.S. politicians had nothing to do with relaxing credit to consumers. There is plenty of evidence to support that. So please no blame game on this one.

You can believe what you want but senators and congressman did not force yuppies to refinance their homes and dig themselves into a debt that they could not afford. The relaxing of consumer credit occurred by way of the SEC and bank presidents. There is some sketchy evidence that minor bills passed during the Clinton administration made this occur as well. The issue with this is that these minor bills are ambiguous.

It is widely known and accepted by all intellectuals and individuals in the know that GDP breaks down in the following way. Consumption is 60%, Investment Spending is about 30% and Government Spending is 10%. Even during the most out-of-control spending times in US history this number has risen to 16% so again quite inconsequential in comparison to the bigger picture. The point is that consumer activities make a bigger difference than that of government.

Laws of supply and demand occur regardless of politics. Consumers with new credit resources demanded a more lavish lifestyle. Consumers (both Dem and Rep) chose to use these resources until a point where the liabilities exceeded the assets. This is not that complicated. Banks, lenders, real estate, etc. felt they could make a profit and so let bad investments go. When the default rate became too high they could no longer count on the safer investments to shore up the bad investments.

Now, answer some questions. Dont dodge them and dont come up with lame excuses.

Who defaulted on their mortgages?

Who maxed out their credit cards?

Who did not save?

I know that you will dodge this and come up with some lame conspiracy but I will hold out faith that you can answer basic questions. This is not a political argument. Debt knows not party lines.

Government waste or misuse of funds is going to happen. If it was up to me, I would only fund projects that would benefit everybody. This project would have to show tangible results in the near future.

I agree that these Senators dont spend a dime of their own to make these frivolous ventures come to life. The scientists and universities that propose these worthless ventures are equally as guilty. If they care so much, they should fund it on their own.

Back to the topic. Whether the government takes action or not, the culture needs to learn to be accountable for their actions. I agree that not only do consumers need to exercise better judgment but also politicians. I dont advocate that they should tell anybody how to spend their money. Bringing credit back to pre-boom levels would be a start. Not only would consumers have to change but also the lenders who prey upon these people. People make the decision to borrow so that they can afford season tickets to BSU and the lenders prey upon them by offering packages and interest rates that sneak upon them. Lenders took this and over-extended themselves.

The deficit was not created by consumers, you are right. My point is that consumers living beyond their means created this latest economic downturn. Consumers may have created it but it seems that those in control have tried too hard to rescue them. You cant help those who wont help themselves. If those in D.C. knew that what Americans really wanted to long term stability and not short term highs that will result in towering debt and eventual poor exchange rates.

YUP, I'm ready.

Twil I disagree with you on who caused this latest downturn. Actually it was places like Freddie and Fannie lending money like it was free. It was banks lowering their standards for credit so they could get more and more "customers" out there paying the minimum payment. Do I blame some of these citizens for taking advantage of the fact the bank tells them they can afford a $150K home when their paychecks say they can only afford $80K, Yes. But If someone walked up to you and handed you $100 and said pay it back to me at a a dollar a month, you'd take that. So now that the mortgage lenders say you can afford $150K, the realtors and builders decide that the house that cost them $30K to build is now worth that $150K you can afford instead of the $50-60K it should have been on the market for. So now the housing market is over inflated. People are paying interest only mortgages so when they do go to sell the house they have not paid a dime to principle and are trying to sell a house that isn't worth what they paid. So now the economy crashes. These people, mostly young couples, are sitting on negative equity. They now have three choices, keep the house and keep paying. Sell the house at a significant loss. Or what most are doing which is simply walking away from it. Far easier to do that when you don't have anything of your own invested in the house. The payment is due on the new Dodge Charger and Ram truck. The atv's in the drive way need a payment paid. The $15,000 camp trailer is close to going back to the bank. Now His job is eliminated due to poor sales at his work. She is working two part time jobs at minimum wage. they turn to the government for help. They are told one of two things. She makes too much money to qualify or they don't have enough dependants to claim. So she quits one of the jobs, or has more kids. Now they qualify for food stamps, welfare, free medical care. They lose the toys in the drive and now are driving a car the government wants you to turn in for a great rebate on a new car. DId they do this to themselves? Partly, they were young and were spreading their wings. They went in to the bank thinking there's no way they were going to get the loan for the $150K house, the new car and truck, the atv's and camp trailer. But because the government told the banks, "Go ahead and loan, we'll cover ya!" the banks and mortgage company threw money out the window to these young people knowing that they had them by the throat for the next 30+ years. The government didn't care it either got it's kick back from Fannie and Freddie or they got millions onto the welfare rolls which essentially gives the government control of these young lives.

So now these young people want reform. They want to know why they were allwed to get in way over their head, they want to know why they will be in this hole for years to come. Are they to blame, Yes. But only in part. A spending nation is good for the economic numbers. Now it's time to pay the bills and no one has the money. The banks have gone back to congress and said, "Hey, you said you'd help us out. We can't fail or the nation fails!" Congress now throws money out the window to prop up these banks to keep them from going under and dragging the economy with it. WHo's money do they do this with...YOURS. Congress created this mess. They were the ones pushing for more and more consumer spending. They are the ones that laxed the rules for lending. Banks took advantage of people who didn't know any better and wanted what their parents took years to get, NOW!

Twil, watch TV for an hour. Look at the commercials. Everything is geared towards instant gratification. No hard work or saving for it. Just get a laon for it. Everything from motorcyles to cars and wash and dryers, all offer low payments OAC. You can now take pills to please your mate. No doctors appointment. No tests, just take this pill.

Just take this pill..that should be congresses new Motto!

I have stated numerous times that this action (stimulus) is one spurred on by everyone wanting instant gratification. Everyone being consumers, businesses, and politicians.

So to paraphrase, the debate is really who to blame. Do you blame the shady salesman or the sucker that buys the product? I blame the buyer because research can be done. I think that Americans are smart enough to not get in over their heads. I have proven to be wrong in my assumption. If any improvements are going to be made, the standard of living and all that it entails will have to be adjusted. Not everybody can have the Range Rover, 4000 sq. foot home on the river, 52-inch TV, season tickets to BSU and all others, and a membership at the Country Club.

Glenn Beck has stepped over the line a bit. I gave him credit for being somewhat objective but apparently that jinxed him. I dont know what exactly he said but apparently advertisers are boycotting his show. Apparently he said that Obama is racist. I wont debate the merits of that. I know that someone here will defend it and agree with it. My challenge is to defend that statement with evidence that knows not party lines, geography, or race.

My challenge was to defend this allegation of Obama being racist against white folks. To defend this with logic, facts, and reasoning that knows not party lines, geography, or race. Beck has some good points but apparently some very Conservative advertisers have disagreed with him to the point of a general boycott.

Gandhi accomplished something that few know the magnitude of. He motivated India to expel the British Empire with very little bloodshed. The two countries have strong diplomatic ties and are mutually beneficial to another economically. Hmmmm... how did he do that?

The point is that major changes can be made without blood shed. Governments can be set straight with decisive, logical, but nonviolent action. Improvements can be made at that level that help everyone. The actions of Gandhi set a precedent that few can hold a candle to. He brought together mostly peasant farmers and ousted the British Empire at the height of its power. A general strike like that which he organized would paralyze the government and the financial world. Oil companies would be forced to take heed. Overall, history has shown that widespread opposition to existing government can be done in an effective, decisive, but nonviolent way. The question is if Americans can put aside differences to make that happen. The social divides overcame by India are far greater than any that America has ever faced. If they can do it, so can we.

We all know that there is strength in numbers. Our country is so large with so much land coverage that it seems taunting that we could band together. However, it can be done. Look at the tea parties and the town hall meetings! We have the power to take our govt back without a single gunshot. Think of the massive effect it would have if the majority of us organized a large scale SIT-DOWN! Bring this country to a complete halt! No driving, no working, no eating out, no going to the grocery store or Wally-World! No buying anything! Just everyone go to their public parks or fairgrounds and do nothing but come together in strength refusing to support the current govt. Take a few days of nothingness in protest and it would be history in the making. Let the govt know that we can organize and make an impact! Tell them that all of us who did the Great American Sit-Down would also refuse to pay taxes until we are given the opportunity to fire those liberals and elect the ones needed to get this govt back on track. Can you imagine the impact? Not one single smig of violence! (Still on vacation so not in the office)

April 6, 1919. All Indians ceased any economic activities. No one worked nor did anything productive. Nonviolent noncooperation. India has multiple languages, stronger ethnic divides than the US ever thought of, and religious divides that go back a thousand years. That pre-dates Europeans polluting the world by about 500 years. With those barriers, he was still able to bring the population together against a much-superior force (at least in terms of fire power, money, and resources) and ultimately win. He did not accomplish all that he wanted. Refusing to buy or sell English cloth was one step. Refusing to buy salt that came through British hands. Refusing to work for them in any way even though it meant tough times and possible starvation. The point is that with grassroots noncooperation we can change things from the inner core on out. Provoking the anger of those who have superior fire power and resources is foolhardy. Most people are not warriors. Nor have they ever been. The warrior class in Sparta was only about 20% of the population.

The point of my last two posts is to show that a country can revolt without bloodshed. I know that you prefer that there be bloodshed but not me. Gandhi took on the British Empire with mostly peasant farmers. Americans of today are much better off than 99% of those ever thought of being. The people that Gandhi brought to revolt were on the brink of starvation, incredibly poor, and mostly non-educated. This is not to belittle to them but they had more to lose than we do and they still fought the British Empire.

Average citizens did something that no military force could ever dream of. They refused to work or cooperate. You cant be a slave if you would rather die than work for them. You can only kill so many before one's conscience comes into play. A war of independence would have drug out over many years and cost them thousands if not millions of lives. They gained more from the nonviolent approach than a bloody war would have ever have accomplished. The point of bringing this up is that average Americans can bring change without pistols and rifles. Not everyone believes in the violent approach unlike you. Without breaking that threshold, Americans can send a message that provoking the fear of many can not. Refusing to pay taxes and other actions shows an intelligent approach not the primitive approach of simply grabbing a pistol or throwing blows.

Twil, I am in agreement with you. Sorry Bazook, but nonviolent civil disobedience has been very effective and will be effective here. You can see it happening now. Read my lastest blog about the sinking ship. I support the people refusing to pay taxes and refusing to support the govt in any way until our representation is in line with the will of the people. Violent civil uprising is reserved for last resort, when there is no other recourse. Unfortunately, when that happens the people are so over-the-top angry that so many will die. Lives will be lost and massive chaos will prevail. Hold on to your anger and let's keep a level common sense head about this. We are gaining while the current administration's ship is sinking.

Yes people will choose the easy way. The easy way being apathy and hoping that those who care make the situation right.

Violent uprising is going to be supported by some because it is easy and rewards those who have traits such as courage,decisiveness, and single-track thinking. The nonviolent approach is subjective and does not always yield definite answers.

Yes. India is India. We are all human in the end. We all depend on the ATP reaction for life and energy. Culture may be different but the core needs of life are the same. If they can overcome the British Empire with nothing but refusal to cooperate, I dont see why Americans cant achieve a similar end.

You have stated on numerous occasions that the almighty dollar drives these "crooks". So why not attack them there. Provoking their anger and having a bloody civil war would simply reinforce these attitudes. Just like ignoring those who attempt to bully you is the best solution. If they cant get a reaction from you, what is it worth to them. If these politicians knew that we would be willing to sacrifice our lush lifestyles for this, they would listen. Our sacrifices would eventually lead to their fortunes crumbling. Their lavish lifestyles going down the toilet would force them to think. Revolting would put them a sink-or-swim, kill-or-be-killed mentality which would not change them. It has never helped me think clearer and neither has it anyone else.

Getting everyone to be cooperative and band together would/will be immensely difficult. I feel that showing how current/future economic policy will affect them directly. Trying to inspire them with fiery speech that sounds office gossip is not the way. Emotional, passionate, and heavily subjective tirades do not help to get the less concerned/motivated. We have to show that regardless of party, race, religion, geography, sexual orientation that this will affect them negatively. Spouting off he said/she said rhetoric does not work.

Appealing to someone emotionally rarely works. You have to back up things with sound logic and appear to have no agenda except for giving the facts and letting the person decide for themselves. I have experience with this and my message only struck home when I appeared to not have an agenda. When I was not trying to subtly discredit their current beliefs but rather show then logical, objective facts, the message seemed to last for more than .5 seconds.

But wait Twil.....isn't that how Obama got elected...by appealing to peoples emotions. He sure as heck didn't have the qualifications to run this country. Emotional, passionate, heavily subjective....using race, religion, sexual orientation?? Arenlt all these things exactly what Obama has been using for the past year...first to get elected then the last few months to force bills through congress to further his social agenda. As for trying to discredit someones beliefs??...haven't you been watching the news the past several weeks?

Sorry Twil, I'm calling you out on this one.

My last post had nothing to do with Obama so read into it whatever you want.

Ok, here's an example. Pro-Nuke vs. Anti-Nuke. It usually boils down to someone's view on safety and security. I wont debate but that is how it breaks down. I worked an unnnamed nonprofit at various public outreach events. Mostly older men would come to our booth and want to pick a fight. They would froth at the mouth wanting to discredit us as hippies, tree-huggers, and reactionaries that cant smell the roses. I occasionally flew solo but sometimes not. My coworkers would try to appeal to these people on an emotional level. Trying to astound them with worst-case scenarios and poignant speeches. I observed that it usually ended in standoffs.

I am not perfect but I would instead choose to take an impartial approach. Instead of discrediting the pro-nuke movement as old, conservative, insecure types I would acknowledge that there are pros as well as cons to their argument. Knowing that on somethings that we were not right helped me hold a conversation. The point is that I used an objective, factual, but not unbending approach and my success rate was much higher than the others.

Obama and that noise is a bit different. Presidential elections always appeal to the emotions of the public. Not everyone is informed and sometimes that info is hard to come by.

If we are going to motivate the public to affect change, one has to show the actual/most probable effects of their decisions. One has to forego the fiery speeches that will alienate your possible audience.

But it does have EVERYTHING to do with Obama. Obama has tried to affect change by using the things you say won't work. So in that frame of mind we should just shut up and let congress do what they will because it won't work??

As for posting the actual/probable effects of their decisions, once again have you been watching the news? Not one shred of truth from this administration or the lackeys in congress. All they do when attacked is to smear and slander. Sooo typical

My point is if average citizens are going to make a difference, those citizens need to rely on factual, objective data in order to persuade others to follow suit. It is possible to rise above that of politicians. If we are going to get the public to see the light, we cant rely on emotional appeals. I would feel that we have to be above that.

I watch the news but everything that one gets from the media has bias. It has been selected and edited for mass appeal. The appeal is not always what is formulative and relevant to average life.

I am not pro or anti-Obama. I am anti-bailout and against excessive govt. involvement in private economic issues. If we are going to get people to see the light of day, they have to know the actual costs/benefits of their decisions. It is hard to find tangible evidence of how and when it will affect them.

OK, here's one for you since you want to discredit me. If Obama's current health plan goes into action, what will be the cost to you? Now dont back down and give me rhetoric. Give tangible, hard numbers that show how it will affect YOU. Now I feel an escape route coming, so no using the totals gleaned from CNN, FOX, or any newspaper. If you are going to win this one, you will have to show that it is easy to find how the average citizen's standard of living will increase/decrease. Again no impassioned, reactionary rhetoric.

I know that it is difficult to determine the exact consequence. Average people know that the media colors everything. They leave stuff out on purpose. Too much info blurs the line, as we all know. Not everything enacted by government affects everybody equally. Talk radio has an immense amount of bias and opinion. Its good fodder for thought but for formulative decisions it offers little.

When you are advocating a cause, you have to appeal to someone with facts. A cause is different than running for political office which has vastly more elements in it. A single cause usually has a pro and an anti. Appealing on someone's emotions in order to persuade them is like telling a Catholic to suddenly become Jehovah's Witness.

I speak from the viewpoint of a grassroots effort and trying to persuade others to join a cause. For some reason, I could not find a way to articulate that thought prior. MHB, does that shed a bit more light on my blathering.

I make no qualms that I dont support the current proposals regarding healthcare. I dont care who or what party proposes them. It matters not. Socializing it will have drawbacks that can be shown logically and without a bunch of rhetoric. All of these have been brought up by other fine folks on here so no need to rehash them.

"It is no secret how you feel about your grandfather. Under "Obamacare", how much is your grandfather worth to THEM? THIS is cost far beyond dollars."

I am not sure how to answer that. So, for now I will let it be.

I dont pretend to be all that educated on that topic. I am not pro-Obama on this topic. The elderly need care but I am not sure for the whole of America if the socialized approach is the best.

One thing has come to my attention that seems to be flying under the radar. That is the monopoly that the American Medical Association has. I am not sure exactly how it affects the cost of health insurance but a monopoly this large has to affect life in a negative way. Any input would be appreciated.

I dont work for the Treasury but it would seem that it's impossible not to execute this without increasing the debt or raising taxes. The supply of money and resources is not infinite. We all know this but some seem not to acknowledge it.

And that doesn't make him a liar, right? Oh no, he didn't say that he wouldn't raise the taxes of anyone making less than $250,000 by one dime, either. Again, not a lie, right? Oh, we could play this game for quite a while, couldn't we? But I'm too tired, so very tired. Liars will lie until confronted with it. Crooks will continue to be crooks until someone makes them pay for their crimes. Afterall, if you are speeding and see a policecar parked on the side of the road, do you not slow down and pray that he doesn't turn on his lights? But let's change that scene just alittle. Take away the police car. Just a man in uniform standing on the sidewalk with no means of transportation and you go speeding by, obviously breaking the law. That policeman can scream all he wants; jump up and down while shaking his fist at you to slow down and you will drive on by with a smile on your face and you may even go faster as you watch him in your rearview mirror. (How funny is that mental picture?) There was no fear of punishment, no penalty to pay so how effective was that cop? There must be an incentive to change the direction you are going in or there is no need to stop or alter your course. We must give the current administration an incentive to stop.

Exactly the incentive I had in mind.