Psst. Rocky won.

 

With a post like that you have displayed how ignorant you are. You don't know much about the Government whatsoever.

 

Are you promoting communism in a Capitlistic country?
The Republicans will be going without another one of my votes if they don't change their dishonest and uncivil ways.

I should think you might be a troll with a symbol like that.

 

Oh hell prtndr the conservatives/Republicans have been trying to rob the country blind and they haven't bankrupted it.

I don't know why you have so little confidence in out nation. Its seems down right unpatriotic to me.

 

Senate Health Bill Price Tag, Rosy Deficit Estimate Assailed as 'Fantasy'

by
FOXNews.com

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claims that his health care bill costs about $848 billion in the first 10 years, well under President Obama's $900 billion target. That's for 10 years of revenue-gathering, but only six years of service.

• print
• email
• share
• recommend (14)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., second right, with Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., left, Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., second left, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., right, speaks to the media about the Democratic health care bill on Capitol Hill Nov. 18. (AP Photo)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claims that his health care bill costs about $848 billion in the first 10 years, well under President Obama's $900 billion target.
That's for 10 years of revenue-gathering, but only six years of service, according to the analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
Adding in expenses beyond the 10-year mark drastically skews the overall cost, making the $848 billion a mere fraction of the long-term price tag of overhauling America's health care system -- and that's if no changes are made to the legislation during that time.
related links

• GOP Leaders Denounce Democrats' Medicare 'Doc Fix'
• Senate on Brink of Historic Health Care Battle

The additional claim touted by Senate Democrats -- that the bill will reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the first 10 years -- is also coming under fire as "fantasy."
Republicans have countered the CBO estimate with a figure of their own: $2.5 trillion, an estimate that comes out of the Senate Budget Committee minority's analysis of Reid's plan.
"This is a lousy bill that's going to cost American taxpayers like mad for the rest of our lives," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a fierce critic of the health care legislation, told Fox News on Thursday.
Part of the problem with the CBO estimate is that it covers a 10-year period from 2010-2019 -- however, the health care reform plan is not fully implemented until 2014. That means the federal government is raking in billions in taxes and savings for the first four years without spending on the new program. The $2.5 trillion estimate is for the 10-year window starting in 2014, after implementation of the program begins.
Under the timetable in the CBO estimate, the government spends $9 billion in the first four years, but $838 billion in the last six when the overhaul goes into full force.
The revenue significantly ramps up in the latter half of the decade to keep pace with spending, but the nearly $100 billion in deficit savings in the first four years is not necessarily in the piggy bank either.
Democrats are holding up estimates that show the second decade of health care reform yields even more deficit reduction.
President Obama said in a statement Wednesday night that the unveiling of the is a "critical milestone" and cited one estimate showing the second 10 years would yield up to $650 billion in deficit reduction.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, cited the same estimate, telling Fox News that Reid's bill is "going in the right direction" and yields significant savings.
"That to me is the most encouraging part of this," he said.
Budget analysts say that the early revenue cannot be fenced off, much like Social Security money is spent despite a trust fund for that purpose. The funding gets absorbed into the general federal budget, presumably to go toward reducing the deficit on a yearly basis.
However, this creates the possibility that Congress could spend that money twice, by using the up-front savings as fun money for new projects and then having to pay the bill for health care reform down the road. Holtz-Eakin called this a worst-case scenario.
"The government's incapable of segregating funds. You can't put the money in a cigar box and bury it behind the Treasury Department," said Michael Tanner, senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute.
Tanner pointed to two other "gimmicks" that make the price seem smaller than it is.
One deals with the so-called "doctor fix," which would be an act of Congress to ensure Medicare doctors don't face steeps cuts in federal reimbursements. This would cost at least $210 billion over 10 years, and it's a "fix" that Democrats are trying to separate from the health care reform bill.
That alone erases the $130 billion in deficit savings claimed by the CBO's latest health care estimate.
Tanner also pointed to the CLASS Act, a long-term care program in the bill that takes in billions in revenue early on but does not pay out in any significant way until the next decade.
"If you use honest accounting ... then this bill's not paid for," Tanner said. "It's smoke-and-mirrors accounting."
The Budget Committee document estimating the actual cost to be $2.5 trillion over years five through 14 of the program also showed $126 billion in deficit reduction in that period. It estimated even more down the road.
But Holtz-Eakin called that "fiction," since it relies on more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
He said there's no way the government can sustain and increase those cuts and expect the program to work.

 

If this article below is true, it may very well make sense to tax the wealthy more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------



Posted on Thu, Nov. 19, 2009
Tax burden higher on lower incomes

BY BRENT D. WISTROM
The Wichita Eagle Most states, Kansas included, put more tax burden on middle- and low-income families than on the wealthy, according to a new study by the nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
At a glance, Kansas appears to split taxes as a share of income more evenly than the national average. But low- and middle-income families are still seeing a greater percentage of their incomes go to the government than wealthy families.
Kansas families that make less than $19,000 a year pay about 9.2 percent of their income in taxes — the national average is 10.9 percent. More than 6 percent comes from sales and excise taxes, and 3.5 percent comes from property taxes, the report shows. The richest families making more than $424,000 pay 7.1 percent of their incomes in taxes. Offset by federal deductions, the poorest pay the same share in taxes while the richest pay 5.9 percent in taxes — the national average is 5.2 percent.

 

national anthems

Yeah, I know. I liked the first three Rocky movies, but I did not see Rocky IV when it first came out because it seemed like a anti-Soviet propaganda piece. When I watched it on television I saw that it ended with Rocky giving a short speech on behalf of détente, and that appealed to me. The last movie I watched that made me feel good all over was Rocky Balboa.

I am a boxing fan, but I do not like the idea of "going the distance." If a boxer can tell he is going to lose he should throw in the towel before he risks permanent damage or death.

The national anthem of the USSR thrills me as does the national anthem of Israel and France. I have heard the national anthem of the United States all my life and I am somewhat bored with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw9bAvMpiE0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GubbhQuHISY&feature=player_embedded

 

Health bill nears debate after positive CBO review

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writers Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar And Erica Werner, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 5 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Congressional budget crunchers said Thurday the Democrats' latest health care plan would hold down federal red ink for at least 20 years, an assessment that gave supporters hope as the Senate moved gingerly toward a historic debate.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that Majority Leader Harry Reid's 10-year, $848-billion bill would produce a net reduction of $130 billion in federal deficits in its first decade. Perhaps more significantly, the legislation would continue to give back over the next 10 years and beyond, the budget umpires said, because "added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater" than the cost of covering uninsured Americans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

 

Medical debt is the principal cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States. (Article 25 of the U.D.H.R. is the biggie)

More money per person is spent on health care in the United States than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the U.S. than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor.

At least 15% of the population is completely uninsured, and a substantial additional portion of the population is "underinsured", or less than fully insured for medical costs they might incur.

Meaning in the event of injury or illness an american can choose to not be treated, or amount a debt so large many will never will have the ability to even pay off the monthly interest. Let alone the whole debt in a reasonable time period. Effectively indebting them to the owners of their credit akin to a form of slavery(see U.D.H.R. articles 1 and 2 below).


Americans pay about $6000us per person per year and receive an overall lower quality of health care compared to the other top 20 UN HDI("human development index") ranked countries to live in. Which manage to service 100% of their population, on an average varying from $2000us - $4000us(canada is $3000us).


America is ranked 12th overall in the UN HDI table(your health care score is actually lower), and of the top 20 is the only one not to have a full public option. Canada is 5th, and Iceland is 1st.


and Mr.omgwtfbbqtheredsarecomming

The United States already agreed to become more socialist every day(Article 25 of the U.D.H.R.). They even swore to defend socialism, and any country that agrees to adopt it. I wonder how many Americans understand the concept of the word, and how many just attribute it to evil Russians(U.N.C. Article 55).


Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.
(in this case administration of health care by government, and ownership control by voting for who controls the government based on what they claim to do with it).

And a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.
(Health Care is the resource, see the UN Articles)




Article 1 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


Article 4 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.


Article 25 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


Article 55 of the UN Charter
With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

a)higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

b)solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation;


The Charter of the United Nations
https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/
See what your country agreed to, and signed you up for.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Think of it as your new constitution which all UN countries have to abide by.

Human Development Index
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Indicator_tables.pdf
See how your country stacks up.

*edit* forgot to put the HDI link in.

 

What a flawed theory then, as it assumes that building exploding gas tanks does not attract criminal charges, which of course it does. We manage without putative damages.

I did point out that criminal charges/regulatory punishment are a more appropriate alternative that do not drive compensation culture.

 

Three really telling statements.

1.) A Hollywood movie would concern you because it could tarnish the image of your favored country. Yet Michael Moore's portrayal of the US seems quite alright.

2.) A person who volunteers to do a job, should feel free to quit before the job is finished. This would also apply to countries fighting for survival.

3.) You are easily swayed to view others as better than you. This likewise applies to countries, being bored with ones national anthem speaks volumes.

 

Either you have little insight into me, or you are deliberately distorting what I am.

1.) The Soviet Union was never my favorite country, but the United States is not either. I cannot think of anything about the American economic or governmental system that is uniquely desirable. There is much about America's past and present that I dislike. Appeals to American nationalism fill me with disgust. I wish the American Revolution had never happened.

2.) I do believe that if one cannot win one should not fight. One also should avoid fighting if one's cause is not just. South Vietnam, did not appreciate our assistance. Iraq and Afghanistan do not. Many if not most in these countries thought or think that we are imperialist aggressors. We did Vietnam a great deal of harm. That is what we are doing to Afghanistan and Iraq. We earned the hatred of the Iranians that was so obvious in 1980.

During the Cold War I thought unconditional surrender to the Soviet Union would be preferable to fighting a nuclear war. I also thought a conditional surrender to North Vietnam that included the safe evacuation of those South Vietnamese who had reason to fear Communist retribution would be preferable to the shameful conclusion of the War in Vietnam and the abandonment of the boat people.

3.) I am aware that there are some who are better than I am. If I did not I would be delusional. I am also aware that there some who are worse. I do not dwell on either of these awareness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnuoGOo3Bew&feature=related

 

I have never really liked the USA's National Anthem "The Star Spangled Banner". Congress picked the National Anthem for us, which speaks volumes for their bad taste in music.

I like the lyrics, a poem by Francis Scott Key, but the music is ridiculous. The music actually comes from a British beer drinking song. Beer drinking songs have never done it for me. Other beer drinking songs: How Dry I Am; I'm Tired and I Wanna Go Home; Eins, Zwei, Suffa, etc.... Come on! Drunks like to sing theses songs because they sound funny. We should pick somthing more noble actually written by an American. Perhaps Battle Hymn of the Republic; This Land Is Your Land; God Bless America; I Wish I Was IN Dixie, etc...

Below is a little blurb about The Star Spangled Banner I copied from Wikipedia.


"The Star-Spangled Banner" is the national anthem of the United States of America. The lyrics come from "Defence of Fort McHenry",[1] a poem written in 1814 by the 35-year-old amateur poet Francis Scott Key after witnessing the bombardment of Fort McHenry by Royal Navy ships in Chesapeake Bay during the Battle of Baltimore in the War of 1812.
The poem was set to the tune of a popular British drinking song, written by John Stafford Smith for the Anacreontic Society, a men's social club in London. "The Anacreontic Song" (or "To Anacreon in Heaven"), set to various lyrics, was already popular in the United States. Set to Key's poem and renamed "The Star-Spangled Banner", it would soon become a well-known American patriotic song. With a range of one and a half octaves, it is known for being difficult to sing. Although the song has four stanzas, only the first is commonly sung today, with the fourth ("O thus be it ever when free men shall stand...") added on more formal occasions.
"The Star-Spangled Banner" was recognized for official use by the Navy in 1889 and the President in 1916, and was made the national anthem by a congressional resolution on March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1508, codified at 36 U.S.C. § 301), which was signed by President Herbert Hoover.
Before 1931, other songs served as the hymns of American officialdom. "Hail, Columbia" served this purpose at official functions for most of the 19th Century. "My Country, 'Tis of Thee", whose melody was derived from the British national anthem,[2] also served as a de facto anthem before the adoption of "The Star-Spangled Banner."[3] Following the War of 1812 and subsequent American wars, other songs would emerge to compete for popularity at public events, among them "The Star-Spangled Banner".

 

The Battle Hymn of the Republic

I cannot enjoy a song that celebrates a war against Great Britain. If you want a real national anthem, try this one:

https://www.popmodal.com/video/1496/THE-BATTLE-HYMN-OF-THE-REPUBLIC

 

The Battle Hymn of the Republic

https://www.popmodal.com/video/2709/World-War-II-America-Battle-Hymn-of-the-Republic

Those two videos make my eyes water. :excited:

 

Yes, I mentioned the Battle Hymn of the Republic in my previous l. It was written during the Civil War.

 

I'm not much of a war buff, but I can really get into the Civil War and the Second World War. Those were two wars in which the United States was really on the side of right. :excited:

 

That arrangement for chorus and orchestra is by a fellow named Peter Wilhousky -- it's performed here every 4th of July.

I especially love in the part beginning at about 3:12.

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free;
While God is marching on."

 

I'm glad you like it.

Shake Zula will yell and scream about the First Amendment though.

 

Well, that's probably why it ISN'T the national anthem.

I'm not saying I subscribe to the words...I just think it's a good arrangement.

That song, it should also be noted, gave John Steinbeck the title for "The Grapes of Wrath".