Kerostasis

Well since the most recent topic was socialized healthcare:
--Medical tort reform
--Deregulation of health insurance in regards to what services are offered. If I want a policy that only covers X Y and Z, the state is just raising my rates by insisting that I also purchase coverage for scenarios A B and C. Specifically, I'm a big fan of getting only catastrophic coverage and then paying out-of-pocket for all the day-to-day medical expenses.
--Equalizing tax treatment of consumer-purchased and employer-purchased health care, to remove the economic incentive to stack as much of your health care as possible on your employer's health plan.
--The last question is what to do about Emergency Rooms, but I don't have a satisfactory answer for that yet.

__________________

Razcsak

Very much so, yes. He came close to being VP once and I can see him doing so again, and for somewhat similar reasons. A speech I heard yesterday by Hillary was also leaning towards the running-mate idea, with the obvious slant that Obama should be her VP. It also nicely chided the people who seem to think that this race is "tearing the democratic party apart" or some such nonsense.

__________________

CingularDuality

Why can't everyone be rich? The word simply means to have wealth or value. Breaking our economy down to the lowest levels, why couldn't everyone find a service or resource to provide to other people to accumulate financial rewards?

Your arguments are sounding like Mrs. Obama's, which are, in fact, quite Marxist. In fact, just yesterday I heard her talking about the cost of secondary education and she actually used the phrase "to each according to their need" in a similar context to the classic Marx slogan.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

leejo

I love hearing Mrs. Obama talk about how hard it is to graduate from Princeton and how you're practically forced to take a high-salary job to pay off your student loans. Horrors!

Gambit7

Leejo, I love ya'... but the sarcasm here is unwarranted. The Obamas were dirt poor people who got by on their drive and their intelligence. They had to EARN everything they got. This is contrary the majority of the trust fund pantywastes, lobby lubbers, and military families that run this country currently; or are trying to.

This whole reverse elitism crap is really starting to annoy me. Give the people some credit... dang!

Would you prefer someone who's had their hand held their entire life and just pretended to "understand" the plight of the American people (and the world at large for that matter)?

__________________

Switchcraft

Did you really just say that?

Kerostasis

Move the mental parenthesis over slightly and it becomes much less offensive, switch.

Like so:

__________________

Gambit7

yyyyuuuuuup! Not very P.C. of me eh?
Bring the retort, I can take it...

__________________

Switchcraft

I look forward to an example of those military families who didn't earn their living and are trying to run the country.

Switchcraft

Nevermind, Kero, I stand by my original quote since he does.

Gambit7

good point

__________________

Razcsak

Two reasons. First, "richness" is as relative a scale as "poorness". A few pages back, people asserted that if the rich keep paying for the poor, then everyone becomes poor. Likewise, if the poor keep earning money, the standard that defines "richness" becomes erased. Everyone has exactly the same amount of money. That might be defined as "comfortable" or "liveable", but it can't be rich, since being rich requires that you have more than the average. Secondly, the capitalist system mandates that the person willing to do the most amount of work for the least amount of money be hired. That means that, barring government intervention or worker solidarity, someone will be making just enough money to live on because they will be willing to work for that little just so they can live. Wage wars will drive earnings down until they are at the minimum payable. Why should I, as an employer, pay any more than that? Some might, yes. But others won't, and they'll be the most personally successful, leading to more business and personal profits, which both spawn copies and lead the more unscrupulous businesses to dominate the market.

To the second part of your question, people can. That doesn't mean their resource or skill will be valued enough by the community to earn them enough to live off of.

__________________

leejo

I do give the Obama's credit, but I think it's obnoxious to whine about how hard it is paying off your Princeton and Harvard student loans and using that burden to show how hard you've had it in life, which is what she has done. And I don't think that being black and paying off a loan qualifies you to be President.

I also don't believe that Obama grew up "dirt poor". He was raised by his grandparents. His grandmother was a bank executive. In Hawaii! Poor child!

So other than being offensive to the military and untrue about the Obamas, what's not to love about your post, right?

Kerostasis

Ah, well, in that case fire away!

__________________

AMosely

Some headlines related to this exciting thread's latest turns:

Military families deserve a lot more than they get in this country, especially fighting in a war like this, which is costing close to $200 billion this year alone. A "new G.I. bill" would have given returning service members slightly more than their pittance towards a college education, but its $51 billion price tag - spread over 10 years - was too much for President Bush. Why is it that a war can never seem to cost too much, but giving added benefits to its armed service members can? Shouldn't supporting the veterans of a war be considered part of the cost of that war? If it is, then why isn't the discretionary spending tab running for them, too?

All this talk of priviledge in politics is pretty ridiculous in my opinion. But, while on the subject of wealth, politicians and priviledge, why not throw in some arrogance (and a little plastic surgery)? Call it what you will, but McCain's wife won't release her tax returns. The good news, for her, is that it's very unlikely that she'll ever have to.