SANDERS: Just do it, Mr. President

By RUFUS G.W. SANDERS, Register columnist Finally the time has come for this country to do what
Sandusky Register Staff
May 13, 2010


By RUFUS G.W. SANDERS, Register columnist

Finally the time has come for this country to do what it has been trying to do for the last 100 years: Pass a national health care bill that will ensure the bulk of the American public is afforded the Constitutional promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- and, might I add, decent health care. It is a shame it has taken this country this long to come to this point. Of all the industrialized countries in the world only America has no national health care plan. That is moral perversity, a travesty and a social insult to the very principles of democracy.

On Thursday President Obama, along with the Democratic leadership, met with would-be obstructionists to discuss what will be the most important social legislation in this nation's history since Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education. He laid out the most clear, civil, and fair arguments one could make as to why all Americans should be entitled to health care. If the issue of health care is not solved, this country -- in a very short period, like when the president was forced to infuse the economy with stimulus money -- is heading for major economical collapse. He ended the meeting by conveying to the obstructionists if they have a better plan -- then lead us!

It's no secret historic conservatives have always been opposed to programs which generally benefit the entire American people. They tend to represent the elite segment of capitalism who, many more times than not, have sacrificed the weak, tired, poor, hungry and disenfranchised amongst us to bolster their own status and philosophy of strong rugged American independence. By doing so, they have committed genocide against Native Americans, enslaved Black Americans, isolated Hispanic Americans and ostracized Asian Americans, all in the name of democracy.

The president's bill, for sure, has problems. But it is innovative and creative enough to at least guarantee the subsidy of health care coverage for 30 million Americans who presently are without it. He knows the major concern in this capitalistic society is that insurance and pharmaceutical companies will suffer from government-mandated health care, but any thinking person also knows it's the insurance and pharmaceutical companies who kill us with exorbitant prices, along with their rules which discriminate by deciding who can live and who must die. The president simply proposes to regulate them before they begin to turn on themselves in the process of killing us all.

Then there is the fear this bill will really be about redistribution of wealth to the tune of $200 billion to help pay for the working poor's insurance. Well, to that I say: It is the working poor whose cheap labor allows 10 percent of this population to control 90 percent of the assets and wealth. Maybe after 234 years, we need a redistribution of wealth and power. When the obstructionists wanted to wage two undeclared wars at the same time, all while saber rattling with Iran and North Korea, we heard not one peep from them as to the astronomical cost of funding not only their folly and foolishness.

The president's plan would not only cover 30 million presently uninsured and under-insured; it would also reduce future deficits and control medical costs through the meager regulation of the industry. Most important is the oversight of excessive premium increases. He would alleviate the gap created by Medicare's drug coverage program which prohibits many elderly patients from paying for their medicines. He would even help states that say they can't afford to expand their Medicaid Plan.

The president's plan is not perfect and it is costly, but we must begin somewhere and we must start now. The obstructionists will not reduce the number of uninsured and they will not provide for affordable insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, something we all will eventually have. And they make no real provisions at reigning in cost. The independent office of the budget declares the president's plan really is the best plan, even with its flaws. But it will eventually reduce the national deficit by $100 billion.

So if these obstructionists are really concerned about real reform, they must put their ideas on the table. Stop being "busters." Give this guy a chance. He is willing to work with you.

Mr. President, this will be our last chance probably for some time to fix this thing, and it's in the best interest of our country. So go for it! All that it takes is a majority vote for passage in the Senate. You have that majority of votes. They know it. You know it! And we know it! So just do It! Pull the reconcilation trigger! Pass this bill! It's their health as well we are talking about. The day will come when they will need health care reform too.


Wes Poole

I don't believe it's an inalienable right, but neither is social security, medicare, or collective bargaining laws that get health insurance for workers. The question is: is it in our society's interest to find a way to pay for care of the sick?
This political fight is about who gets and how the profits are distributed. We need to focus on the reality that if hospitals and doctors are not reimbursed they cannot provide quality care for anyone.


the discussion has been good for the most part. Again it proves why Dr.Sanders is the most popular columnist in this little paper. Now people get ready for the passage of health care reform. Obama will go down in history as one of the greatest president of all times. He will have done what no other president has been able to do; not even FDR, and this is one piece of social legislation that we need. All of us.

6079 Smith W

factitious wrote on Mar 8, 2010 6:15 PM:

‘How does the assurance of heathcare NOT contribute Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? When does the assurance of heath care become a natural right? I hold that it does when it becomes possible.’

‘Inalienable’ means natural or from God.

How can health care be an inalienable right? It’s a man-made concept.

The Soviet Union’s Constitution made health care a right and the service was lousy.

By attempting to make everyone equal in property and consumption, socialism assumes that society is static. A static society is not possible.

Capitalism is the only economic philosophy that allows through one’s own initiative for the poor to become rich and the rich to become poor.

@ Edwin Ison:

I couldn't care less if BH Obama was purple with horns growing out of his head; the man's political and economic philosophies are wrong for a free society.

Edwin Ison

There is a faction who believes Obama can do no wrong because of his perceived skin color, there is also a faction who believes Obama can do no right because of his perceived skin color... they are ALL racists.


Hmm. Unexpected; a contorted knot WITHOUT any explanation of how income tax is unconstitutional.

Unless there's a clause in the Constitution stating that it means what Jefferson says it means, the Constitution means what it says, and Jefferson simply states a personal opinion.

And intent only matters when there's doubt about the meaning of the words; even a lot of lawyers don't get this (or conveniently forget.) What part of 'general welfare' is hard to understand? The net net is the radical right just doesn't like it, hence the pretzel logic.


facticious, you missed the target big time!

Jefferson stated and I quote:

Congress has NOT unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. – Thomas Jefferson

WHOA!!! Was that your liberal jaw hitting the ground when it fell open?

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. – Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. – Thomas Jefferson

With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

WOW! you slam 'radical conservatives' while your statements in light of Jefferson and others your a FAR LEFT SOCIALIST

Liberals such as facticious would have us believe that we NEED government control over our lives, while in truth the governement nees US to control them!

BTW, the wording of GENERAL WELFARE isn't what you believe it to be today. The GENERAL welfare of the people back then was the protection of TYRANY, not the provision of socialized anything. Jefferson put restrictions on section 8 when he stated


OK, I'll bite; what contorted misconstruction of knot do you tie the Constitution into to claim income tax is unconstitutional?


Jefferson elaborated on Section 8 and so did Madison. Since they wrote it and inacted it, I think it prudent to see what they actually said.

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, BUT ONLY THOSE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.- Jefferson

With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which THERE IS A HOST OF PROOFS WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED BY ITS CREATORS. – James Madison

Madison and Jefferson knew that liberals would take advantage and try to control all forms of peoples lives and this is exactly what they were referring too.

In closing, Jefferson saw Obama in the cards when he stated:
If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. – Thomas Jefferson


jusliloleme wrote on Mar 8, 2010 11:12 AM:

" ...Interstate Highway System is not a constitutional right either...."""

Your failure to understand constitutional interpretation is probably due in part of you never reading the document. But don’t feel too bad, 79% of ALL Harvard Law students admitted they never read it or was taught it in class, BUT THEY ARE THE ONES WRITING THIS POLICY!
The Interstate question: The founding fathers created TURNPIKES, which date back to the mid 1700's. George Washington was involved in lotteries to help pay for them. NOTE, income was not taxed for these projects. Fire departments were funded by PRIVATE enterprise; the policies were sold like an insurance policy, devised by Ben Franklin. If you wanted the fire department to put out your fire you better have bought a policy or they would just come by and watch it burn, it was their CHOICE.
Highways should be funded by taxes on vehicles and those who use them, NOT BY TAXING INCOME.
If you read the constitution you will find that the current INCOME TAX is NOT constitutional!
Today the liberals believe and have openly stated that they believe the U.S.A should bend our Constitution to fit the needs of other nations. With this thought in mind I see Obama as a LIAR when he took his oath to defend the Constitution!


Rabbi, John Locke argued for man's right to the fruits of his labor, and that the right to property was a logical consequence of that. That gets misconstrued by conservatives as a defense of unlimited property rights for the priviledged elite even when it enserf the working class and denies them that right. Ironically, the Maxrist, too, supported man's right to the fruits of his labors, with an, err, somewhat different conclusion (which, of course, history has shown to be fallacious) as to how to accomplish that.

With regard to providing health care, Congress clearly has no Constitutional mandate, but with equal clarity is granted broad discretionary power to do so:

"We the people of the United States, in order to...promote the general ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." -- Preamble


"Congress shall have power to...provide for the ...general welfare," -- Section 8 [Legislative Powers]

Right-wing radicals argue that social programs are unconstitutional ('intent' arguments) but if they don't "provide for the general welfare," what is? Subsidies for mega-corporations?

You can make reasonable urguments for and against social programs, but the notion that they're unconstitutional is Pure Poppycock.

You raise an interesting question (and answer in the negative), "Is healthcare an unalienable (sic, Declaration of Independence) right?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

How does the assurance of heathcare NOT contribute Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? When does the assurance of heath care become a natural right? I hold that it does when it becomes possible.


When the founders were working to create the government of the United States, they often referred to 'natural rights doctrine,' based on the writings of English philosopher John Locke. According to, "Political theorists since the time of the ancient Greeks have argued in support of the existence of natural rights, meaning those rights that men possessed as a gift from nature (or God) prior to the formation of governments. It is generally held that those rights belong equally to all men at birth and cannot be taken away." The problem comes in identifying specifically what 'natural rights' are. According to, " Although there is no unanimity as to which right is natural and which is not, the widely held view is that nature endows every human (without any distinction of time or space, and without any regard to age, gender, nationality, or race) with certain inalienable rights (such as the right to 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness') which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government." So, the debate ensues. Is health care an inalienable right bestowed upon us at birth- are we born with the right to free health care? I would suggest that we in fact are not born with this right, and therefore it is not government's responsibility to guarentee it. It therefore is a commodity to be bought and sold, just as anything else.

brutus smith

goofus, knowing your total disdain for women, it comes as no surprise that you would defend Massa for political gain. Despicable.


The post I referred to was by Golden Hill. I see Goofus was busy copying and pasting.


The No. 1 rule in the Discussion Guidelines is NO Personal Attacks. That is mostly what I read here. Here is a thought for the last poster: The Interstate Highway System is not a constitutional right either. I could probably think of other examples if I really tried but I only post so I can be attacked.

As to the article, I agree with parts and disagree with others.


Massa Hints He Could Rescind Resignation
March 8, 2010, 7:14 A.M.
By Jennifer Yachnin
Roll Call Staff
Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) suggested on a New York radio station Sunday that he could rescind his resignation — scheduled to take effect at 5 p.m. Monday — after asserting that an ethics investigation into allegations that he sexually harassed one of his aides may have been orchestrated by Democratic leaders to get him out of office before the health care vote.

Responding to a caller to his weekly radio show on WKPQ Power 105 FM, a recording of which was made available via the Web site of local station 13 WHAM-TV, Massa said: “I’m not going to be a Congressman as of 5 o’clock [Monday] afternoon. The only way to stop that is for me to rescind my resignation. That’s the only way to stop it. And the only way that’s going to happen is if this becomes a national story.”

During the hour-and-a-half show, Massa said that Democratic leaders are using the House ethics committee to get him out of office before the vote on health care because he voted against the House health care bill last fall.

“Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, 'they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill, and now they’ve gotten rid of me and it will pass.’ You connect the dots,” Massa said Several times during the broadcast Massa raised the prospect of rescinding his resignation if national news media picked up on his story of being railroaded out of office by Democratic leaders.

In response to a caller's suggestion that Massa disseminate his allegations by contacting Fox News, Massa stated: “I can’t call Fox News. You guys gotta call Fox News. I can’t do it. ... Here’s why. I’m in the center of this storm, so obviously I’m not objective.”

But Massa also repeatedly pointed out that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, commonly referred to as the ethics panel, would continue its investigation if he remains in office.

“That’s very kind of you, but understand what that means for me," Massa said in a response to a caller who suggested he not resign. “It means that a group of lawyers are going to try to rip me and my family limb from limb. And you’ve already seen it in the newspapers. … It’s a piranha feeding frenzy.”

Massa said on the show that the ethics investigation focused on sexually charged comments he made to an aide at a New Year’s Eve celebration, but charged he was unaware of an ethics committee investigation into the incident until after he had announced his retirement last week.

The House ethics committee confirmed Thursday that it is investigating unspecified allegations against Massa.

Massa surprised political observers when he announced on Wednesday that he would not run for re-election in November. He cited a recurrence of cancer as the reason for his decision, but after the ethics investigation was confirmed, Massa announced he would step down immediately.


Rufus needs a civics lesson. Health care is not a constitutional right, it is a good. The failure of some of our policy makers to make that distinction is going to drive this country into the ground.


Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?
Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court.
BY John McCormack
March 3, 2010 6:15 PM
Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said. “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering. I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.”

Scott M. Matheson, Jr.: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Scott M. Matheson currently holds the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1985. He served as Dean of the Law School from 1998 to 2006. He also taught First Amendment Law at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government from 1989 to 1990.

While on public service leave from the University of Utah from 1993 to 1997, Matheson served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah. In 2007, he was appointed by Governor Jon Huntsman to chair the Utah Mine Safety Commission. He also worked as a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County from 1988 to 1989. Prior to joining the University faculty, Matheson was an associate attorney from 1981 to 1985 at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.

Matheson was born and raised in Utah and is a sixth generation Utahn. He received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1975, an M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1980.

So, Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother's vote?

Taxed Enough Already

Does this man really believe the crap he writes on here...I can't believe anyone is this ignorant!


MBK, why don't you go with Sanders.

Being an American is more than just being delivered on American soil!


November 6, 2012. A time for Hope and Change.

brutus smith

He was Democratically elected in November of 2008. Just a little reminder.


"Just do it, Mr President" After all, you are the dictator.

brutus smith

Ahhh mikel, the reason I started on Bush was because nick and goofball started in on Obama, like everything is his fault.


bs..what i said is "after reading your tirade below...". you seem to blame everything on bush. again read your rants below and they all start with bush did this and bush did that and its all bushs fault. the only way it can be all bushs fault is if we were a communist gov't where one person rules. however, that is not the case here. there is much blame to go around as being a democracy bush merely signed legislation that was presented to him.

brutus smith

mikel, please expand and tell us how we are a communist country. I'll be waiting for your explanation.


This left leaning vestige of american newspaper should have deleted Brutus's rants for no source. The register only deletes the opinions of the right and chung lee as well as country cowboy.


bs..after readng your tirade below i have come to the conclusion that we have been a communist country since at least 2000! i mean everything you said starts with bush did this or bush did that. the last time i checked by some of your earlier posts we are a democracy. that basically means that bush merely was a figure head that just signed legislation presented to him. bush didn't go rogue and do any of that on his own. even some of the most stupid things bush signed was given an affirmative vote by some chump dem senator from illinois. his name is ummmmm...oh yeah barack obamass. funny how you and your dem friends don't criticize him for his yes vote on every bill that was proposed to increase spending, decrease taxes etc. so, the way i see it he is as responsible for anything that happened since 2006 as bush.

by the way from my earlier post. the gov has more control today than ever over our banking system. the gov wants to pass national healthcare. so guess who thens controls and has unlimited access to our health records as well as who rations our health care. all thats left is the other 1/3 of our freedom.

brutus smith

. Bush Gropes Germany's Chancellor
While attending a G-8 summit, President bush gives German Chancellor Angela Merkel a creepy, uninvited neck rub. Watch video of the incident and view the frame-by-frame pictures

. Bush Can't Stop Thinking of New Ways to Harm Our Country
President Bush declares, "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Bush Has No Exit Strategy
President Bush tried to escape from a news conference in Beijing after facing hostile questions from reporters, only to be thwarted by locked doors.

Bush Jokes About Failure to Find WMDs in Iraq
As part of a bizarre comedy skit at the 2004 Radio & TV Correspondents' Association dinner, Bush shows a series of photos depicting him searching for those elusive WMD's in the White House.

Bush Tells Brownie He's Doing 'A Heck of a Job'
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Bush tells FEMA director Michael Brown, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

Bush Says 'Childrens Do Learn'
As a candidate, George W. Bush once asked, "Is our children learning?" Now he has an answer: "Childrens do learn."

Bush Reads 'My Pet Goat' During 9/11 Attacks
Bush sits in a Florida classroom on the morning of Sept. 11 reading "Met Pet Goat" to school children for 5 minutes after he was told that the second World Trade Center tower had been hit and that America was under attack.

Bush Caught Swearing at G-8 Summit
A microphone picks up President Bush swearing with a mouth full of food while talking to British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the G-8 Summit.

Bush Bids 'Goodbye from the World's Biggest Polluter'
In his parting words to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at his final G-8 Summit, Bush says "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter," punching the air and grinning widely as the two leaders looked on in shock.

Bush Falls Off Segway Scooter
President Bush falls off a Segway scooter, despite the fact that it is designed to be effortless and idiot-proof.

digger nick

No worries Goofus, they probably idolize the womanizing old drunk old Teddy Kennady as their party idol. Or perhaps Slick Willie and the boys. Slam Bush all you want, he never embarrased the USA with his swinging schwantz like Clinton did.

With role models like that it's no wonder.

brutus smith

My God, the audacity of me pointing out troubled times in our history. For shame. 40 cracks of the whip and mean dogs. Oh wait, another part of our history I won't bring up.


Digger, can you believe the claptrap from the local leftists comparing our presidents to Sadam Hussein. Speaks volumes as to who we are up against. Imagine defending a dictator who daily took viagra so as to be able to rape when he felt like it. These leftists are actually defending Sadam, what's next Hitler had a little problem relating to Jews?

brutus smith

What about Kent State goofus??? Was Nixon a brutal dictator????? Did he commit crimes against humanity??? We won't even mention what GWB did.

brutus smith

goofus, how come you never talk about that other Muslim guy, you know the one who attacked our country and was, is, a Bush family friend????? You know Osama bin Laden????????

digger nick

OMG Goofus Please do not confuse Chung Lee with the truth!



how dare you imply that Dr. Sanders does not belong here in America and that he should leave. He is just as much an American citizen as you are. His ancestors never asked to come here, but was forced, but once they got here they gave their blood, sweat and tears and even their lives to make this country what it is.....his love for this country is just as deep as yours. For you to imply anything difference might into question who you really are and what you are all about.....Maybe its you that should leave!

brutus smith

So goofus did Lincoln commit War crimes during our Civil War???? Was he a brutal dictator?????


Moderators have removed this comment because it reposted copyrighted material.  href= 
idelines/>Discussion Guidelines 


Thanks Bailey for the hat tip. With Sherrod Brown being pointed out as the most liberal senator, It makes one wonder about the mentality and sanity of the Ohio electorate. I think the majority of Ohio's electorate have been under generational welfare and entitlements way too long.


71 Representatives’ are members of the DSA and there are 11 on the Judiciary Committee (Democratic Socialists of America)
Read the DSA's directive and you have a vivid image of Sanders. DSA's main objective is Economic Redistribution of wealth, and the BEST way to do this is mandatory health care! I guess this is why Sanders worships Obama and he ignores or possibly is incapable of understanding economics since it is projected that Obama's agenda is anticipated to increase the debt by 9,7 TRILLION dollars by 2020! Only the foolish would support such stupidity and ignorance.
These 'Representatives took an OATH to SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION but are really SOCIALISTS that do not believe in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Socialists do not believe in freedoms of ownership, just like Sanders doesn’t believe we have the right to our OWN course in life without government dictations. Obama's 9th Circuit Nominee Goodwin Liu said that the “Constitution Must Adapt to Changes in the World”…... WAIT A MINUTE, WHY DOES OUR CONSTITUTION HAVE TO CONFORM? Let the world conform to US, the greatest nation in the world, at least for the moment! Sander’s desires us to conform to the rest of the world and destroy us as a nation. He believes in the DSA’s agenda of redistribution of wealth.

I don’t think there is anyone I detest more than Sanders, he twists things and uses partial truths and slides under the radar without being detected as a Socialist or a racist. Goes to show what an education provides if you twist what you are taught to fit your discriminations and to control everyone in all area’s of life.
Sanders, PLEASE move to Russia or North Korea and leave this country alone! You don’t belong here.
In Ohio we sadly have 3 'representatives' that are members of the DSA:

Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)

digger nick

Chung, now that your horse's rear is at the troth lets see if we can educate you to the truth. Only a fool would believe much of anything out of a web site that is solely generated out of the Catholic church who for decades buried the shame and truth of the abuse of their own clergy. aside from purely lacing credibility of any means, it's more like the fox guarding the hen house.

As far as a double wide trailer, the only thing it would have in common with this conversation would be me reviewing your rental application which I would most likely deny for your simple lack of stupidity. You can point to all of the polls you wish, there are just as many that point the other way as they can be manipulated as easy as you.

Quite clearly I (and the majority of people in the USA) are unhappy with Obozo's leadership.

Here's a poll back at you:

Please note your boy Obozo enjoys the record fort he lowest approval rating for the last 20 years or so of any sitting president after 2 years of office. AS far as a foreign country Chung I do very well. With homes in two other countries I am sure I could school you in international relations but why bother.

Barack Obama Presidential Job Approval

Barack Obama's Daily Job Approval Trend

Barack Obama's Job Approval Average by Subgroup

Barack Obama's Most Recent Weekly Approval Rating Average

(Feb 22-28, 2010)

Barack Obama's Term Average:

Barack Obama's High Point:

(Jan 22-24, 2009)

Barack Obama's Low Point:

(several times -- most recent:
Jan 27-29, 2010)

Average for U.S. Presidents Since Franklin D. Roosevelt:

Average for Elected Presidents' Fifth Quarter:

Other Elected Presidents in March of Second Year:

George W. Bush

(March 2002)

Bill Clinton

(March 1994)

George H.W. Bush

(March 1990)


brutus smith wrote: "Libertarian, It's not the Communist party who owns and controls the wealth here."

I never said the communist party owned the wealth her and it has nothing to do with anything in my post. Are you really this illiterate?

The pathetic leftwingnut collectivist thugs also said: "You know it's useless to have a debate with you because when you are proven wrong, like this instance, you basically ignore it and go on to claim everything you say is true with no basis."

You've proven nothing wrong. Name one thing your've proven wrong. All you do is claim you've prove me wrong without any evidence. Same with your and MHL's childish claims about my not being a libertarian. What a moronic collectivist thug couple of losers.

Shame on you. All moral people should shame and ostracize collectivist/government thug.

Chung Lee

Well Digger, Chung Lee will try to cure your ignorance but Chung know that you can lead a horse (in this case a horse's rear quarter) to water but can't make them drink. Clearly, you got your "facts" or "talking points" mixed up. Iraq was one of the more liberal muslim countries where women had rights under Saddam. Saddam persecuted the Christians in Iraq? So you know more than the Catholic Church because they claimed that Christians were safer under Saddam than they are now. Here is a link for you Sparky

So some guys trying to tell you that the Iraqis look at us a liberators and these guys are trying to draw investment to Iraq? Digger didn't you hear this line before when the real estate agent told you that nobody would laugh at you for living in a trailer park because you had a double-wide and a carport? Seriously, did the thought ever cross your simple mind that they were selling you a line of B-S. How about providing some facts instead of saying "some guy at some meeting"? Seriously, how credible is that? Here is a link to some polls. Maybe you can rely on some facts instead of just your talking points and opinions.

Now why do you want Chung Lee go back to China? You clearly are the unhappy one. You are the one with the problem with the leadership of this country. Seems strange that you think Chung Lee should be the one to leave. Unfortunately Chung Lee pretty sure by your jingoistic banter that you think Americans are better than everyone else and you know you would not do well in foreign country. Maybe you could just join one of those red-neck militias and hang out with a bunch of dudes with guns in the woods. Chung Lee think that would be your fantasy!

digger nick


I am sorry you intellectual level does not allow you to engage in an enlightened discussion with me. My fact speak for themselves not to mention your liberal Dumbocrats are falling like flies on a ten day old watermelon.

I have proffered this bet before, yet none of you Liberals take me up on it? Are you insecure? here we go again, If there is not a significant shift of 20% or more from Democrats to Republican in the next November Election, I will publicly say Chung Less has more than half a brain and that you liberals really got it right. If there is 20% or more loss of seats from Democrats to Republicans then you agree to shut up and stop posting as well.

After all, Clearly you cannot argue we Republicans control all the wealth that is all of your so called top 105 and have enough votes to make this happen unless we are right?

Or can you? LOL

I think it just pi$$es you all off that we are able to earn more, report less and veto your CZARS Rob the rich to pay the poor mentality.

Get over that, it's not going to change.


Brutus my man: I got to give you credit. I do not have the time energy or patience to deal with the likes of Digger or goofus, but you keep slammimg them with facts. Well Done!!!

The problem is facts have always had a liberal bias. You can`t get through to them.

Digger: Come on man ,you can`t possib
ly be that naive. Do you believe 10 % of your BS?

Libertarian: I thought I put your phoniness to rest days ago. Well none the less my favorite Libertarian Bill Maher comes on in 15 minutes so I`m out for now.

digger nick

Oh Chung, hail to the enlightened one. Let me guess your narrow mind thinks we went to Iraq to steal the oil right?

That's the problem with people like you Chung, you comment on issues you never really took the time to understand let alone properly evaluate. Before the arrival of Islam in the 7th century AD, a large part of the Kurdish population practiced Christianity, which was scorned and lead to their death in massive numbers.

If you left wing nutcase's took the time to understand the babble you spew forth, perhaps your numbers would not be dwindling as fast as they are. Just this week you lost 3, Rangle being one of the most prominent.

It does not take much to be "Dumber than Chung Lee thought" as it appears rare Chung Lee things at all.

Interestingly enough, I was at a meeting of investors recently where there were several members of the Iraq Ministry of Development in attendance encouraging American companies to develop and franchise in Iraq.

The general view of the USA of the people of Iraq is that of liberators. Yes Chung Lee I am sure it is hard fro you to fathom women being able to speak freely, expose their face, and even VOTE!!! But this is all now possible.

Idiots like you, who live in a micro economic bubble in a macro economic world are the root of the lunacy that undermines all the good that the USA in fact does do.

If you are not happy with the direction of the country go back to China, Tiananmen square should be a vivid remider of why your right to post your stupidiity in the USA is toledrated. It would not be in China. Are you perhaps from Florida? Because you sure appear to put the "Duh" in Florida

brutus smith

Libertarian, It's not the Communist party who owns and controls the wealth here. You know it's useless to have a debate with you because when you are proven wrong, like this instance, you basically ignore it and go on to claim everything you say is true with no basis. By the way please change your name because you give people the wrong impression. You know and I know you are no Libertarian, but just another right wingnut.


brutus smith wrote: "Libertarian, other than a bunch of babbling, you forgot to add facts and proof to your statements. You must like reading your regurgitated talking points."

Exactly what in my post wasn't factual? You've been unable to demonstrate one error in any of my posts. It should be easy if my posts are just "babbling" and "regurgitated talking points". In fact, you've only factually challenged any of my post once and got your butt handed to you. Now you resort to countering with your absurd leftwingnut collectivst thug drivel that the above post is an example of.

Chung Lee

Hey Digger instead of Chung Lee going back to China.....why don't Digger go to Iraq since it is such a nice place to live now. We both know the Iraq War had nothing do do about Saddam killing his people. Seriously, are we supposed to believe that right wing whack jobs like yourself think this was done to save the lives of Muslim people? You are dumber than Chung Lee thought. Maybe you should just stick to your talking points because it is clear you are not capable of thinking for yourself.

brutus smith


39. President Bush's top economic adviser, Greg Mankiw, said the outsourcing of American jobs abroad was "a plus for the economy in the long run."

Source: CBS News

40. The Bush Administration turned a $236 billion surplus into a $422 billion deficit.

Sources: Fortune,

41. The Bush Administration implemented regulations that made millions of workers ineligible for overtime pay.


42. The Bush Administration has crippled state budgets by underfunding federal mandates by $175 billion.


43. President Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs--around 800,000--over a four-year term.

Source: The Guardian

44. The Bush Administration gave Accenture a multibillion-dollar border control contract even though the company moved its operations to Bermuda to avoid paying taxes.

Sources: New York Times,

45. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush said "the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." He passed the tax cuts, but the top 20 percent of earners received 68 percent of the benefits.


46. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush promised to pay down the national debt to a historically low level. As of September 30, the national debt stood at $7,379,052,696,330.32, a record high.

Sources: , Bureau of the Public Debt

47. As major corporate scandals rocked the nation's economy, the Bush Administration reduced the enforcement of corporate tax law--conducting fewer audits, imposing fewer penalties, pursuing fewer prosecutions and making virtually no effort to prosecute corporate tax crimes.


48. The Bush Administration increased tax audits for the working poor.


49. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush promised to protect the Social Security surplus. As President, he spent all of it.

Sources:, Congressional Budget Office

50. The Bush Administration proposed slashing funding for the largest federal public housing program, putting 2 million families in danger of losing their housing.

Source: San Francisco Examiner

51. The Bush Administration did nothing to prevent the minimum wage from falling to an inflation-adjusted fifty-year low.

Source: Los Angeles Times

Had enough nick?

brutus smith


30. The Bush Administration awarded a multibillion-dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton--a company that still pays Vice President Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred compensation each year (Cheney also has Halliburton stock options). The company then repeatedly overcharged the military for services, accepted kickbacks from subcontractors and served troops dirty food.

Sources: The Washington Post, The Taipei Times, BBC News

31. The Bush Administration told Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war with Iraq before telling Secretary of State Colin Powell.


32. The Bush Administration relentlessly pushed an energy bill containing $23.5 billion in corporate tax breaks, much of which would have benefited major campaign contributors., Washington Post

33. The Bush Administration paid Iraqi-exile and neocon darling Ahmad Chalabi $400,000 a month for intelligence, including fabricated claims about Iraqi WMD. It continued to pay him for months after discovering that he was providing inaccurate information.

Source: MSNBC

34. The Bush Administration installed as top officials more than 100 former lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee.

Source: Source:

35. The Bush Administration let disgraced Enron CEO Ken Lay--a close friend of President Bush--help write its energy policy.

Source: MSNBC

36. Top Bush Administration officials accepted $127,600 in jewelry and other presents from the Saudi royal family in 2003, including diamond-and-sapphire jewelry valued at $95,500 for First Lady Laura Bush.

Source: Seattle Times

37. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge awarded lucrative contracts to several companies in which he is an investor, including Microsoft, GE, Sprint, Pfizer and Oracle.


38. President Bush used images of firefighters carrying flag-draped coffins through the rubble of the World Trade Center to score political points in a campaign advertisement.

Source: Washington Post

brutus smith


26. During the Bush Administration, North Korea quadrupled its suspected nuclear arsenal from two to eight weapons.

Source: New York Times

27. The Bush Administration has openly opposed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, undermining nuclear nonproliferation efforts.


28. The Bush Administration has spent $7 billion this year--and plans to spend $10 billion next year--for a missile defense system that has never worked in a test that wasn't rigged.

Sources:, Los Angeles Times

29. The Bush Administration underfunded the needs of the nation's first responders by $98 billion, according to a Council on Foreign Relations study.


brutus smith


12. After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America," President Bush continued his monthlong vacation.


13. The Bush Administration failed to commit enough troops to capture Osama bin Laden when US forces had him cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in November 2001. Instead, they relied on local warlords.


14. The Bush Administration secured less nuclear material from sites around the world vulnerable to terrorists in the two years after 9/11 than were secured in the two years before 9/11.


15. The Bush Administration underfunded Nunn-Lugar--the program intended to keep the former Soviet Union's nuclear legacy out of the hands of terrorists and rogue states--by $45.5 million.


16. The Bush Administration has assigned five times as many agents to investigate Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's and Saddam Hussein's money.

Source: Associated Press

17. According to Congressional Research Service data, the Bush Administration has underfunded security at the nation's ports by more than $1 billion for fiscal year 2005.

Source: American Progress

18. The Bush Administration did not devote the resources necessary to prevent a resurgence in the production of poppies, the raw material used to create heroin, in Afghanistan--creating a potent new source of financing for terrorists.

Source: Pakistan Tribune

19. Vice President Cheney told voters that unless they elect George Bush in November, "we'll get hit again" by terrorists.

Source: Washington Post

20. Even though an Al Qaeda training manual suggests terrorists come to the United States and buy assault weapons, the Bush Administration did nothing to prevent the expiration of the ban.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

21. Despite repeated calls for reinforcements, there are fewer experienced CIA agents assigned to the unit dealing with Osama bin Laden now than there were before 9/11.

Source: New York Times

22. Before 9/11, John Ashcroft proposed slashing counterterrorism funding by 23 percent.


23. Between January 20, 2001, and September 10, 2001, the Bush Administration publicly mentioned Al Qaeda one time.


24. The Bush Administration granted the 9/11 Commission $3 million to investigate the September 11 attacks and $50 million to the commission that investigated the Columbia space shuttle crash.


25. More than three years after 9/11, just 5 percent of all cargo--including cargo transported on passenger planes--is screened.


brutus smith

Ahhh nick, it seems you have jumped off the right wing ledge again.


1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

Source: American Progress

2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.

Sources: Fox News, Boston Globe

3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.

Source: PBS

4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.

Source: Washington Post

5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.


6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.

Source: Yahoo News

7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.

Source: MSNBC , 9-11 Commission

8. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," warning "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The government's top nuclear scientists had told the Administration the tubes were "too narrow, too heavy, too long" to be of use in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes.

Source: New York Times

9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction.

Source: USA Today

10. According to the Administration's handpicked weapon's inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so." After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, "There was a risk--a real risk--that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons, or materials, or information to terrorist networks."

Sources: New York Times, White House news release

11. According to Duelfer, the UN inspections regime put an "economic strangle hold" on Hussein that prevented him from developing a WMD program for more than twelve years.

Source: Los Angeles Times

brutus smith

Libertarian, other than a bunch of babbling, you forgot to add facts and proof to your statements. You must like reading your regurgitated talking points.

digger nick

Chung, Perhaps you forget it was a Dumbocrat President that had the opportunity to take out the leader Osama Bin Laden, but decided he was no threat despite Oliver North telling him so among others. Has Slick Willie and the Boys concentrated on keeping the "unit" in their pants and focusing more on the threat against the USA we never would have had this event take place.

AS far as coming up with unique material Chung, why waste the brain space you so obviously demonstrate you have so little of the attempt to restate the facts as so many have so eloquently? Perhaps the Dimocrats could learn a very valuable lesson from the fact people much wiser than me and most certainly you have stated the facts so much better than anyone else could.

If you truly are a "Chung Lee" of foreign birth, and you really feel Bush should apologize for eliminating a dictator who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, then perhaps you should leave the USA for that prosperous life under communist control.

Bush and the USA have nothing to apologize about in regard to Iraq anymore than we do for taking the same action against Hitler for the very same genocide taken upon the Jews.



guess if im righ that bush is a dingbat then i guess that means i'm also right about obama. hold him to the same standard and microscope you used to see bush, no double standards.


brutus smith wrote: "C'mon mikel enlighten me, when 10% of private citizens, not the Gov monsters you portray, control 90% of our wealth is headed towards Communism???? No name calling, just provide facts to support your view."

Here's a couple of facts. Economic systems aren't defined by what percent of wealth is controlled by what percent of the population. Economic systems are defined by who owns and controls that wealth. Capitalism is an economic system where wealth is privately owned AND controlled. Socialism is an economic system where wealth is government owned OR controlled. Most political economist divide socialism into fascism and communism. Fascism is where the government controls wealth but allows the appearence of private ownership. Communism is where government owns wealth. We now have fascism and are moving towards communism.

Besides, to control something is to own it, and communist officials in Soviet Russia, who comprised less than 1% of the population, controlled 99% of the wealth. While they may not have had de jure (legal) title to the wealth, they certainly had de facto (actual) ownership of the wealth. In addition, they had complete and total control of the population's lifes-and managed to murder 40-50 million of them (and people wonder why I call collectivist thugs and slur and rant against them).

So to say that we can't be heading towards communism if 10% of the population controls 90% of the wealth is utter nonsense.

Just the facts.

Also-nice Ron Paul link.

Chung Lee

Digger said:

"If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had
taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you
have approved?"

Chung Lee say that George Bush did not propose he just do. Digger did you forget Bust doubled the deficit while he was in office?

Funny Digger you get your panties (it is no secret) in a bunch and complain about the issue about a military plane flying low over Manhattan inducing panic. Wasn't it Bush that was at the wheel when the terrorists crashed a plane at the same site? Gee, genius......which one was worse? Seriously, blame Obama for a military mistake in judgement? Oh and by the way, the idiot that thought it would be a good idea to have the fly over lost his job. So how many people have been held accountable for going to war in Iraq?

Oh no!!!!!!!!!!!! Chung Lee now just see that these were not Diggers own ideas it is another one of his cut and paste jobs!!! Is it asking too much for you nit wit neocons to at least come up with your own material?

digger nick


What Bush did was take action against a dictator who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people much like Hitler did. You cannot deny this (well I guess you could be one of the wackos that claim there was never a Holocaust)

Best part is we only have a few more years until the tide turns and the Republicans are again in control. In fact, it's really already happening with old Teddy K's seat going Republican for the first time since before my grandparents were still voting.


digger nick
no.....what Bush did was just get us in two wars; and the worst economy that we have experienced since the great depression. It caused the entire world to go into a tailspend.....he raided the treasurer of the surplus that Bill Clinton had left us along with all the jobs......that's all!

digger nick

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter
installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have
laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own
and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take
Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM
stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you
have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and
incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a
thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing
videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly
narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you
have approved?

If George W.. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a
minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with
people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you
have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco
de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of
May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again,
would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have
hammered him for it for years, like Dan Quayle and potatoe, as proof of
what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a
single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low
over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown
Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether
they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims
throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in
New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political
issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report
directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is
happening in America , would you have approved.

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major
corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,
would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had
taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you
have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10
years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant
and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all
this in 12 months -- so you'll have three years to come
up with an answer.


Obviously Mikel has yet to review the GOP manifesto for fundraising yet. They use fear tactics to scare you into donationsMikel.

Let me clue you in: Obama is as much a communist as I am a neocon.

brutus smith

C'mon mikel enlighten me, when 10% of private citizens, not the Gov monsters you portray, control 90% of our wealth is headed towards Communism???? No name calling, just provide facts to support your view.


when the gov controls your life then it is communist. our gov is positioning itself to control 2 of the 3 most important aspects, financial and health, so i think that almost constitutes a communist country. comrade.

brutus smith

Now where is your proof we are socialist, Marxist, Communist or all your other wacked out accusations? Time to put up or shut up.


Where are the facts that 10% control 90% of the wealth? I know that the wealthiest 10% of Americans pay 90% of the income tax.

brutus smith

Good point mkb. When 10% of the people control 90% of the wealth tell me once again goofus how that's Communism??????


mkb, who exactly is hugh, and what does he have to do with insurance?


brutus, please explain to me how mandatory health insurance, and higher taxes to pay for those who can't afford it, will stop the plant closings and the job hemorrhage?

Keeping and creating jobs HERE should be the first order of business. Yes, we DO need to fix health care, but I think the priorities are mixed up at the moment.


"Wing-nuts, Wing-nuts,


It was the republican economic policies opf the last 8 years which sent the country into By the way do you have insurance? Or must you fight for it like 30 million others?


10% of the populationn already control 90% of who is taking over what.


Part of fixing the economy is fixing health care....we must deal with the hugh segment called the insurance industry


at least you realize that Bush was a dingbat


In order for Communism to work Marx stated that you have to destroy the existing country's government by bankruptcy. Hmmmm Health Care?


Brutus, the problem is the left wants to take OVER 1/6th of the economy.

mikel are missing my point. if you follow my comments they are aimed at people who don't or won't work because they are to lazy. as long as people who are on the low end of the pay scale work for it then ok by me. but don't be going out and buying a big screen tv, wii, x-box, have three cell phones etc and then whine because you can't afford health insurance. thats where i draw the line. prioritize, you know like health insurance before that other crap.

again, the usa has become a land of entitlements and rewards people for laziness.

brutus smith

By fixing something that takes up 1/6 of our economy won't fix our economy?????? Rationalize that one for me stormy.


Ooops, I saw all the blogs about rich people with vacation homes in the caribean and I thought you were talking about Charles Rangle, my bad.


mkb, I truly wish that your last comment to me had a basis.

Fixing health care will not BEGIN to fix the economy; there's too much else wrong with it.

Fix the economy first; then we'll be able to AFFORD health care reform. Real reform, not a half-baked, rushed, band-aid approach.

brutus smith

The question is mikel and a couple of others is why do you always attack the bottom of the food chain in regards to how taxpayer money is spent? Somehow you equate wealth as to having worked hard for it. Other than being one of Sam Walton's children, how did they work hard for their wealth? The majority of people in the lower and middle classes work hard for their money. Just because they weren't born into wealth doesn't mean they don't work hard. People born into wealth can take chances that those who were not can't.

And no offense to you but 200k is not the wealth I'm talking about. It used to be 1 income provided well for a family, and if you did want to better yourself you worked another part time job. Now people are working 2 jobs, have no benefits and are still 1 medical tragedy away from disaster. Shouldn't happen in this country.


obama isnt saving me, he's trying to kill the country i love. nothing he does makes sense.he has no love or loyalty to this country and he makes that painfully obvious around the world with his disrespectful behavior and apologies.bush may have been a dingbat, but had he acted the way obama does , he would have been impeached.i would rather have a misguided dingbat than a wolf in sheeps clothing. nothing good will come from this man being in office.


mkb..what makes you think i sit in the dark? just because i think some people need to take more responsibility for themselves? or is it that i despise the fact that some families have used gov't entitlements for generations? i have no problem with welfare and medicaid going to individuals that can't work for medical reasons. but, laziness is not a medical reason.

it is funny that people and even the gov criticize health insurers for using pre-existing clauses with health insurance. but, let me ask the following question. if you were going to "invest" in a new car, as health insurers do in people, would you buy one with a blown engine? i mean after all you know there is a major problem with it but it shouldn't matter that after buying it you have to dump thousands more of your dollars into it should it? is that how you shop for a car? probably not. you look for a car that will be a sound investment and not nickel and dime you right? why shouldn't health insurers be allowed to the same?

yes, there needs to be some sort of reform but not by the same people that have run the usps, amtrak, ssi and medicare into the ground. all of those entities should at least be self sustaining and two of the four are currently so far in the red that they will never get out and the last two are on the verge of the same fate.


brutus smith: "mikel, please tell me again why taxpayer dollars should be wasted on Corporations and CEO's who consistently send our jobs overseas???? These fat, lazy, drug abusing corporate executives using our tax dollars to buy another vacation home, launder money through the Cayman Islands, smokers, alcoholics, spending our taxpayer dollars like drunken sailors."

I agree with you brutus on this particular point, even though you are a pathetically leftwingnut collectivist thug failure.

But the real question is why tax dollars be wasted on anyone? No one has the right to hire (by voting or contributing to a political campaign) government thugs to violate the natural rights of anyone by extorting money from anyone-weather it be for health care, corporate welfare or any other subsidy.

In mikel's defense: Brutus, an opposition to people receiving a health care subsidy does not equal an advocacy of corporate subsidies.

Mime Bloggling

One again President Obama lies.

Obama ‘American Agenda’ Flashback: Dems Should Not Pass Healthcare With a 50-Plus-1 Strategy

Video here:


Do you ever see sun light or do you sit in the dark always


fix health care and you will fix the economy


mkb, aka rgws, if you will take the time to re-read what I posted, you'll see that I'm NOT satisfied with the status quo. My premiums and deductibles have gone way up, and my co-pay has been TRIPLED. I have slightly greater affection for zebra mussels than I do for insurance companies.

I am in favor of reform; I just don't like the current Dem. proposals, or the efforts to rush them into law. I also feel that fixing the economy, for ALL of us, ought to come first.


c/p from "friend".

" This is what I find ironic. All you 60's hippies that hated the government are now proposing government run healthcare. What do you know that we don't? "

How would you propose we pay for things if not with money? With good intentions?

There is no such thing as free healthcare. Someone has to pay for it. After all, who's going to pay the union dues for all the new public employees in the system? "


My GOD what has this country come to that people are chastised for making money? Without profit, there is no motive for innovation. ""
Obstructionists we are not, free, hardworking taxpayers we are.


What a socialist tool...this "man" is as delusional as Nancy Pelosi and Obama


bs, why don't you ask your savior prez obamass. he apparently has no problem giving tax breaks to these companies only to watch them walk away. go ahead give'em a call and reply back to us. this gov just wants to continuously reward people who make bad life changing decisions and make people who are responsible pay for it. so, not only i am paying for my health insurance, home, auto, food etc but i am also paying for susie and johnnie slob who could care a less if they work or not because they are getting food, healthcare and other items for free! awww, no need to work as we will be taken care of! what a motto to live by!

it is easy to criticize many people who are well off but just think of some of the hard work and risks that they took to get where they are today. in 1998 i left my 60k a year job and bought a business. the first couple of years i only made a quarter of that but today i make threefold but it meant that i had to work 60+ hrs per week and many holidays. hopefully, i can pass this on to my kids so they have it better than me. you got a problem with that?

brutus smith

mikel, please tell me again why taxpayer dollars should be wasted on Corporations and CEO's who consistently send our jobs overseas???? These fat, lazy, drug abusing corporate executives using our tax dollars to buy another vacation home, launder money through the Cayman Islands, smokers, alcoholics, spending our taxpayer dollars like drunken sailors.


mkb wrote on Mar 3, 2010 10:53 AM:

" MontegoBay

the entire scene in Iraq has challenged from the Bush days. Where have you been. The troops are schedule to depart in 2011. The president is keeping his word. "

he is not bringing them home from afghanistan. the troops in iraq will only be shifted so we won't actually see any benefit.


Wow, there are just so many falsehoods in this piece that I just don't know where to begin. Here we go...

"Pass a national health care bill that will ensure the bulk of the American public is afforded the Constitutional promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- and, might I add, decent health care."

-Firstly, no, Rufus, you may not add "decent health care." The Constitution says nothing about a right to decent health care, but guess what?!--everyone has the *right* to PURSUE decent health care if it makes them happy. See what I did there?--I interpreted the Constitution correctly, something you've proven incapable of doing.

"If the issue of health care is not solved, this country -- in a very short period, like when the president was forced to infuse the economy with stimulus money -- is heading for major economical collapse."

-Cute scare tactic. Thanks for upholding the dedication to integrity-filled journalism that has given the Register its sterling reputation--oh wait, nevermind. Do you have any evidence to support this "major economic collapse" that we're headed towards that can only be prevented by passing health care legislation? Is it really your assertion that the government spending $950 billion dollars (I'm even being generous with that figure) on a half-baked health care bill will SAVE the economy? Really?

"It's no secret historic conservatives have always been opposed to programs which generally benefit the entire American people. They tend to represent the elite segment of capitalism who, many more times than not, have sacrificed the weak, tired, poor, hungry and disenfranchised amongst us to bolster their own status and philosophy of strong rugged American independence. By doing so, they have committed genocide against Native Americans, enslaved Black Americans, isolated Hispanic Americans and ostracized Asian Americans, all in the name of democracy."

-Wow. Just wow. A beautiful example of multiple ad hominem attacks, Rufus. Glad to see you're not above resorting to this tactic in a desperate attempt to bolster your argument. It would take a dissertation to adequately address just this paragraph, but here are a few things I'll put out there: research the presidency of Eisenhower, actually, just research everything you bring up in the last sentence of that paragraph. The inaccuracies are embarrassing, really.

I'm losing steam and growing increasingly frustrated. If I remember, maybe I'll come back later and poke holes in more of your propaganda.

Here are some basic facts for your, Register readers, presented with no bias. Interpret them as you please:

Right now 15.4% of Americans do not have health insurance due to their inability to afford it, being out of work or in-between jobs that provide insurance for them, or because they simply do not want health insurance. Reputable polling agencies (Gallup, etc.) show a sharp divide among the American public with roughly 39% opposed to reform, and 37% in favor, the remaining 24% offering no opinion. The partisan divide is absurdly evident with Republicans at 10% for/72% against, Democrats at 68% for/9% against, and Independents at 29% for/40% against.

The president who came into office claiming to want to heal the partisan divide in this country now wants to force legislation through Congress with 0 Republican support and with 39% of the American public opposed to such action?!

So please, Mr. President, just do it. Force the legislation through Congress with no bipartisan support and show your true colors. Force legislation on the American public that a majority of us don't want (OR NEED). Further increase the partisan divide in this country, thus doing the exact opposite of one of your promises that got you elected. Upset a majority of the voting American public. And hopefully, come 2012, we will all see you for what you are: a lame duck.


please tell me again why my tax dollars should be wasted on healthcare for people who are fat slobs, smokers, alcoholics and drug users/abusers. maybe the gov should give everyone 1000 per month for healthcare. if you smoke you lose 200 per month. overweight another 200 gone. druggie another 200 oops make that 400 as your spouse is probably an abuser also. drunkerard? another 200 down. get the pic?


RU Serious
Make your point!



the entire scene in Iraq has challenged from the Bush days. Where have you been. The troops are schedule to depart in 2011. The president is keeping his word.


obviously you have great insurance. You are one of the lucky ones! But what about the rest of us You must have some poor relatives or friends. Have some compassion; or what goes around will come around. You will need some help for something sooner or later


What I find interesting about this "President" is how adamant he was about bringing troops home, but it seems like we are no closer to this happening than we were a year ago?? All he did during his campaign was whine about Bush spending all the money on these wars, but now that he has the power..what has changed????


To: Mr. Sanders
From: pntbutterandjelly
About: above article

My comments are as follows, "BINGO!"

This "insurance reform" bill and it's coverages are the first attempt in many years by anyone for the correct moral and monetary reasons. Without it we will continue on our path of "Economic Euthanasia". That is, "Killing off those of us they don't need by any methods deemed required."
I would further suggest that we can turn around this raping of the common American citizen. The real problems are actually few and the solutions are quite obvious. All "we" need do is embark upon the quest of correcting them. I further believe there are enough Americans with vested interest, common sense, intelligence and integrity to bring us all back from the brink of insolvency, chaos and insanity. I tip my hat to you.

R U Serious

Is he the register columist or comunist....sometimes I wonder.

Richard Bebb

stormy -

Facts and logic do not work with Rufus/mkb.

Rufus praises Barry's plan when there isnt a complete one, hence the reason why Barry is releasing his "plan B".

mkb, if he isnt Rufus, is mind numb follower of a race baiter and possibly the worst president of all time, so there is no getting through to them.


Sanders' lousy writing is exceeded only by his arrogance. Just do it, Mr. President. Who cares if nearly 2/3 of the American people are against the current Democratic plans? They're not smart like ol' Rufus!

Just do it! Who cares if the plan is an expensive, cobbled-together piece of junk. Any plan is better than none, and we need it NOW!!!!!

Come on, folks. Would you take a seat in an airplane that was built on the same theory? Any plane is better than none, right? Who cares if it's going to crash, as long as it gets off the ground? I'm thinking I'd rather walk.

Now don't get me wrong. There are folks on here who think the current system is just peachy, but I'm not one of them. If you like the current system, you either have a 'cadillac' plan, or you're too rich to let little things like rising premiums, deductibles and co-pays get to you.

Yes, we need reform. Yes, it's important...far too important to be done wrong. I would rather see the gov't slow down, and if need be, take a couple of steps back.

I also believe that health care should NOT be the gov't's first order of business. Fixing the nation's economy should come first. 30 million of us are without health coverage, but the economy affects all 300 million of us. Pres. Obama hasn't saved us, mkb. All he did was continue the bailouts that Bush-lite started, and those are essentially band-aids. The plant closings have continued. The job hemorrhage goes on.

And please don't give me that nonsense that we can't have prosperity without a national healthcare plan. We've had the former without the latter plenty of times. Get us on the road to recovery, a REAL recovery, then we can fix health care.

Do it the other way around at your peril! Ram a half-baked health plan down our throats, before atending to the economy, and in eight months, the backlash against the Democratic Party will make the one in '94 look trivial.

Just a couple more thoughts, Rufus. There is nothing in the Constitution about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that's from the Declaration of Independence. And no, you may not add to it. The Constitution can be amended; the Declaration can't. Next thought: could you PLEASE try to stay on topic once in a while. The modern day fiscal conservatives who oppose the Dem. plans had nothing to do with slaughtering Indians or enslaving Africans. Final thought: while I agree that going into Iraq was a mistake, it wasn't only the Republicans (or, to use your own silly-a$$ed euphemism, 'obstructionists') who got us into that mess. Most of the Dems in Congress at the time voted to authorize the use of force. Quit pretending that your party has clean hands. Some of us Independents have long memories.


your wealth was redistributed when the economy went belly up during the last days of the Bush administration....the sad thing is that you still don't realize it.....Obama saved you from going under....and you still don't get it!


john doe.....calm down. Having my ramblings gotten to you...have I won the day.......stop sulking like a baby and talk!

John Doe

To mkb: I really wish you would learn how to write like an intelligent and educated human being instead of with all the.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

But it doesn't really matter to me anymore since I'm not going to read your ramblings any more............................................................................................................................................................................................................

John Doe

I found the HC Summit interesting for many reasons. One of which was the contempt Obama had for the Republican Congressmen. While each of them addressed him as Mr. President, most of the time (if not all of the time) Obama would talk back to them using their first names instead of Senator so-and-so, or congressman so-and so.

As for Dufus's article, it's the same BS, just a different day. That's all this is.

And the same.....goes for mkb.....and his continual and idiotic support for Dr. Dufus.....with absolutely no back up what he says.....I'm getting to the point.....where I will just stop reading Dr. Dufus.....and mkb.....because neither one of them make any sense whatsoever.....but instead.....maybe I'll call for the SR to ban both.....because the (as brutus smith says) "diehardleftwingnuts" would rather infringe on our free speech......instead of simply not reading it.....

BTW, nice blog thread "Sandusky Regurgatator" about this "column!" I couldn't agree with you more.

brutus smith

Another epic fail "libertarian". You should really change your name to diehardrightwingnut.


brutus smith wrote: "You claim to be a "Libertarian" but in all your posts you do nothing but slam Obama and Democrats. Never, not once have you condemned Republicans or so called "Conservatives" on their anti American stances. And I don't mean the blanket "they are bad too" thing either. Get into some specifics about them and what they did for 8 years."

If don't recall ever mentioning that democratic or republican party by name, and if I did, it would only be to demonstrate how they are, at their core, advocates the same collectivist religion.

In responses to articles on the drug war, gambling, immigration and other consentual "crimes", I always call the advocates of these laws collectivist thugs. I sure the vast majority of them are conservatives, so your assertion that I never slam right-wing collectivist thugs is unfounded.

I use the terms "illiberals" and "regressives" to describe the left because the terms "liberal" and "progressive" that leftist use to describe themselves are inaccurate because they are not liberal and their ideas don't create progression. I don't do this to conservatives because they tend to want to perserve the status-quo, which is what conservative means.

I don't recall mentioning any president (except FDR)by name in any of my statements so I don't where you're getting that from.

The same thing I said to factitious about him not being able to refute my standment applies to you. Instead of challenging the validity of my statement, you can only manage to make the empty assertion that I'm not "fair".

brutus smith

You claim to be a "Libertarian" but in all your posts you do nothing but slam Obama and Democrats. Never, not once have you condemned Republicans or so called "Conservatives" on their anti American stances. And I don't mean the blanket "they are bad too" thing either. Get into some specifics about them and what they did for 8 years.


factitious wrote: "Hypocrite Libertarian complains about name-calling, but calls Sanders a collectivist thug" and repeats the term slur six times in one post."

I don't mind name calling or slurs as long as long as the label is valid, rational and accurate, so I'm not a hypocrite. The only thing is my statement that could be implied as my complaining about is Sanders use of the word "obstructionist". My problem with his use of the term was that it was invalid and absurb, as I demonstrated in my statement.

As to my use of the slur, collectivist thug-it is a valid, rational and accurate label of Sanders and those who agree with him, as I demonstrated in my statement.

I notice that you didn't attempt to refute any of my statement. In another statement I said of collectivist thugs do attempt an argument, it is always an argument that to be accepted as valid, one must accept their immoral and irrational premises. Notice that they are unable bring an intelligent counter argument to my ideas.

That because they have none. When your beliefs are immoral and irrational and you're called out on it, you have no leg to stand on. That's why they can only engage in non-sensual name calling.

Again my complaint is about non-sensual name calling. This statement fits very well with your complaint that I'm a hypocrite.


Hypocrite Libertarian complains about name-calling, but calls Sanders a collectivist thug" and repeats the term slur six times in one post.


mister sanders,
let them redistribute YOUR wealth, mine is not up for grabs. my husband and i work our tails off to get what we have. noone redistributed their wealth for me. i already give to charities of MY choosing. if they want health care reform, then do it right. give us what congress and all the other deadbeats of washington have. or let them switch to the garbage they are trying to shove down our throats. lets see how quick they ok it then. oh mr sanders, minorities arent the only people the wealthy have made money off of. there are plenty of white folks who arent in that top 10% you talk about. so please stop acting as if the poor white people get a pass on being taken advantage of.really you are getting very tiring.


What is a moral perversity is when collectivist thugs like Sanders aim to dicitate to us how to spend our money and how to live our lifes and then have the nerve is assert that what they are advocating is moral. Shame on them for coercing us to comply with their values.

Collectivist thugs like to pretend that the are reasonable, but their idea of compromise consist of hiring (by voting) government thugs to use threats of violence to against other to extort money to finance their values. Some compromise-and if we resist, the collectivist thugs call us obstructionist. If Sanders put his beliefs into individual concrete action and came to my house to rob me, he would call me an obstructionist if I pointed a gun at him and demanded that he leave.

Collectivist thugs, like Sanders, like to talk about democracy and legislative processes, but this is all a cover for their desire to rob us each us of our choices, values and wealth.

Sanders talks about "rights", but to make something someone has to produce or provide a "right" is to create slaves-something collectivist thugs pretend to be against. There is and can not be the "right" to violate another person's rights. There is and can be no "right" to something someone has to produce or provide. This includes honestly earned money, because it represents wealth produced and sold but not spent.

This collectivist version of rights is an immoral perversion of legitimate (natural) rights. Natural rights are not given to you or taken from someone else for your benefit-they are inherent in your nature. Natural rights are derived from the fact that every human must look at the world around them, evaluate it and make choices that they believe will be optimal for their well-being and then act on that choice to create the values their well being and survival require. If a person fails in this, they risk their well being and perhaps their survival. This is an individual function for every person, which is why natural rights are individual. This is why every person must be free to choose, create, produce and act on their own individual values.

All human relationships are exchanges of values, both material and spiritual. There are two fundamental types of value exchanges, consentual or coercive. A consentual exchange of values consist of each person exchanging value for value at terms that both are willing to accept according to their own best judgement. A coercive exchange consist of one person using fraud, force or extortion to obtain a value from another person without their consent and against their judgement.

Obviously, a constentual exchange of values is moral and a coercive exchange is immoral. But it is the coercive exchange of values that collectivist thugs prefer, either because they have no values to offer or they wish to obtain values terms no person will consent to (this is what Sanders means by redistribution of wealth).

They may attempt to hide the nature of their action behind noble sounding words like democracy, the common good or social justice, but simply multipling the number of people cooperating in immoral acts will not make them moral.

Every moral person should reject their pathetic and immoral attempt to coerce values from us and shame and ostracise them. Shame on them all


nineMM......Dr. Sanders is well aware of the legislative process.....the point he is making that the republicans are not going to work with him no matter what he does....they want him to start over ......we need something now....he has the the senate....pass a bill get this ball rolling....of course changes will be made as time goes on....but now is the time.....Buffet is saying virturally the same thing.....we need something now and he says that we need more

brutus smith

So Richard, when the CBO gets the additional info it requires, and refutes what you say, I'm sure you will apologize right? Yeah right.

Richard Bebb

Uggh that didnt take long..

Rufus you are grossly mistaken as usual..

1. "the American public is afforded the Constitutional promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- and, might I add, decent health care."

NO YOU MAY NOT ADD HEALTH CARE !!!! You do not get to alter the constitution to fit what you desire, and the last time I checked you were a race baiting professor not a constitutional scholar. You are afforded the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, YOU ARE NOT GARUNTEED IT.

2. "He ended the meeting by conveying to the obstructionists if they have a better plan -- then lead us!"

Wrong again, Barry found it necessary to offer counter points to every republican idea or statement and was made to look like a fool every time he did. The health summit was all a show so that the dems can force health care down our throats by using reconciliation, even though its never been used for major legislation in the past.

3. "they have committed genocide against Native Americans, enslaved Black Americans, isolated Hispanic Americans and ostracized Asian Americans, all in the name of democracy."

The "white devil" strikes again !!!! So its the conservatives who have done these travesties. Even though the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 64 was made possible by republicans who stood up to southern DEMOCRATS to pass the bill.

4. "The president's bill, for sure, has problems."

What bill ?? There was nothing in it, ask the CBO they could not score the bill because there isnt enough details.

5. "Maybe after 234 years, we need a redistribution of wealth and power"

Take your socialist ramblings somewhere else. Its scary to think that you actually hold an audience of students. Your representation of this country and everything that it stands for is grossly misguided and reckless.

6. "The president's plan would not only cover 30 million presently uninsured and under-insured; it would also reduce future deficits"

Ill use your own point to counter this one

"The president's plan is not perfect and it is costly"

So which is it, is it costly and unsustainable or will it reduce future deficits?????

7. "The independent office of the budget declares the president's plan really is the best plan, even with its flaws"

See point 4 , the CBO couldnt score the bill.

8. "So if these obstructionists are really concerned about real reform, they must put their ideas on the table."

Their ideas have been out there for over a year and were expressed explicitly at the summit, did you not watch it ?? The truth is Barry and his cronies in the senate have an idea of what they want and dont want to listen to the American people or the republicans. As far as calling the right obstructionists it makes no sense when your incompetent dems hold majorities in both houses.

9. "Pull the reconciliation trigger!"

Yes exactly, you know and the dems in congress know that this plan is not favorable and they know that the only way to pass this monstrosity is to create your own rules. Reconciliation is a process use for budget issues, not for major legislation.

brutus smith

This Warren Buffet Winston??????

Published: Monday, 1 Mar 2010 | 11:04 AM ET
Text Size
By: Alex Crippen
Executive Producer

Ask Warren: The Transcript - Part 4
This is part four of the transcript and video of Warren Buffett's 'Ask Warren' appearance on CNBC's Squawk Box on Monday, March 1, 2010.


ANNOUNCER: Welcome back to SQUAWK BOX. Here now from Piccolo's restaurant in Omaha, Nebraska, Becky Quick and Warren Buffett.

QUICK: All right, welcome back, everybody. We are live in Omaha this morning, speaking to Berkshire-Hathaway chairman and CEO Warren Buffett. We have received thousands of questions from viewers. And now it's time, Warren, to get to a few more of these questions and try and see what people are thinking about. The first question I want to touch on still stays on the government theme because we did receive a lot of shareholder questions on that. This comes from Hank Durany, who's in Pompton Lakes, New Jersey. He says, "I did not vote for Mr. Obama, but the moment he was elected, he became my president [as well]. Your upport for Mr. Obama prior to the election was well known, given what transpired over the last 12 months. At what level would you rate your approval of his results on a scale from one to 10, assuming it was a 10 prior to the election."

BUFFETT: Yeah, well, I'm very glad I voted for him.

QUICK: Mm-hmm.

BUFFETT: That has not changed. I think the problems he's run into are, you know, are monumental and particularly in terms of the economy. I mean, you know, we're running huge deficits now that--which we should be running from a Keynesian standpoint to try and get this economy moving, but they have consequences, too. I mean, I do not envy the job of being president, but I give Obama high marks.

QUICK: You do? OK. Here's another question that came in from Kevin Loken in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and this has to do with the Tea Party that we've heard so much about. "Does the Tea Party have it correct, reduce the size of the government? It seems if you give someone, a man or a woman, an unlimited amount of funds like the government, they're bound to screw things up."

BUFFETT: Well, that's--we've worried about that for a couple of hundred years and, overall, we've done OK with it.

QUICK: Mm-hmm.

BUFFETT: I mean, the government has disappointed people, I'm sure, many of times over the 200 years. But, overall, I mean, just look at our country now compared to what it's been in the past. We've always had these motivations of people worrying about the next election and all that sort of thing. But if I'm going to comment on the Tea Party, I'll have to look at my notes here.

QUICK: On exactly what happened with that. All right, here's another question from Henry Solomon in New York who says, "Should governments phase out Social Security and health entitlements?"

BUFFETT: Oh no. Social Security is one of the most important things that our country has done. I mean, if you look back to the '30s, if I were to pick the two most important economic things that came out of the '30s, I would say the FDIC and Social Security and both of them had the same goal, which was to relieve people of unnecessary fears. And our country was $45,000 plus of GDP per capita is rich enough to make sure that those who get the short straws in life have some minimum level of subsistence once they get past their productive years, so...

QUICK: But Social Security, you could be looking at it, Medicare too, these are programs that could be insolvent in the not-too-distant future, especially when you look at demographics and the number of people who will be retiring and who will be working to pay for that. How do you fix it?

BUFFETT: Social Security is now about 4 and a fraction percent, the payout, as I remember, in terms of GDP. Even projecting out 50 years, it gets up to 6 percent or something like that, and that's a vastly increased GDP. So if we treat our seniors to 4 1/2 percent of GDP now, when they're past their productive years or even 6 percent 50 years from now, we take care of our young. I mean, in this country, the people in their productive years take care of the young. They educate them, they do all of these things, even if you don't have any children or anything of the sort, and we take care of our old, and a rich society should do that.


My “friends” in MA have no qualms about buying heath insurance because they already were. The mandate didn’t affect them in the slightest.

I have no delusions that Medicare isn’t broken. But, you have a system that has worked and been fairly successful for many years. If your house needs a new windows and furnace, you don’t burn your house down. You fix it with more efficient models. If it can be repaired, streamlined, and expanded, we have a good start. Premiums will need to rise in the short term, but in the long term, we may be able to keep them down. My crystal ball is in the shop, so I can’t predict the exact future.


Winston, did you see in this mornings Wall Street Journal that Warren Buffett led Berkshire Hathaway to the strongest growth in 45 years. Sorry to change the topic.


The "Just Do It" remark comes from someone who obviously doesn't understand the legislative process, let alone the part that partisan politics plays, and the power of lobbyists in Washington. In other words, special intrest groups, insurance giants, etc.

I agree that our healthcare system needs a good overhaul.......But you just can't do something by waving a magic wand, or trying to baffle someone with well versed bull-sh!t.


Why is it when I see the argument that every country has socialized health care I'm reminded of my parent's admonition that if every one of your friends jump off the cliff doesn't mean you have to.

6079 Smith W

@ duhast:

What do your MA friends say about their state’s health care diktat?

Economically, expenditures and costs cannot increase indefinitely – the system will eventually break down.

See Stein’s Law:

‘If something cannot go on forever, it will stop,’

If this program is forced on the country, doctors and other health care professionals will quit in droves and set up clinics in Mexico.

Outsourcing our healthcare to Mexico – now there’s a laugh!

Doctors in Florida are increasingly refusing to see Medicaid patients because of the inadequate re-imbursement rates.

6079 Smith W

Get educated and bury the partisan talking points.

Warren Buffett, a guy who’s infinitely more financially astute than anyone who frequents these blogs was on CNBC this morning.

Take a few minutes and listen to some of the common sense things that he had to say about the health care debate:


Winston. EVERYBODY’S insurance costs have gone up across the country. How do these numbers compare to the average national increase and how much has Mass. healthcare always been in comparison to national numbers? Also, companies across the board are reducing the percentage that they cover which affects the numbers. There is also quality of coverage versus cost to take into consideration as well.


OMG this is priceless. I'm going to be smiling for weeks about this column. Does this man actually receive money for posting a comedy piece. I started rolling on the floor laughing when this nutcase stated the independent office of the budget said Obama's plan is the best plan. The Independent Office the Budget is a publicy funded agency that provides nonpartisan information about New York City's budget to the public and their elected officials. By the way, San Diego California has one also. I'm curious as to what one Sanders was citing. ROFLMAO

6079 Smith W

@ mkb:

You’re right and I’m wrong? How simplistically childish is that?

Where’s your counter argument?

You wrote:

‘we all need health care reform.....even you!’

We also might agree that one needs an operation.

The question is to use a scalpel or an ax for the incision.

As far as Ponzi schemes go, BH Obama and the Dems are way ahead of Bernie Madoff.

6079 Smith W

Wanna see the future of forced healthcare?

‘Back to the ObamaCare Future
The Massachusetts 'model' moves to price controls.’:

“Last month, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick landed a neutron bomb, proposing hard price controls across almost all Massachusetts health care. State regulators already have the power to cap insurance premiums, which Mr. Patrick is activating. He also filed a bill that would give state regulators the power to review the rates of hospitals, physician groups and some specialty providers. Those that are deemed too high "shall be presumptively disapproved."

Meanwhile, average Massachusetts insurance premiums are now the highest in the nation. Since 2006, they've climbed at an annual rate of 30% in the individual market. Small business costs have increased by 5.8%. Per capita health spending in Massachusetts is now 27% higher than the national average, and 15% higher even after adjusting for local wages and academic research grants. The growth rate is faster too.”

If you can’t read the article, read the comments.

The fiscal mess that the Progressives are causing in Mass., is the same that they can cause for the entire U.S. with their wrongheaded approach.

brutus smith

Amen Rufus, amen.

mkb do not have a leg to stand on....this is a brilliant article. It is one of the best defenses for health care that I have heard in a long timne.....this is right and you know stop the filibusting and give Sanders credit for this piece.....we all need health care reform.....even you!

6079 Smith W

@ Sanders:

You wrote:

‘… they (conservatives) have committed genocide against Native Americans, enslaved Black Americans, isolated Hispanic Americans and ostracized Asian Americans, all in the name of democracy.”

How is that not merely a sophomoric gross generalization?

Here’s a real horror that is historically documented:

In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt with his Executive Order 9066 committed the greatest mass imprisonment of Americans and non-Americans in the history of the U.S.

Japanese, Italians and Germans of American and non-U.S. birth, in addition to European Jews were thrown into isolated compounds in the name of national security.

Thousands of innocent Americans lost their homes, processions and their businesses and were never adequately compensated.

Marxism and its many derivations have killed more innocents and destroyed more lives than any economic and social philosophy in the history of the world.

Force is a tool of authoritarians, not lovers of freedom.

6079 Smith W

In order to continue the process of their financial ledgermain, pyramid schemes need a continuing supply of marks or suckers to invest in the dream.

Forcing everyone single American to purchase a govt. outlined insurance policy helps to supply the illusion that the economics are sound, but it is essentially the foundation for another government run confidence game like Social Security or Medicare.

Having more people invest in a faulty financial scheme does not eliminate the fact that it is badly designed and doomed to failure.

How about eliminating the federal deductibility of ALL private industry supplemented health care benefit programs in order to pay for a Medicare-like program for the millions of U.S. uninsured?

As of 2008, the tax expenditures for the exclusion of medical insurance premiums and medical care was $131 billion annually.

Those without health insurance are already supplementing those with health insurance though their tax dollars by making those contributions tax deductible.

Those that want to take the collectivist approach should agree that those who benefit should pay for those who do not.