Larry Gude
Strung Out
tap...tap...
...tap
...tap
George Bush: Losing Core support?
- Thread starter Hessian
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
YOU...
...have the power.
YOU...have the power.
YOU...have the power.
...have the power.
YOU...have the power.
YOU...have the power.
D
dems4me
Guest
Larry -- are you sitting down for this one? I think that if it hadn't been ignored by the Republican Administration - your 
ronnie boy for 4 entire years despite numerous pleadings of the CDC, it perhaps may not have gotten that bad. They needed the funding then and it kept getting rejected. Now its an after thought and a huge epidemic. The CDC even had the first cases still alive to research on and ask questions to. Ronnie and his ol' boys just continued to ignore the CDC for four years -- thats 17,520 days at least where CDC was being rebuked and told there was no problem its a gay thing and they deserved it. You have to remember it was the 80's and the word gay was not so widely accepted as it is now -- why??? republican administration in the 80s.
ronnie boy for 4 entire years despite numerous pleadings of the CDC, it perhaps may not have gotten that bad. They needed the funding then and it kept getting rejected. Now its an after thought and a huge epidemic. The CDC even had the first cases still alive to research on and ask questions to. Ronnie and his ol' boys just continued to ignore the CDC for four years -- thats 17,520 days at least where CDC was being rebuked and told there was no problem its a gay thing and they deserved it. You have to remember it was the 80's and the word gay was not so widely accepted as it is now -- why??? republican administration in the 80s.
D
dems4me
Guest
Vrai -- what about all those people that have HIV or AIDS from blood transfusions -- was that their life choose -- to get into car accident and have blood supplied to them to live. Albeit it was contaminated blood because Regan ignored the CDC's request for more funding for 4 years where they could have figured this out sooner and gotten a jump on things? Not just wait until thousands and thousands more were infected?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
See...
...now you're thinking!
...we tried and yes, I agree we all would have been better off but, alas, 48 years (exactly, if we skip leap years) of Reagan just wasn't gonna happen.
Your logic, like you math, just kinda rolls along.
So now, with no cure to HIV to this day, had Reagan not 'ignored' the looming crisis, we'd be that much closer to...?
Compare this to cancer research and progress sometime.
...now you're thinking!
...we tried and yes, I agree we all would have been better off but, alas, 48 years (exactly, if we skip leap years) of Reagan just wasn't gonna happen.
Your logic, like you math, just kinda rolls along.
So now, with no cure to HIV to this day, had Reagan not 'ignored' the looming crisis, we'd be that much closer to...?
Compare this to cancer research and progress sometime.
Dems, at some point someone told you everything bad that happens in the world is a Republican's fault. You believed them. I can't make you realize that AIDS isn't Ronald Reagan's fault because you're completely invested in that belief.
I also can't make you realize that bad things happen to people and there's nothing you can do about it. You can throw feel-good money at it until you're blue in the face, and nothing will change the fact that sh*t happens.
More people die in car accidents than die of AIDS in this country. More people die of heart disease than any other cause of premature death. More infants are born mentally retarded than with AIDS.
Sorry - the numbers aren't there to make such a big deal about AIDS funding. But maybe Mars dirt contains a cure for AIDS. Would space exploration be worth the price then?
I also can't make you realize that bad things happen to people and there's nothing you can do about it. You can throw feel-good money at it until you're blue in the face, and nothing will change the fact that sh*t happens.
More people die in car accidents than die of AIDS in this country. More people die of heart disease than any other cause of premature death. More infants are born mentally retarded than with AIDS.
Sorry - the numbers aren't there to make such a big deal about AIDS funding. But maybe Mars dirt contains a cure for AIDS. Would space exploration be worth the price then?
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Hey Dems, I would really like to sit down with you someday and have you tell me all about the Reagan administration. I never knew you were with him 24/7... I mean how else could you know when he uttered the word AIDS for the first time? Unless, you're just trying to trick us with some Democrat propaganda.
But seriously, I loved your response to my query. "I'd quit work..." How typical of a Democrat. I give you all that money to help people and the first thing you do with it is line your own pockets and quit generating revenues. Why am I not surprised? But hey... why wouldn't you? I mean, it's not your money is it? You didn't have to earn it, ole Bruzilla just gave it to you. Same way you guys look at tax dollars.
I bet you would also take that $85,000,000 or so and drop it into tax shelters so you wouldn't have to give $42,500,000 of it back to the government. You sound just like all those yelping liberals in New York and Hollywood who are demanding more tax dollars be spent on the poor as they give interviews from their 20 million dollar home, and only mention the poor after bragging about all the millions of dollars they just made from some movie or recording deal. "Just have some more $1,000 champagne and $2,500 caviar dahling while I write a check for $1,500 to the homeless shelter".
"Then, I'd set up a healthcare fund and office for all children, adults and senior citizens that are low income people. A lot of elderly and disabled people right now are having to make the decision of putting food on the table or getting there medications." First, I'm a middle-aged, middle-income, guy who has often had to choose between buying food for his family, or clothes for his kids, or the rent... or paying his wife's $250/month perscription bill, so believe me... the poor and the old aren't the only ones having to make that call.
Second, who would you define as low-income? Is a person deserving of your assistance if they don't make any money? Don't make enough money to afford a health insurance premium for a single person? How about someone who makes enough to pay the premium for a single person but they have a four-person family? How about someone who's making just enough to pay the rent, utility, and food bills, and after paying the premium would have no money left over for anything else?
I was paying about $300/month for HMO coverage at a previous company, and now pay about $210/month for PPO coverage, and my company pays about the same amount to cover its share. So you would be paying about $425/month per family to cover someone to the lowest level that most working people are covered, or $600/month to get them the better HMO coverage. Now my question is this: if a low-income person can't afford to pay even $210 for a premium, and many can't, how can you expect them to pay a 10-30 percent co-payment? My last co-pay for a brief hospital stay for my wife was a shad under $900. Or are you going to also pay the co-payment as well? And if not, are you going to pop for the extra $$$ to get them into an HMO with 100% coverage, which is what low-income folks really need to have if they are so poor they can't afford basic coverage? In either case, how can you then go back to the folks who are providing you with this money in the first place, and who are struggling to afford the minimum PPO premiums, and tell them that they need to fork over more money to you so that you can give poor people better coverage for free than they are getting at their own expense???
Lastly, and for your own good, I would recommend staying away from having anything to do with guns. As a Democrat you would probably just end up with a bullet hole in you in a DC park. Dems and guns just don't mix well.
But seriously, I loved your response to my query. "I'd quit work..." How typical of a Democrat. I give you all that money to help people and the first thing you do with it is line your own pockets and quit generating revenues. Why am I not surprised? But hey... why wouldn't you? I mean, it's not your money is it? You didn't have to earn it, ole Bruzilla just gave it to you. Same way you guys look at tax dollars.
I bet you would also take that $85,000,000 or so and drop it into tax shelters so you wouldn't have to give $42,500,000 of it back to the government. You sound just like all those yelping liberals in New York and Hollywood who are demanding more tax dollars be spent on the poor as they give interviews from their 20 million dollar home, and only mention the poor after bragging about all the millions of dollars they just made from some movie or recording deal. "Just have some more $1,000 champagne and $2,500 caviar dahling while I write a check for $1,500 to the homeless shelter". "Then, I'd set up a healthcare fund and office for all children, adults and senior citizens that are low income people. A lot of elderly and disabled people right now are having to make the decision of putting food on the table or getting there medications." First, I'm a middle-aged, middle-income, guy who has often had to choose between buying food for his family, or clothes for his kids, or the rent... or paying his wife's $250/month perscription bill, so believe me... the poor and the old aren't the only ones having to make that call.
Second, who would you define as low-income? Is a person deserving of your assistance if they don't make any money? Don't make enough money to afford a health insurance premium for a single person? How about someone who makes enough to pay the premium for a single person but they have a four-person family? How about someone who's making just enough to pay the rent, utility, and food bills, and after paying the premium would have no money left over for anything else?
I was paying about $300/month for HMO coverage at a previous company, and now pay about $210/month for PPO coverage, and my company pays about the same amount to cover its share. So you would be paying about $425/month per family to cover someone to the lowest level that most working people are covered, or $600/month to get them the better HMO coverage. Now my question is this: if a low-income person can't afford to pay even $210 for a premium, and many can't, how can you expect them to pay a 10-30 percent co-payment? My last co-pay for a brief hospital stay for my wife was a shad under $900. Or are you going to also pay the co-payment as well? And if not, are you going to pop for the extra $$$ to get them into an HMO with 100% coverage, which is what low-income folks really need to have if they are so poor they can't afford basic coverage? In either case, how can you then go back to the folks who are providing you with this money in the first place, and who are struggling to afford the minimum PPO premiums, and tell them that they need to fork over more money to you so that you can give poor people better coverage for free than they are getting at their own expense???
Lastly, and for your own good, I would recommend staying away from having anything to do with guns. As a Democrat you would probably just end up with a bullet hole in you in a DC park. Dems and guns just don't mix well.
D
dems4me
Guest
I think you misunderstood larry -- something must have happened because we agreed on something. I'm not a fan of ronald regan and I think he should have listened to the CDC for 4 years instead of it becoming an epidemic.
D
dems4me
Guest
Regan never read a report from Surgeon General C. Everett Koop (written in 1986 (now 6 years of denial)). Koops report was based on 6 months of research and which predicted 180,000 deaths from the disease by 1991.
D
dems4me
Guest
Bruz, it is obvious from all your posts that you are a big republican and when ever you have facts it is credible, but when I state something and can even proove it, it's considered uncredible or propogandas. That's what you seem to say about everything that you don't want to believe. Regan did nothing for AIDS and according to the CDC didn't utter the word AIDS until it was way too late to stop it in its tracks.
Also, I suppose you think the fact that the homeless rate during the Regan era (not economy) but homeless rate being the worst in history (including the great depression) is also propaganda. No, I'm not some young liberal that attends WMF meetings at the world bank to protest or anything. I'm a mature adult thankyou (we will probably have to disagree on that as well).
If Mars did have a cure for AIDS in their soil - which the mere suggestion is hysterical in and off itself - I think all countries should unite and all of us try to get there as one.
In regards to your question about the money, I said I would hire experts to figure the legistics out and look into it more. There has just got to be a better way. Grasping from your email, you would rather spend tax-payers dollars on going to mars than fixing healthcare and reducing your deductible. You support both ways -- do you want the tax money spent on mars in your pocket or for research?
Take Dean's healthcare record in vermont for example, 99% of the children for that state has healthcare and get this -- you will say its a small state -- then how do you account for Vermont making it to 26th on the scale of the states that produce the most revenue?
Also, I suppose you think the fact that the homeless rate during the Regan era (not economy) but homeless rate being the worst in history (including the great depression) is also propaganda. No, I'm not some young liberal that attends WMF meetings at the world bank to protest or anything. I'm a mature adult thankyou (we will probably have to disagree on that as well).
If Mars did have a cure for AIDS in their soil - which the mere suggestion is hysterical in and off itself - I think all countries should unite and all of us try to get there as one.
In regards to your question about the money, I said I would hire experts to figure the legistics out and look into it more. There has just got to be a better way. Grasping from your email, you would rather spend tax-payers dollars on going to mars than fixing healthcare and reducing your deductible. You support both ways -- do you want the tax money spent on mars in your pocket or for research?
Take Dean's healthcare record in vermont for example, 99% of the children for that state has healthcare and get this -- you will say its a small state -- then how do you account for Vermont making it to 26th on the scale of the states that produce the most revenue?
D
dems4me
Guest
Bruz, very funny on the dems and guns just don't mix well comment -- but why don't you try this one on for size -- most republicans and sensitivity don't mix well.
Hessian
Well-Known Member
I can see the topic has drifted into the aids & funding debate. I Know how we got here...let me try to pull it back
I was up in Maine visiting relatives over the Holidays: I was stunned to learn that a family medical coverage was running over 1400.00 per month!!! Shall I verify that number again: 1400.00 per month. Thus: many of the smaller companies won't offer coverage,...many of the blue collar just hope for the best and run to the e-ward when they get sick or take a fall.
How did it get this bad?
Loss of competition. That's right,...they are down to two or three companies and the rest have fled-and they can now charge what they want.
Why did capitalism fail here? Lack of Tort reform, too many ambulance chasers, and the State of Maine stupidly opened its doors to over 2000 Somolians who are under the impression that the government should pay the tab for just about everything.-They have swarmed over Lewiston -Auburn and are not assimilating all that well. (Good immigration policy huh?) Desert sandal-hawkers roaming around the tundra of Maine...what a great Democratic idea.
Do you see the common thread here?
we have a government that is wating money millions of miles in space answering questions that few people ever thought worth asking while our health care & immigration policies are in a shambles.
Do I want Govt health care? NEVER!...I want healthy capitalist competition that would drive prices down trying to get more customers. Do I want to stop immigration? No...I want capable, intelligent, and LEGAL immigrants admitted at a nominal rate.
George Bush has failed to properly address either of these things and has actually made conditions worse.
I am an angry conservative.
I was up in Maine visiting relatives over the Holidays: I was stunned to learn that a family medical coverage was running over 1400.00 per month!!! Shall I verify that number again: 1400.00 per month. Thus: many of the smaller companies won't offer coverage,...many of the blue collar just hope for the best and run to the e-ward when they get sick or take a fall.
How did it get this bad?
Loss of competition. That's right,...they are down to two or three companies and the rest have fled-and they can now charge what they want.
Why did capitalism fail here? Lack of Tort reform, too many ambulance chasers, and the State of Maine stupidly opened its doors to over 2000 Somolians who are under the impression that the government should pay the tab for just about everything.-They have swarmed over Lewiston -Auburn and are not assimilating all that well. (Good immigration policy huh?) Desert sandal-hawkers roaming around the tundra of Maine...what a great Democratic idea.
Do you see the common thread here?
we have a government that is wating money millions of miles in space answering questions that few people ever thought worth asking while our health care & immigration policies are in a shambles.
Do I want Govt health care? NEVER!...I want healthy capitalist competition that would drive prices down trying to get more customers. Do I want to stop immigration? No...I want capable, intelligent, and LEGAL immigrants admitted at a nominal rate.
George Bush has failed to properly address either of these things and has actually made conditions worse.
I am an angry conservative.
Hessian
Well-Known Member
I skipped the issue on Parks I brought up earlier:
As some of you know I roam around a number of state parks over the course of a year...do you have any clue what has happened right here in So Md?
There are currently 4 full rangers and a handful of maintenance men trying to run 6 State parks. The rangers are all near 40 or older and they have seen many of their comrades take early retirement instead of seeing more & more trimming. Volunteers have struggled to keep programs going and hours & availability of parks has been cut way back. (Liability for coverage of events prevents activities) Heck they even pulled out all the trash cans 4 years ago because they couldn't afford the waste removal fees.
This is just a small microcosm of what is happening across the whole country (Ie News last week: CalEfornia has doubled its park usage fees: it can't maintain its parks why? debt.)
I think $820,000,000 split among the nation's federal & state parks would have been an enormous boost to the morale of the workers and the people who are trying to preserve them.
Someone tell me one clear benefit we intend to gain from wandering around and taking photos of red wasteland millions of miles away...name just one thing.(Answering a question about "where the water went?" is irrelevant and insulting.)
I'm waiting.
As some of you know I roam around a number of state parks over the course of a year...do you have any clue what has happened right here in So Md?
There are currently 4 full rangers and a handful of maintenance men trying to run 6 State parks. The rangers are all near 40 or older and they have seen many of their comrades take early retirement instead of seeing more & more trimming. Volunteers have struggled to keep programs going and hours & availability of parks has been cut way back. (Liability for coverage of events prevents activities) Heck they even pulled out all the trash cans 4 years ago because they couldn't afford the waste removal fees.
This is just a small microcosm of what is happening across the whole country (Ie News last week: CalEfornia has doubled its park usage fees: it can't maintain its parks why? debt.)
I think $820,000,000 split among the nation's federal & state parks would have been an enormous boost to the morale of the workers and the people who are trying to preserve them.
Someone tell me one clear benefit we intend to gain from wandering around and taking photos of red wasteland millions of miles away...name just one thing.(Answering a question about "where the water went?" is irrelevant and insulting.)
I'm waiting.
Last edited:
Christy
b*tch rocket
Because I think it's really really cool!
Not to mention, It's been my childhood dream to finally meet Marvin the Martian. 
I have a perfect solution to all the bantering. We all get a choice as to where our tax dollars are spent. Somewhat like the "Combined Federal Campaign", (which is actually a charity, which taxes are in a sense). Anyway, I digress. You get a booklet every year and you get to pick from the 10 gazillion page pamphlet, what government program you would like your cash going to and at what percentage (you have to meet a certain percentage threshold, but it's your choice to budget out that amount). See! Easy peasy. Everybody is happy and all the pork gets flushed. :shrug:
Oh, and I can fly to Mars to celebrate my 100th birthday.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
To repeat myself...
...I say the benefit...
...has nothing to do with Mars itself or the moon 30 some odd years ago: It is the technological gains.
At the end of the day, $830,000,000 is $3 a head (300,000,000 'mericans) or $15 for my household.
I'd be happy to cough that up to, $15 a year, to open up more jobs in the Park Service.
Hey W, we want Mars AND better parks!
...I say the benefit...
...has nothing to do with Mars itself or the moon 30 some odd years ago: It is the technological gains.
At the end of the day, $830,000,000 is $3 a head (300,000,000 'mericans) or $15 for my household.
I'd be happy to cough that up to, $15 a year, to open up more jobs in the Park Service.
Hey W, we want Mars AND better parks!
Hessian
Well-Known Member
Regarding those tech improvements Larry, I think we have our biggest tech improvements during a war. (Ie Tactical-Practical on the History Channel )
Even in space: we did our best when we were competing "Race for Space!"...so,
we might be better off fighting & racing against someone to make the biggest tech improvements.
I like your analogy on the cost per family regarding the Mars wanderer's cost. However, what remains HIDDEN is the cost of all the previous missions & failures....someone find me a website that lists the cost of all the other attempts (call it extra credit class!...
)
)Even in space: we did our best when we were competing "Race for Space!"...so,
we might be better off fighting & racing against someone to make the biggest tech improvements.
I like your analogy on the cost per family regarding the Mars wanderer's cost. However, what remains HIDDEN is the cost of all the previous missions & failures....someone find me a website that lists the cost of all the other attempts (call it extra credit class!...
)
D
dems4me
Guest
Sadly, John Glen stated yesterday that 820,000,000 won't even be enough to start the paper work on such a huge endeavor. I think the space rhetoric that W is throwing around is political posturing. Most of the money that will be spent on this will be during other administrations (2030, 2010, etc..). Red rocks are kind of pretty, but for that amount of money I don't feel its worth it and I doubt the following administrations in the future will keep throwing money into this. We have not soo much as sent a probe back to the moon in 30 years. What's the point with mars? I feel the money should be allocated here at home. Then again, I'm always the one at odds with everyone when it comes to politics.