Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (17580)	11/24/2003 4:29:41 PM
From: MSI	Respond to of 793843

Boondoggle, yes, but we can probably afford a bit of graft. Much worse is that this crushes the prosperity and creativity of the largest segment of the populace. It essentially loots the people at the lower end, creating increasing servitude of a non-represented class. Politicos are of two types in Washington -- public servants, and mercenaries. They are mostly mercenaries now, which in wartime makes them simply profiteers, in the billions of dollars. If President Lincoln were in office today, many would go to the gallows, probably 90% of them Republican because they're in power and do most of the deceiving and dealing. Very few are public servants, and the most active like Paul Wellstone are now dead or out of office, as the calculation is forced into one of special interest money. Dean has a chance to prove himself an actual public servant, due to his grass-roots campaigning. We'll see. Re: drug bill, instead of $400 BILLION to reduce drug costs, what happens is consumers pay more, taxpayers pay more, and $400 BILLION goes to special interests; the AARP is in the insurance business, who get large direct subsidies. The drug cos get direct subsidies. The people who own this country and pay in blood and treasure, are deceived. The money going to consumers is structured to flow directly to drug companies. And the $400 BILLION is the minimum, if corps don't keep people in their programs, the cost to taxpayers goes way up. Meanwhile, drug cos claim US consumers subsidize the rest of the world, where drugs are 1/3 the cost. What the f*?? We should have our seniors subsidize drug costs for the rest of the world?? This isn't free enterprise. Since it's a matter of life and death, this is simply insiders extorting those least able to object, for $400 Billion. A skein of lies from one end to the other, by vicious mercenaries in Washington. Since the usual rate of return for Washington graft is 100-to-1, if you traced the dollars it would probably amount to $4 billion in political cash one way or other over the next 10 years. As ex-Congressman Dr. Tom Coburn said last night -- "If the American people knew what what was going on in Congress they would remove them all" I'm anxious to get his book, "Breach of Trust -- How Washington Turns Outsiders into Insiders,"

To: michael97123 who wrote (17580)	11/24/2003 4:37:14 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793843

"More now than any time since I started covering Capitol Hill in 1957, Congress is a giant, bipartisan, bicameral marketplace." Even Robert Novak can't stand it. Like the vile southern joke goes, "The porcupine making love to the skunk finally says, 'I just can't stand any more of this'" suntimes.com "The tip-off on the congressional mind-set came when the House quietly abandoned plans to quit for the year this past weekend. Instead, House leaders made plans to reconvene Dec. 4 and 5 to consider an omnibus appropriations bill. ''That gives them a chance to buy votes,'' one prominent lobbyist explained to me. That is, appropriations might purchase votes for the energy bill..." It goes on...

To: michael97123 who wrote (17580)	11/24/2003 6:21:03 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793843

How cavalier of you to tell them not to have kids. Yeah, that sounds like "let them eat cake" but I think I can get away with it because I chose not to have any. It is a legitimate choice. It is not a legitimate choice to procreate and expect others to support one's offspring. We plan and work hard for what we want in life. If we want to have families, then we have to apply ourselves so that we can get better jobs, not just say "duh, look what popped out" and expect the world to genuflect. Another story about my father. He and his buddies would hang out at the club where this one guy expected everyone to buy him drinks because he had six kids and didn't have spare money for drinks. My father had one kid, because that was what he could afford. He used to rant about that guy all the time. It is in the interest of the species to correct this imbalance. That was a topic of discussion the other day. I have yet to hear any reason why populations need to grow, other to bail us out from the welfare systems we have injudiciously set up. I am not asking for anyones sympathy. I know you weren't. Actually, I'm not unappreciative of the problems of escalating costs, but I react badly to suggestions that we put more welfare systems into place. The escalating cost of college, child care, medical insurance, housing etc We've also talked here about one of the reasons for escalating medical costs is "insurance" coverage where people develop expectations of getting the best treatments with money being no object. If people were paying for their own medical bills, costs would not be so high. What we need is real insurance, catastrophic insurance, to cover calamities, which is what insurance is supposed to be, not these medical plans we call "insurance" but are really medical coverage plans. I went to college on full scholarship. I had a National Merit Scholarship, a NJ state scholarship, a local one through my community, and one from the college itself. I got my graduate degree some ten years later when I was earning enough to pay for it myself. There used to be a lot of scholarships available. Charitable giving decreases as government programs increase. FWIW, I still plan to put some kid through college to repay my debt. Just haven't found the right situation yet. SS taken from the non-needy old can be transferred to the needy young. Means testing SS has been on the table for a long time. I have problems with penalizing those who have planned ahead and saved to supplement their Social Security. That's the wrong message to send, IMO. I'd rather see the retirement age raised. As for the needy young, if you're talking about people who are disabled or down on their luck, that would be fine with me. If you're talking about fostering the notion that people can get what they want by just showing up and putting their hands out, no way I'll support that. I guess you're just a socialist and I'm just a capitalist and ne'er the twain, etc... <g>