ParanoiA

I don't know what stories you're talking about iNow, Palin is the only reason McCain is still in it. The base loves her. Rush had her on yesterday, I missed all but that last bit, and he's crazy about her, and of course the conservative base loves Rush so... I'll concede I haven't paid much attention to polls or whatnot, and haven't even really been following the political news that much lately, so maybe I've missed something.

Ok. For one, the government tax credits to business to offer health insurance but not to individuals to purchase their own (although McCain is pimping a $5,000 credit). This puts the competition in the employers field, not the individual, and incidentally quality is rarely chosen over price. Your employer doesn’t give a crap how good or bad your insurance is, they only care how cheap it is. And they make this decision for tens, or hundreds, or thousands of people that work for that company. This is the same effect of socialized medicine – your level of care decided for you, not by you. HMO's that restrict what doctors and specialists you can see. That's actually the most far reaching socialist themed enumeration and deserves far more narrative, but I'll let your senses work out how that has undermined the individual. For two, we’re slaves to insurance and their presence in the market. We think we need insurance and that’s all you hear from politicians. They are absolutely loving how well the conditioning has worked. To redirect your focus from the actual problem, to a pseudo solution that gets insurance companies even more rich and powerful to continue to undermine the intentions of medical personnel. Your imperative is quality care. Your doctor’s imperative is quality care. The insurance company’s imperative is low cost, low payout, deny everything possible. They control costs and actually dictate your treatment. The insurance method is not compatible and is destined to continue working for themselves and not you. This is a disservice. And today’s politicians are advocating this idea…for you. Third, the monopolized pharmaceutical market enjoyed by American drug manufacturers. Americans are restricted by law to purchase prescription drugs outside of the US. This was further facilitated by the Dorgan amendment that was defeated in 2007. The FDA is suspiciously financially supporting our pharmaceutical market in the face of much cheaper and arguably safer equivalent medications from countries like Canada. This creates the price fixed structure they are screwing us with today. Is that what you meant by corporate anarchy? Looks to me like government-corporate marriage in the great healthcare sham of the US. None of these examples are compatible with free market principles. They create a socialist structure out of the capitalist framework. Our healthcare is managed by an oligarchy. Actually that's true, and should be the end evolutionary goal of man, in terms of ethical negotiation and cooperation between humans. Government is a present necessity, not a future investment.

Did you consider the vanishing credits which goes with the marginal tax rate argument? Also, I didn't see anywhere in the article where they said low income earners will have a higher tax liability. I think they're beef is that the marginal tax rate "spikes", implying they believe it shouldn't increase at all, or at least more subtley. I can see where they have a problem with this. Sure a person's total liability is lower, but that rate is a little concentrated just after 25K. It would be akin to saying that there is zero liability up to 50K, but every dollar after that is 30%. It's a little weird to go from zero and jump up to a rate like that. At least, I think that's their argument. And from your link: Clearly they're making an argument that analyzes the marginal tax rate with his proposed tax credits, not in absence of those credits.

Yet another fan whose love I cannot return.

Hmm... Bob Barr 65% Cynthia McKinney 63% Ralph Nader 63% McCain 55% Obama 49%

Those aren't pejorative statements bascule, in and of themselves. I'm just saying that intellectuals tend to have their eye on function over preference. It would be easy for me to launch into another offense on rationalizing around principles, but that's not the point of my post. An intellectual is more likely to focus their attention on high performace, high efficiency, top notch function of say, Healthcare, with less emphasis and concern for what kind of government that creates. Whereas the idea behind rejecting the intellectual is about attention and focus on maintaining a preference for capitalism; creating a capitalist system, with less emphasis and concern for what kind of performance that gives us. And I think that's a legitimate resistance to intellectualism. Not a ban, a healthy resistance. Otherwise there's a potential monopoly of class and elitism. As iNow says, it's a broad brush and appropriate here since we're speaking in generalities.

It's the ole pendulum swinging routine. Too far one way and then too far the other.

Well the anti-intellectualism thing certainly has gone too far. I always figured the legitimacy in rejecting capitulation to the intellectual class had to do with a focus on preference over a focus on performance. Intellectuals have a tendency to concentrate on performance and efficiency without as much regard for the principles of the framework. For instance, investing efforts in creating a smooth medical system without reverance to freedom of choice. Or intellectualizing gun control without as much thought given to the structure of the people's fundamental medium to check their government. Not trying to start a gun or medical debate, just making the point that there's a legitimate reason to reject too much higher intellect. Clearly that has inflated to a absolutely stupid level.

It's already insidious that we tax labor, let alone the stab in the back of a progressive rate on that labor. Also, what's this bit in the attack ad by Obama about McCain taxing benefits for the first time ever?

This is a job position, not a sporting event. I don't agree with using the words "winning" and "losing". I don't say I won the job at the door shop. That is perhaps the worst side effect of this pyschological spin - that we turn this into a competition and not a job occupation. Doesn't that just fit so perfectly for the two party seige? To get the people's focus off of honest, statesmanship, and fool them into believing they actually need a better liar than the other guy? We need to change how we think and that starts with the public. I understand what you're saying John, sincerely, and it's age old logic that has failed us repeatedly, and is competing for prime blame for the present situation. When you "accept" and rationalize overt misrepresentation, lying, fraud - then you are as guilty as they. You enable the fraudulent to continue to lead us. That has snowballed over time and now that's the only option we have - liars and theives that have managed to trick us, using our natural weakness to compete, into choosing the least offensive liar. More importantly, how else will it ever stop if you keep rationalizing the status quo? Yes, if you vote for some guy that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, then that's one more vote for the guy you don't like. But that's near sighted, and not very thoughtful for a wise, reasoned citizen; those votes will increase exponentially as people take notice. Shouldn't we be looking to the future? Isn't that how we get ourselves into all of this economic and international trouble? Isn't that how we racked up this debt - consistently focused on today, and never on tomorrow? Isn't that a talking point for our children? Don't we teach them that they must think ahead, of the future, and that the failure to do so will doom them to failure?

I don't understand the case for banning. My family buys nothing but those new flourescents, because of the efficiency, and there's no ban on incandescents here. They're quite popular and are getting moreso by the day - they sell themselves and will continue to as they get better. Again, it looks like we jump to coersion to get people to do what we want in this world. How absolutely sickening. I sure hope my pathetic government doesn't do this, but if it looks like the people are ready to sell out more of their freedoms they'll jump all over it. I wonder how long it will be until we don't even bring shit up for discussion; just pass laws without any reverence for such notions as choice; just default to the official government position for all choices.

At this point in international tension, I could easily buy a national security imperative to roll something like this out. I think that's the best way to sell the idea too, leave the obvious benefits to global warming out of it, or right wingers won't jump on board. I think you hook them with the energy independence angle.

Oh for the love of...Thor, is it? WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We have a socialist bubble within a capitalist framework. Stop with the logical fallacies that presuppose we have a free market here, we do not. Our present system is the perfect example of why non-competitive markets are hideous for efficiency. There is no check on a socialist system. There is a natural check in an actual free market, even a regulated free market. But we do not have one of those here. I'll go back to where I started a year ago when this thread first started - why do we want to trade one crappy system for another one? Why trade one set of problems for a different set? Our problems here are still cost. Not insurance, like the rich fat cats on Wall Street love for you all to believe. (Hillary had them jumping in their shoes at the broadened prospect of government paid insurance). It's not outdated; it's that freedom is up for sale. Free market capitalism is the only philosophically proper compliment to individual liberty. All other forms of capital management are an investment in the polar opposite to that end. Man will never evolve to govern himself by investing in external coersion.

Democratic Underground is essentially a high-five site for left wingers, while freepers appears to be the right wing equivalent. They are more interested in extremist trashing and bashing than facts and evidence. It's the kind of stuff 9/11 truthers, and Alex Jones use for their news source. I completely understand why Pangloss is trying to avoid that and we should all thank him for it.

America isn't about fair and neither is any other government. America is about freedom, public participation in law and order, sweeping individual liberty, self empowerment - all of these things add up to survival of the fittest. Ingenuity rewarded with profits. There's plenty of degrees of socialism, communism spread around the world's governments - we're capitalist, and should stay that way if for no other reason than diversity. What's fair about wealth redistribution? What's fair about coercive morality enforcement? What's fair about welfare? Income taxes on labor? There is no fair government on the planet. What is fair to you is coercive to someone else. The most even handed approach is to maximize individual freedom to pursue security and wealth by one's own achievements. For each individual to earn their property, their keep. Anything else is stealing what hasn't been earned.

I can't help but think she internally absolutely hates the idea of going on that show - all those sinners, that probably read books that should have been banned, that did a skit on her husband and daughter committing incest, that have wildly different ideas of moral behavior pushing her limits of the appearance of tolerance. That's a bit shallow of me, but she reminds me of a neighbor that pushed me to hanging a sign on my porch that said "No White Christian Trash Allowed". No offense, but she had it coming.

It's the trust thing really. If you grew up republican, even if you delve into the details of it and don't like what you see, you still have an impulse to trust them over "the other guy". Sounds to me like you're more of a liberal with a tradition of republicanism. Anyone who thinks it's an "injustice" not to be "insured" - an insidious wart on the ass of capitalism - is definitely a large group social services via coercive theft thinker. By the way, you might correct that redirection conditioning by asking yourself why you think "insurance" is the problem and not the "cost of healthcare". I see that as one of the biggest problems of group-think politics - it's so easy to condition the populace to make arbitrary connections that miss the point (and keep others rich) like insurance = healthcare.

The only thing valuable, that I can see, is demonstrating they can take a joke and have a sense of humor. Reading the blogs under that article, it would appear SNL only attracts liberal minded folk and they see her as a hater. I'm not sure how it could hurt her at all to do the show, that's for sure.

Anybody who seriously wants to fix it gets no support from you. I'm not sure what you're complaining about. When someone has the balls to advocate fundamental change in attitude and application of government and its structure, you hold some outrageous position against them as if that's their whole platform. Yes, I realize Dr Paul has some ideas that might turn you off, but ANY candidate advocating that level of change in federal government is going to have ideas we don't like; are going to be out of whack with us on SOMETHING for crying out loud. It's not the end of the road, but it certainly is the end of their chances to fix it for you. I would suggest a change in attitude from everyone - stop expecting perfection from human beings. Stop expecting them to agree with you on even 80% of what you believe. Start rewarding honesty. Start rewarding imperfection, and stop rewarding facades. Today's political game has so incrementally crumbled to the ground that we actually give 169,000 dollar a year jobs to people who overtly misrepresent themselves. McCain and Obama are a perfect example of that. They both lie, incessantly. Yet, they are the two main players. How sad. That's on you. Everyone who supports them, supports lying over honesty. And it will never change, until you do. /soapbox

Hmm, ok I will definitely check into that. And I wonder if spa retreats are tax deductible.

This is not a stimulus bill, it's a bailout bill. By the way, thanks for the link. I'm still checking it out, but it looks like you have to buy top notch stuff to qualify - that's preliminary though, maybe there's some better options further into it.

You said it "is a conspiracy" (bold and all). We discuss conspiracy theories in Pseudoscience and Speculations. I don't see that. He said AS IF it is a conspiracy.

I've been ready to fire my gas and electric companies for years now. Especially KC P&L, there's a special place in hell for those bastards. Seriously, that's a good enough reason to believe in god; to enjoy the thought of them writhing in a lake of fire.

So how does that credit work? If I spend 10,000 on solar for my house, does that mean I can include 3,000 of that in my itemized deductions?

Republicanism is the advocation of a republic. Do you think a republic is an elitist, self-serving, apathetic system of bullshit? Or are you referring to the cartel..err, I mean party? Right, and that's not myopic. In case you haven't noticed, I'm defending my guy here. He's accusing Dr Paul of being shallow minded, and I'm retorting that he is not and providing some reasoning to support that conclusion. Sure, we're very much NOT in charge, like you say, but that's his chant: get in charge people, screw the bailout, screw all the politics as usual, let's take our country back...yadda yadda yadda. And it's a thoughtful position, even if you don't agree. People presume it's based on idealism, ivory tower rationale - pick your favorite pejorative to dismiss the threat of those who take the constitution seriously and put more stock behind the balance of power that each generation is giving away, incrementally. Bascule and others lose it when Georgie passes the patriot act, but they don't care how many shiny shoes and suits transfer wealth to their pockets and control our money, which effects our policy, war, our whole "empire" - something Jefferson warned about specifically. Instead, we must realize there's nothing ideal about retaining that power, it has problems and we've read all about them - but privatizing the creation of money and going to a fiat currency is not the answer to those problems. If we had retained that power, our economy and our global interface to that economy would have evolved, just as it has evolved with the Federal Reserve cartel. In other words, it wouldn't look like 1950, it would look like 2008, and it also wouldn't look like it does today. So, I appreciate your point on dealing with the reality today, and we're not in charge today, and I want to change that. You can talk about details of the bailout, and talk with the academics on how that effects the economy as it is built today, and I'm sure I'll play along from time to time, but my long term position, as is Paul's, and hopefully more and more people's is to restore our sole power to create currency and back it up with real assets.