When people (well, most people I would assume) use the terms socialist, fascist, communist, etc. on here, they are referring to those economic systems, not the brutal dictatorships that went along with those economic systems in the past. And we are most definitely a combination of a fascist economy and a socialist economy, with a little bit of a capitalist economy still mixed in, but quickly dwindling.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: domestic terrorism --

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/87697-republicans-assail-irs-provision-in-health-care-bill-

We have elected the enemy.

Domestic terrorism? My God, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm not a fan of that provision myself, as the IRS already has enough stuff to deal with. But ,domestic terrorism? Please, you are just fear mongering

I'd consider the U.S. government the biggest threat to the continuation of America. That'd make them terrorists. We have much more to be afraid of from our very own government than any foreign power/person/group attacking this country.

tk421 wrote:
I'd consider the U.S. government the biggest threat to the continuation of America. That'd make them terrorists. We have much more to be afraid of from our very own government than any foreign power/person/group attacking this country.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. - Lincoln

True for different reasons today. However, Jefferson realized this when he wrote "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Hence, the reason he felt there should be a rebellion every 20 years. But for some reason we think we are smarter than those who founded this country.

tk421 wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: domestic terrorism --

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/87697-republicans-assail-irs-provision-in-health-care-bill-

We have elected the enemy.

Domestic terrorism? My God, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm not a fan of that provision myself, as the IRS already has enough stuff to deal with. But ,domestic terrorism? Please, you are just fear mongering

I'd consider the U.S. government the biggest threat to the continuation of America. That'd make them terrorists. We have much more to be afraid of from our very own government than any foreign power/person/group attacking this country.

I think that is one of the craziest things I have heard in a while. US government=terrorist. Nice.

Now, let's explore this. Does this include agencies of the US government? If so, which agencies, perhaps the NSA, CIA or even the DoD? Are they terrorists? Are our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan terrorists because they are in the US government? State Department officials, Energy officials?

Or are you referring to just the elected officials? But, is that all the elected officials or just the ones you disagree with? Is your Congressman a terrorists? How so?

What is your definition of terrorism? How is the "government" terrorizing you? What tactics are they using?

Crazy man.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
I think that is one of the craziest things I have heard in a while. US government=terrorist. Nice.

Policies of the government can be terrorist policies.

Terrorism does not necessarily include violence. It simply means instilling fear in the civilian population in order to enact political change. Based on that definition, the government is easily guilty of domestic terrorism.

eersandbeers wrote:

tk421 wrote:
I'd consider the U.S. government the biggest threat to the continuation of America. That'd make them terrorists. We have much more to be afraid of from our very own government than any foreign power/person/group attacking this country.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. - Lincoln

True for different reasons today. However, Jefferson realized this when he wrote "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Hence, the reason he felt there should be a rebellion every 20 years. But for some reason we think we are smarter than those who founded this country.

Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us-Kennedy. I think that is a little relevant today.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

tk421 wrote:
I'd consider the U.S. government the biggest threat to the continuation of America. That'd make them terrorists. We have much more to be afraid of from our very own government than any foreign power/person/group attacking this country.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. - Lincoln

True for different reasons today. However, Jefferson realized this when he wrote "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Hence, the reason he felt there should be a rebellion every 20 years. But for some reason we think we are smarter than those who founded this country.

Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us-Kennedy. I think that is a little relevant today.

JFK was wrong in the fact that he believed the two policies are separate. I do not come from that school of thinking. I believe nearly all foreign policies are rooted in domestic policies.

That quote may have been more relevant back then. How could it kill us today?

The government is far more capable of destroying this country than any foreign country.

Yeah, we agree to disagree on quotes and terrorism.

Back to healthcare discussion.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I think that is one of the craziest things I have heard in a while. US government=terrorist. Nice.

Now, let's explore this. Does this include agencies of the US government? If so, which agencies, perhaps the NSA, CIA or even the DoD? Are they terrorists? Are our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan terrorists because they are in the US government? State Department officials, Energy officials?

Or are you referring to just the elected officials? But, is that all the elected officials or just the ones you disagree with? Is your Congressman a terrorists? How so?

What is your definition of terrorism? How is the "government" terrorizing you? What tactics are they using?

Crazy man.

I know that you know what he is referring to. He is not suggesting that the government is going to start sending suicide bombers into American buildings. He is suggesting that what the government (as a whole, not a particular department) is doing (by eliminating more and more personal freedoms and pushing forward with an unsustainable economic model) is more dangerous to our way of life than the threat of attacks from actual terrorists.

Cleveland Buck wrote:
I know that you know what he is referring to. He is not suggesting that the government is going to start sending suicide bombers into American buildings. He is suggesting that what the government (as a whole, not a particular department) is doing (by eliminating more and more personal freedoms and pushing forward with an unsustainable economic model) is more dangerous to our way of life than the threat of attacks from actual terrorists.

Which is what many of us have been saying since the War on Terrorism started, but for some reason, the right has only recently decided to get on board.

Getting back to the health care bill, I am totally for it. I am on disability and have many health issues. This year my insurance company (Regence Blue Shield) increased my monthly premiums by 64% and increased my copays by 150%. I am retaliating by cancelling my policy and going with Humana. I don't know if they are any better, but they couldn't be any worse.

At any rate, I believe President Obama's bill will help people like me. I hope this bill gets passed and I hope I'm proven right.

FairwoodKing wrote: Getting back to the health care bill, I am totally for it. I am on disability and have many health issues.

Sorry you're on disability but your problems aren't my problems.

FairwoodKing wrote:I am retaliating by cancelling my policy and going with Humana. I don't know if they are any better, but they couldn't be any worse.

Retaliating? I have a hunch Blue Cross/Blue Shield will be glad to see you go.

FairwoodKing wrote:At any rate, I believe President Obama's bill will help people like me. I hope this bill gets passed and I hope I'm proven right.

You Big Government will take care of me Kool Aid drinkers are killing me. But no worries right? ObamaKare to the rescue.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

tk421 wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: domestic terrorism --

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/87697-republicans-assail-irs-provision-in-health-care-bill-

We have elected the enemy.

Domestic terrorism? My God, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm not a fan of that provision myself, as the IRS already has enough stuff to deal with. But ,domestic terrorism? Please, you are just fear mongering

I'd consider the U.S. government the biggest threat to the continuation of America. That'd make them terrorists. We have much more to be afraid of from our very own government than any foreign power/person/group attacking this country.

I think that is one of the craziest things I have heard in a while. US government=terrorist. Nice.

Now, let's explore this. Does this include agencies of the US government? If so, which agencies, perhaps the NSA, CIA or even the DoD? Are they terrorists? Are our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan terrorists because they are in the US government? State Department officials, Energy officials?

Or are you referring to just the elected officials? But, is that all the elected officials or just the ones you disagree with? Is your Congressman a terrorists? How so?

What is your definition of terrorism? How is the "government" terrorizing you? What tactics are they using?

Crazy man.

Dick Durbin seems to think so. Well, at least he did when the other guy was POTUS.

Those of us in the private sector who have to meet a payroll every week and pay our bills on time are fully aware of the FACT that the government has become our biggest 'competitor/enemy'. The intrusion has grown so large and into every facet that you can hardly even 'get out on the real playing field' to compete with the real global competitors because management time is so entirely consumed with dealing with government interference and intrusion. It is sickening; it is killing us, and the employees are the ultimate losers along with the American public at large.

Unfortunately, so many now feed at the public trough, that turning it back is going to be nearly impossible....... but it is definitely unsustainable, and this new health bill will only hasten our demise.

RedRider1 wrote: Boccieri was imported into this district after 30+ yrs of Regula...and voted FOR Cap/Tax & Obamacare.

See ya John-boy.

Just came out today to say he will be voting yes.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/rep-boccieri-switches-to-yes-o.html?wprss=44

FairwoodKing wrote: I am retaliating by cancelling my policy and going with Humana.

When you are on government care you will no longer have this choice.

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: I am retaliating by cancelling my policy and going with Humana.

When you are on government care you will no longer have this choice.

And the quality of care will very likely be much worse.

majorspark wrote:

RedRider1 wrote: Boccieri was imported into this district after 30+ yrs of Regula...and voted FOR Cap/Tax & Obamacare.

See ya John-boy.

Just came out today to say he will be voting yes.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/rep-boccieri-switches-to-yes-o.html?wprss=44

Bye-bye Boccieri.

This clown rode the wave of a bad economy and Obama-mania in 2008, (in a District that hadn't had a Dem in 40 or so years), was not even a resident of the 16th District (he's from Youngstown, I believe), and he votes for cap-and-tax and now the healthcare bill.

I think he knows he's toast, and so he could care less about his constituency and is selling out for Obama/Pelosi.

majorspark wrote:

gibby08 wrote: Why is that major....because you don't like what they have to say??

Because they have a history of grossly under estimating these things. Here is your answer.

In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.

In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.

The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit—subsequently repealed—from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion.

In light of these past facts do you know how foolish these politicians look with their cost projections. Almost as foolish as those that believe them.

This article was written when the congressional republicans were fixing to pass an expansion of Medicare to include prescription drug coverage.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...JlMmU5ZTg5MjI=

And here is one reason why CBO numbers are always bullshit. Trust me this is just one of many. Before this is all said and done you will be multiplying the original CBO estimate. Just like the past estimates noted above.

From the article.

Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this spring that would permanently repeal annual Medicare cuts to doctors, but are warning lawmakers not to talk about it for fear that it will complicate their push to pass comprehensive health reform. The plans undercut the party's message that reform lowers the deficit, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO.

Democrats removed the so-called doc fix from the reform legislation last year because its $371-billion price tag would have made it impossible for Democrats to claim that their bill reduces the deficit. Republicans have argued for months that by stripping the doc fix from the bill, Democrats were playing a shell game.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

Here is a copy of the memo on how to dupe the sheep.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM138_100319_recon.html

Strategy from the memo. I wonder if the CBO got the memo?

Most health staff are already aware that our health proposal does not contain a 'doc fix.' … The inclusion of a full SGR repeal would undermine reform’s budget neutrality. So again, do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and number of Americans covered,”

"As most health staff knows, leadership and the White House are working with the AMA to rally physicians for a full SGR repeal later this spring. However, both health and communications staff should understand we do not want that policy discussion discussed at this time, lest (it) complicate the last critical push to pass health reform,”

Gibby you've been duped. They got you eating out of the palm of their hand.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

majorspark wrote:When you are on government care you will no longer have this choice.

And the quality of care will very likely be much worse.

Writer and Major,

How many times have I told you to stop wasting your time arguing facts or using logic when debating die-hard liberals? They only implode...in much the same manner the Democratic Party is disintegrating before our very eyes this weekend.

^^Along those lines- good work from Paul Ryan on the House Budget Committee:

http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2007/pr20100318cbopreanalysis.pdf

"The legislation includes ten years of tax increases and ten years of Medicare cuts
to pay for six years of spending. The true ten-year cost when subsidies kick in?
$2.4 trillion."

"The Office of Management and Budget has estimated that the cost of the
doc fix would add an additional $371 billion to the cost of the legislation.
With the price tag beyond what most Americans could handle, the
Majority decided to simply remove this costly provision and deal with it
in separate legislation.
The preliminary CBO cost estimate of H.R 4872 assumes cuts in
physician reimbursement rates by 21 percent this year, and continued cuts
in the years ahead.
Ignoring this additional cost does not remove it from the backs of
taxpayers. Hiding spending doesn’t reduce spending."

Hey Quaker, you got a link for that, or is this a chain email that you got?


Also, of note, the House D's, will drop the "deem and pass" and actually vote of the measure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001651.html?hpid=topnews

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Hey Quaker, you got a link for that, or is this a chain email that you got?


Also, of note, the House D's, will drop the "deem and pass" and actually vote of the measure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001651.html?hpid=topnews

Yeah, but not because they feel it's the right thing to do. They realize there are too many potential legal issues involved -- so it's forcing them to actually step up and be accountable when they'd prefer not to.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:Also, of note, the House D's, will drop the "deem and pass" and actually vote of the measure.

Passing this bogus bill is political suicide enough for the Dems who own this lock, stock and barrel. Dropping the "deem & pass" option only demonstrates that they don't want the voters to twist the knife after they plunge it into the jackass this November.

The "self executing" rule fascinated me, as I was unaware that the Democrats would do anything as Unamerican as secretly voting not to vote on health care and sneak it past us. I had to find out just how many times in the past the Democrats used this sneaky underhanded and socialist method of getting what they wanted by this device. I was stunned when I discovered that the Democratic House under Speaker Tip O'Neil used this dastardly device 20 separate times to get things passed in the 99th Congress without a vote. Not to be outdone, House Speaker Jim O'Neil used it 18 more times in the 100th Congress to slip things past us. 38 times those evil Democrats snuck things past us by invoking this probably Pinko tactic that smacks of totalitarianism. To be fair I checked out whether the Republicans would stoop to these low handed socialistic tactics. Here is what I found. In the 104th Congress Republican Speaker "Newt" Gingrich used this tactic 38 times. In the 105th Congress, it was used 52 times...again under Republican leadership. Dennis Hasterd, Republican Speaker for the 106 and 107 and 108th Congresses used it a total of 112 times all together, for a grand total of 194 times that the Republican Congressional leadership used the very same thing that is being loudly criticized by our Conservative friends now.
I guess the rule is, if it's something you don't agree with, it's automatically Unamerican and totalitarian, but if it suits your political position, it's ok. I think what I'm driving at here is, what's good for the goose, is generally considered good for the gander.