PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic Patriotic retirement bail-out plan

Oh no - we're not going to open the ol' evolution can o' worms, are we? If we do that, the servers hosting the forum will likely burst into flames

You mean those new AI servers that are constantaly evolving?

Bob

ZING!

Well, back to the health care situation, Obama just gave a speech to the American Medical Association. Here's a quote from the LA Times:

"...Obama was warmly received by the AMA convention, which gave him numerous standing ovations and booed him just once, when he said he does not support caps on malpractice awards."

This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody talks about in this debate. When doctors and hospitals are liable for megamillion dollar jury awards and have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in malpractice insurance premiums because of it, and the trial lawyers have the Democrats and Obama himself in a death grip, how can costs come down?

Bob

This is a very long thread based almost entirely on statistics

As any fool knows (and Churchill once said), 'There are lies, damned lies and then there are... STATISTICS!'

Just my two pence worth

Nice to know that the House and Senate ( and prez and vice) are all lawyers, isn't it?( save maybe a few congressmen)....I'd love to see a bill passed that stipulates only non-lawyers may run for poitical office of any kind. Now all we have to do is get about a thousand normal folk armed to the hilt and march into the halls of congress and force them to sign and we're in buisness. Iterestingly, the best president in my lifetime( born in 1960) was an actor, of all things. ( Regan) I'd be willing to wager a pound of michigan cherries that since 1960 all the presidents have been lawyers. We need a body polotic that isn't sympathetic to lawyers. My 2 cents.....

There were several doctors on a talk show yesterday. They said only about 30% of doctors belong to the AMA. It's more of a political group than a fellowship of doctors. The docs said, "when Americans hear that the AMA might be for it, they will assume it means all doctors".

We need term limits & no more lawyers.

I couldn't even begin to respond to all that has been said just in the last two pages. My personal opinion, is that Everyone (and I capitalize solely for impact), and Every institution, be it Science in general or any particular branch thereof, Religion in general or any particular denomination or non-denomination thereof, has it's own axe to grind, and it's own motive for every action it takes. This includes of course Governments (regarless of nationality).

Science is intent on proving themselves right on every issue, and yet we find them changing their facts every few years.

Religions present themselves as our moral compass, and yet many of those in positions of supposed reverance are often caught in fraud, child abuse, skimming from the local church, adultry etc.

Everyone that belongs to any group, even PG forums, do so because they find some common ground with others there and have a desire to participate or learn or teach or just socialize. Obama sat in a "Christian" church for over 20 years under a pastor who by his own words hates this country. They socialized together, had dinner at each others house, etc. Is it any wonder that Obama is leading us down a path of financial and political destruction?

Every evolutionist has a reason for their argument, even if it cannot be documented, every religious zealot has a reason for their fanticism regardless of how psychologically disturbing it may be. Every politician has an agenda, as does every political party.

As individuals, we can only do what we feel is the right thing to do, and even then we tend to screw up a lot.

I do know that when the government has control of our basic rights, we are at the mercy of whatever agenda they have in mind. If I wanted to control the populace, I would do the following:

1. Make sure all their medical and prescription needs had to be routed thru the government.

2. Try to get as many poor people on some sort of government assistance, so they have to depend on the government for their income.

3. Take away all the guns from the people so they cannot riot against the new regime, when they decide that their health care is insufficient, and their income is not enough to live on.

4. Then I would try to nationalize every major industry so that the government makes all operational decisions as to what they make, how they make it, and who can buy it.

5. Then I would set up a state controlled religion, and remove any reference to God from our money, from our schools, from our public buildings, etc.

6. Then of course I'd have to change the Pledge of Allegiance.

Btw, has anyone ever seen Obama salute the Flag? I haven't I did see a video of him not saluting the flag while the national anthem was being played.

Capitalism isn't a perfect system by any means, but it fits in well with all the rights we seem to want as human beings, and americans.



Next time vote for Huckabee and "Do The Right Thing"

If there is a goofier human being on the planet ( and shameless self-promoter) than Huckabee, I havn't seen him. When he doesn't have a political axe to grind, which isn't often, I find the guy to be quite the pragmatist. ...

Real quick, toucher: IMO, Obama is by far the most intelligent and articulate President in my lifetime. Will that make for a great president? Who knows. Lets all hope so. The poor guy inherited a cluster you -know-what from the last administration that will be almost impossible to fix. I also think that Bush was a very decent guy who didn't ask to be "the war" president.

My sincere wish is that the exteamists from both parties would for once and for all stop all the " you guys suck" back and fourth that's been going on for as long as I can remember and simply do what's best for all of us; not a select few. Drop the tired "mantra's" and try something fresh. Like being honest. Every time I turn on Fox News, those guys are constantly lambasting Obama....the guys been in office for what?......150 days? lol...it's like come on man. As a proud "Independant" I hope that everyone tries to find solutions instead of blaming the other guy. That would be a welcom change. PS..I've seen Obama solute the flag a number of times. Dont beleive the BS you get form our freinds at " Fox"...;)

I can agree with you on most accounts Swan, being a pragmatic person myself, I never vote party as I believe one to be about as evil as the other. They both have agenda's they are just different agenda's, neither of which as far as I can tell are good for the general welfare of the country. As far as I'm concerned, 90% of the politicians should probably be in jail. If anyone ran a business the way our country has been managed for the last 100 years or so They would all have failed, which is what I'm am afraid is about to happen to our way of life as we know it.

Just my opinion.

I am an idependent myself although I do register with a party to have access to the primary voting privelege.

Well said, guys.

G'day Glenn,
well put mate. All areas of human endeavour has it's:
a) Zealots
b) True believers
c) Followers
d) Hangers' on
e) Uninterested
f) Detractors
g) Violently opposed
and all kinds of levels in between. Sadly, the loudest ones are usually also the least knowledgeable and/or the ones so one eyed they can't be honest about the errors or truths depending whether they are a supporter or detractor.

It's a sad reality that too much emotional involvement will always get in the way of objective truth.

G'day Sam,
I understand Monika'a dilemma - I too have been involved in statistical analysis as part of my profession. And hated it every time my results were deliberately misrepresented in order for some "executive" to make a point. Now I'm in my own business at least I can direct the quality of the information gathered. My staff know I won't tolerate adulterated data. (or office politics! That's a very quick way to get sacked in my company!)

The real problem we in the general populace have is that we have no idea how the statistics we are presented with have been manipulated. Anyone with an agenda to push will be tempted to lie. Sadly, some succumb, and statistical presentations are an easy way to do this.

One persons " objective truth" is another persons " objective ambiguity". Ditto for "objective statisics".

I must confess I have not read all the posts on this impressively vast thread but somewhat dissipated thread.
It sometimes gets slow in the office but not that slow.

So, as a first time contributor to this discussion, I will turn my attention to the original post by Notes.

I sincerely hope that this is meant to be amusing because as a serious economic programme we are in “moon is made of cheese” territory.

In fact it’s making my head spin to identify and arrange all the entirely false premises on which it is based.

After much reflection and several rewrites, here is my top five:

1) Employment is not a cake which can be divided or rearranged on a plate. By withdrawing a certain number of people from the labour force you most certainly do not create an equal number of jobs for other people to fill, however intuitive this may appear.

It was this kind of thinking that led the poor misguided French government to introduce its famous 35-hour working week, and we’ve all seen how many jobs that created. (preceisly none)

The only way to increase employment is to:
- stimulate demand or, more probably, do no nothing to constrain the market forces which would, left to their own devices, stimulate demand
- ensure that the labour market is free and fluid

2) The withdrawal of all that knowledge and experience from the labour force would have disastrous consequences. In many professions it is workers in this age group who contribute the greatest value as they are both training the next generation and putting all the experience they have built up to use.

3) It is philosophically flawed in the context of a liberal economy to tell consumers what they have to buy. This would change fundamentally the values (free choice, limited role of government…) on which the system is supposed to be based.

4) Having introduced such a plan, the USA would quickly suffer the effects from other troubled economies introducing similar nonsensical protectionist measures in imitation. The effects would soon be catastrophic, not only on the USA economy but the world economy.

5) Such a programme could never be enforced. What sanctions would apply to noncomplying over 50s? What constitutes an American car (is it made by a US registered company? do all the parts and materials have to come from the USA? who is going to check and how much would that cost? etc…)

But, of course, you were only joking, Bob!!