this whole thing has been politicised and blown out of proportion for the sake of DRAMA.
I mean if you go and help prostitutes, than people say 'OMG look at him! he is giving tax advise to prostitues!! SHAME!!!'
And if you dont do any help, than people say 'look at him, he is sooo cruel and cold, just because the poor girl is prostitute he just kicked her out like she is a roadside orphange animal or something.. '
The moral of the story?
: "When some wannabe reporter joins a cheap media company and decides to do a sting operation by being a prostitute, she is prostituting herself more than a real prostitute does.. "
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
I did read it. If you are trying to have a pissing contest over what political party spends more excessively and wastes more taxpayer money on failed programs and policies, take a look at your voter registraion card.
You know, it's quite interesting to me to hear rants and retorts like this. I always find it amazing how Republicans whine and complain about how bad government is, and then when they get into power it becomes their mission to defund and destroy government programs JUST TO PROVE THEIR ING POINT. I'm more than happy to get into a pissing match with you on this, by all means let's compare the last 3 Republican presidents versus the last Democratic president and how much of taxpayer money was spent and thrown out the window. I'm sure you're more than aware that Clinton had the smallest government than any 3 of those last Republican Presidents despite their tax cuts and "small" government philosophies, but hey, don't let that get in your way.
Start the pissing match any time you wish, champ, but I'd prefer you do so in another thread since this one is seemingly taking one too many tangents from the original topic.
quote:
It's quite laughable you are using the Iraq war spending as a benchmark to absolve ACORN's taxpayer funding... becuase it's not about that; it's about the culture of corruption that exists within that organization,
Straw man. When did I ever say I was absolving ACORN of anything? I freely admit they have likely done wrongdoing, and fully support the Senate investigation. What I am arguing against is just how "corrupt" and "systemic" they truly are, and then comparing such corruption and tax payer funding to other tax payer funds that's much larger in proportion and demonstrating how silly your argument, excuse me, Beck and Limbaugh's argument is.
quote:
and is obviously pervasive and has been tracked as being so for over 10 years. I highly doubt YOU read the article showing the corrupt money tree of the ACORN organization. If you did, you wouldn't have written a 10,000 word rebuttal.
Funny how your rebuttal is a few thousand words as well, but I fail to see how that is relevant to anything. In fact, my rebuttal of length is a direct result of reading those accusations.
quote:
Basically, all you need to know is that on their literature, they say: ACORN is a non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization with national headquarters in New York, New Orleans and Washington, D.C.
Irrelevant. Wasted taxpayer money is still wasted taxpayer money regardless of business model, whether it's a nonprofit (ACORN) or for-profit (Halliburton, Blackwater, AIG, etc.).
quote:
Again with the "tax dollars down the drain" argument. I should remind you that (just to name a few) Social Security, the "war on poverty", the "great society", ...
I'm happy to talk about Social Security anytime you wish, champ (again, preferably in another thread). And the war on poverty was part of the Great Society, as was Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Food Stamps, VISTA, Dept. of Transportation, public broadcasting, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration , Truth in Lending Act, Cigarette Labelling Act of 1965 along with various other consumer protection acts, the Clean Air, Clear Air, Water Quality and Clean Water Restoration Acts and Amendments, Wilderness Act, Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1965, Land and Water Conservation Act, and the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, just to name a few.
Yeah, I can see how such things are eeeeevil and such a waste to you and the Conservatives. Strange how many of these programs actually EXPANDED under the likes of Republicans like Nixon and Ford, not to mention the likes of your party hero, Ronnie Reagan extending Medicare solvency in 1983. Funny how those darn Republicans can seemingly be Communists at times......
Now, is there wasteful spending on some of these programs? No doubt, and I fully believe in having a Congress and President work on such wasted spending. Coincidentally, that's exactly what Obama wants to do with the Health Care plan, i.e. the majority of the funds to pay for the program coming from wasted spending in Medicare. I believe even Conservatives agree with him on that regard, correct?
And how about you? Do you believe that such wasteful spending by Conservatives and the past 3 Conservative Administrations who've expanded the government much larger than the last Democratic president? Or are you about to tell me it's only Democrats that waste money?
However it was admittedly and specifically designed to be a temporary success, not a long-term program, i.e. a STIMULUS program to help get the economy going. What's your point? (again, another thread would be preferable).
quote:
the current stimulus debacle
Many Dems were equally pissed off at the handouts to these companies who collectively screwed us all over. But hey, don't tell your WSJ about how bad the "stimulus debacle" is:
All Democrat ideas which have evolved into total overpriced boondoggles.
Yeah, and we're all a bunch of Nazi fascists too. Seriously, get a ing life.
quote:
You seem to think that because certain programs used with taxpayer dollars are enlised with "good intentions", the consequences don't matter.
Straw man. Show me where I ever said or even implied such a thing.
My argument is simple - you are mad about wasteful spending on a program like ACORN, a program that has taken a pittance of taxpayer money compared to other government-funded programs and contracts, and I am simply demonstrating your anger is misplaced when a comparison in full context to other programs is made. Speaking of which, here's another group that should ideally get you steamin' when it comes to wasting taxpayer $ - General Electric. Take a look at what this wonderful company had done working as a subcontractor for our government over the years:
quote:
A Brief List of criminal, civil, political and ethical transgressions
1949 General Electric deliberately released radioactive material to see how far downwind it would travel.
1986 the United States and General Electric had conducted experiments on hundreds of United States citizens. One of GE’s most gruesome experiments — disclosed in the Markey hearings — was performed on inmates at a prison in Walla Walla, Washington, near Hanford. Starting in 1963, 64 prisoners had their scrotums and testes irradiated to determine the effects of radiation on human reproductive organs.
GE is wholly or partially liable for at least 78 federal Superfund sites.
+ On September 29, 1998, General Electric agreed to a $200 million settlement in principle of environmental claims resulting from pollution of the Housatonic River and other areas by chemical releases from GE’s plant in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. The claims result from a long history of GE’s use and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other hazardous substances at the plant, which GE no longer uses for manufacturing.
+ On March 26, 1998, General Electric agreed to pay a $92,000 fine for previous violations of environmental reporting requirements for toxic releases at its silicone manufacturing plant in Waterford, New York,
+ On September 15, 1995, General Electric agreed to pay $137,000 in fines and expenses and to clean up a hazardous waste dump at a former plant where it repaired and rebuilt transformers.
+ October 1993, investigators swooped down on the GE Apparatus Service Center in Brandon, Florida with search warrants to take soil samples and confiscate computer records and files. Inspectors found 30 violations,
GE closed the facility in December 1993.
+ On March 13, 1992, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a $20,000 fine against General Electric for violations of regulations at the fuel fabrication plant in Wilmington, North Carolina.
+On May 29, 1991, GE personnel accidentally moved about 320 pounds of uranium to a waste treatment tank. The danger of the mistake was that the size and shape of the waste container caused unsafe concentrations of uranium, which could have led to a nuclear accident. The NRC dispatched a special incident investigation team the same day and an inspection began two days later. The NRC found that the mistake was the result of lax safety controls.
+At an April 22, 1998 shareholder meeting, GE CEO Jack Welch claimed: “PCBs do not pose adverse health risks.” Testifying in Albany on July 9, 1998, EPA Administrator Carol Browner stated: “GE tells us this contamination is not a problem. GE would have people of the Hudson River believe, and I quote: ‘living in a PCB-laden area is not dangerous.’ But the science tells us the opposite is true ... And concern about PCBs goes beyond cancer ... The science has spoken: PCBs are a serious threat...”
Defense Contracting Fraud
+ On July 23, 1992, GE pled guilty in federal court to civil and criminal charges of defrauding the Pentagon and agreed to pay $69 million to the U.S. government in fines — one of the largest defense contracting fines ever.
General Electric said in a statement that it took responsibility for the actions of a former marketing employee who, along with an Israeli Air Force General, diverted Pentagon funds to their own bank accounts and to fund Israeli military programs not authorized by the United States.Under the settlement with the Justice Department over violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, GE paid $59.5 million in civil fraud claims and $9.5 million in criminal fines.
+ GE is a repeat offender when it comes to Defense Department fraud. The company has repeatedly violated the False Claims Act — a measure originally proposed by Lincoln to protect federal coffers. When the Project on Government Oversight surveyed defense contractors, it found that General Electric was responsible for 15 instances of fraudulent activity in just a four year period (1990-1994) — more than any other defense contractor. GE:
1. Paid $7.1 million to settle a qui tam suit alleging that the company failed to satisfy electrical bonding requirements for its jet engine contracts, thereby creating a safety risk.
2. Paid $5.87 million (along with Martin Marietta) to settle a qui tam suit associated with improper sales of radar systems to Egypt.
3. Paid fines between 1990 and 1994 ranging from a $20,000 criminal fine to a $24.6 million civil fine for a variety of defense contracting frauds, including: misrepresentation, money laundering, defective pricing (2 incidents), cost mischarging (3 incidents), false claims, product substitution, conspiracy/conversion of classified documents, procurement fraud and mail fraud.
4. Was convicted on February 3, 1990 in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia of defrauding the government out of $10 million for a battlefield computer system.
5. Pled guilty on May 19, 1985 to charges of fraud and falsifying 108 claims on a missile contract.
6. Was convicted of defrauding the Air Force out of $800,000 on the Minuteman Missile Project.
7. Was convicted of bribing the Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority.
artial rebates to buy new GE dishwashers.
Recidivistic GE
What distinguishes General Electric is not merely the number of crimes committed — or the dollar amount of the crimes — but a consistent pattern of violating criminal and civil laws over many years.
Exacerbating the situation, General Electric has been a leader in using political influence to attempt to overturn the environmental and defense contracting laws that it persistently violates.
So where is Glenn Beck and Limbaugh's torches and pitchforks to hunt them down? Has the government shut down and cut off contracts to G.E. yet? That's a load of grievances against us taxpayers with our ing taxpayer money, and it dwarfs anything ACORN has done.
But ACORN is special, right? They need to be shut down and cut off from all federal funding because they are much more eeeevil.
quote:
No- I'm not saying those banking institutions are off the hook... but you are trying to argue that because it's "not just ACORN" involved in shady dealings that they are off the hook. They are equally responsible for fostering that illegal activity.
Then where is your anger and resentment towards those banks? Why is it EXCLUSIVELY given to ACORN only in this regard? I agree that if this story is true, ACORN has some fault, but your anger should also be given to the gatekeepers in this case, i.e. the banks.
quote:
Dude... have you ever heard the phrase "where there's smoke, there's fire"?? It doesn't mean anything to you that ACORN has been routinely been indicted in several states in several election cycles for illegal voting activity?
Illegal voter registration activity, which again I'm pretty certain even you understand the difference between that and actually voting. IOW, illegal "voting" activity is false on your part, it was illegal voter registration activity which was turned in by none other than ACORN itself.
Or did Mickey Mouse actually vote? Come on, you really want to rehash this bull again, or will you concede the difference here?
quote:
It's just one of many examples of the types of people that work for the organization...
Like Rush Limbaugh and his maid hunting down Oxy for him. Like Glenn Beck who is a recovering alcoholic, and like all alcoholics he still struggles with it every day.
Like any cokehead exec. or VP at AIG or any other bank checking themselves into Betty Ford.
Or any subcontractor in Iraq or Afghanistan addicted to one substance or another because, like their government military counterparts, they likely may have seen more than any of us care to know.
A ing addiction is a ing addiction. Personally I don't give a if someone has a problem or not, but one story of one ing person does not make a systemic problem by any stretch of the imagination, nor does it make it a worthy comparison of "character" to anyone else in that business. But if you really want to go there, then by your logic my comparisons are no different.
quote:
like establishing a pattern of behavior in a person vs. them flying off the hinges one time.
A drug addiction is a drug addiction. Don't you dare ing excuse the behavior of Limbaugh as "flying off the hinges one time", if that's what you're trying to attempt. I highly doubt even he would agree with that characterization of his addiction.
quote:
HAHA! Oh, they said it was "an oversight" and therefore should be absolved? Well ... if I ever kill someone I'll just tell the cops it was an oversight. I'm sure they'll understand.
Great analogy, champ.
quote:
I think you didn't read this section of the linked article, because you're response is weak:
That's just a little more than fishy, isn't it? Or maybe just an oversight ;)
I'm simply reporting what a nonpartisan website had written. They stated they cannot verify how much of that went to ACORN, nor can you. Yes, I agree it's more than coincidental, and at worst it indicates Obama giving money for voter registration purposes to ACORN, to which the broad majority of ACORN's practices were legal and ethical (with noted exceptions that you brought up here and the previous thread on this topic). The part I am contending is what you were accusing him of was not a mistake regarding the initial filing of campaign expenditures for this group by Obama. You cannot demonstrate it was nothing less than a mistake on his part, as the FEC has mentioned it being rather common:
quote:
Mr. Davis contended that the original filing was an effort to “hide the fact” that money was paid to Acorn. But F.E.C. officials have said such amended filings are common.
But hey, I guess that also means because of such guilt by associations here, in addition to him being a Fascist, Communist Dictator, a Marxist Socialist, he's also a coke addict, embezzling fraudster who assisted in taking down the government with fraudulent subprime loans and brought us into one of the worst recessions ever.
quote:
lol... I have to admit, I'm actually thickening up my skin and enjoying reading responses like this because A) they really are funny and it makes me think, "... despite this political nonsense, I bet MisterOpus would be cool to hang out with,"
I'm too old, bitter, and boring nowadays. No thanks.
quote:
and B) because even after saying that, you go on to acknowledge that:
and
...which is all I'm saying; ACORN is at least complicit in all of this. They are not acting alone; I never insinuated this. But they are actively involved in shady illegal using taxpayer money to do so, and that is my problem.
Well what you are saying and attempting to point out is my acknowledgement that ACORN, on the grand scheme of things in comparison to the rest of the companies involved, had a miniscule part if any in the whole affair. And we can't even know just how little they may be involved. My point, however, is again one in comparison because you have absolutely the worst frame of reference in regard to the players involved and just how much they were financially involved with it.
But your point was not even close to her point in her blog, was it? She was directly tying ACORN to the subprime mess as a major player, which ties directly into the false accusations by the fringe conspiracy theorists in Conservative circles, and that undermines her credibility, IMO. I will say this, however, if there is anything of note that she brings to the table that is remotely true about ACORN, I'm sure we will be seeing her soon testifying to Congress while they investigate ACORN, and any accusations she makes will be fully supported with verifiable evidence, I'm sure, right?
quote:
oops... you're right. I meant to say "Policies". I read the link you posted about them. I don't see the problem... checks and balances are necessary. So what if they are affiliated with the GOP? A Democrat front group sure as wouldn't take the time to investigate ACORN or expose embezzlement. The investigation produced factual illegal practices, not partisan opinions.
Yeah, their history really demonstrates facts and avoids "partisan" points, doesn't it?:
quote:
EPI deliberately attempted to create confusion in the eyes of journalists and the general public by adopting a name which closely resembles the Economic Policy Institute, a much older, progressive think tank with ties to organized labor. In addition to imitating the name and acronym of the Economic Policy Institute, Berman's outfit even used the same typeface for its logo. In reality, the two groups have dramatically different public policy agendas. The Economic Policy supports a living wage and mandated health benefits for workers. Berman's organization opposes both and in fact opposes any minimum wage whatsoever.
In 1992, Los Angeles Times business columnist Harry Bernstein noted that EPI was using "misleading studies" to help put a positive spin on rising unemployment. "The conservative EPI, financed mostly by low-wage companies such as hotels and restaurants, is issuing reports the titles of which alone could help put a bright face on the miserable job scene," Bernstein wrote. "The latest one is 'The Value of Part-Time Workers to the American Economy.' It hails as a great thing the distressing growth of part-time jobs because they offer 'flexibility' in economic planning for both workers and companies, and say that flexibility is vital 'in the growing and increasingly competitive global economy.' Tell that nonsense to the more than 6.5 million workers forced to take part-time jobs because nothing else is available. That is an increase of more than 1.5 million involuntary part-timers since 1990, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says." EPI has been doing more or less the same thing ever since, sponsoring cooked studies and issuing tendentious sound bytes whenever attempts are made to establish healthcare or better wages for workers.
Then, as now, fast-food employees were the largest group of low-paid workers in the United States. One-quarter of the workers in the restaurant industry are estimated to earn the minimum wage--a higher proportion than in any other U.S. industry. This is the real reason why EPI appears on the scene whenever federal or local governments consider a proposal to increase the minimum wage. Its standard tactic is to trot out a study using contrived statistics designed to show that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost if the wage is raised. (In reality, studies by labor economists show that the job-loss effect of increasing the minimum wage is either small or nonexistent and that its benefits to low-wage workers and their families far outweigh the costs. Even the Food Institute Report, an industry trade publication, admitted in 1995 that "the weight of the empirical evidence suggests that the effects [on the number of available jobs] of a moderate raise from its current level are likely to be negligible.")
(snip)In 1995, EPI lashed out at Princeton University professors David Card and Alan Krueger, after they published a survey of fast-food restaurants which found no loss in the number of jobs in New Jersey after implementing an increase in the state's minimum wage. Berman accused Card and Krueger of using bad data, citing contrary figures that his own institute had collected from some of the same restaurants. But whereas Card and Krueger had surveyed 410 restaurants, Berman's outfit only collected data from 71 restaurants and has refused to make its data publicly available so that other researchers can assess whether it "cherry-picked" restaurants to create a sample that would support its predetermined conclusions.
The Employment Policies Institute, in a 1994 R.J. Reynolds-drafted press release, predicted the loss of 2-3 million jobs if the Clinton Healthcare plan was enacted. The Clinton plan was to be funded through an additional federal tax on cigarettes.[3]
A 1997 internal Philip Morris presentation called indicates PM planned to "sponsor and participate" in the Employment Policies Institute to gain the organization's help in promoting PM's Accommodation Program, a strategy the company designed to fight smoking bans and preserve smoking in public places.[4]
Just sayin. Again I haven't read the source, so I cannot verify if they are repeating a similar pattern of behavior like they have in the past or not, but please don't be shocked if we find out it's more of the same with this group.
quote:
Almost, but not quite as funny, as ACORN's representatives saying the actions of the people on video are reprehensible, and ACORN will provide an independant council to investigate. Here is how independant the team is:
If you check out those people, you'll find Cisneros worked regularly with ACORN as HUD Secretary and would later plead guilty to lying to the FBI to cover up a political embarrassment. Stern heads the SEIU which has several chapters of its organization run by ACORN. Podesta runs the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which has been coordinating the public defense of ACORN this summer.
Indeed, that's equally silly as the report of a Republican election-disrupting attorney discovering a problem that's based on her insider's unverifiable "insider information". So if the Senate conducts an investigation of it's own, would that be silly as well?
quote:
First, let me remind you that all of your Congressional Democrats voted to move ahead and finance that war.
At the consequence of being called "UnAmerican", "unpatriotic", and being "with the terrorists", indeed they did. However, you'll note as I have continually pointed out here in the past that many of us Democrats were equally pissed off at those Democrats for caving in to that as well.
quote:
I know it's an inconvenient fact, but still. Stop trying to make the war part of this subject- it just isn't, and has nothing to do with internal corruption in ACORN.
Straw man. I'm not talking about the war and you know it. Again I'll restate my argument:
quote:
My argument is simple - you are mad about wasteful spending on a program like ACORN, a program that has taken a pittance of taxpayer money compared to other government-funded programs and contracts, and I am simply demonstrating your anger is misplaced when a comparison in full context to other programs is made.
Understood yet?
quote:
Secondly, I can't demonstrate that Obama is tied to ACORN? Are you forgetting that he represented them as their attorney in 1995?
Jesus, please put it in context for ing once, will you?:
quote:
Obama represented ACORN in a voter registration case, but he was not a staff attorney. Obama worked for the civil rights firm Miner, Barnhill and Galland. He represented ACORN along with other plaintiffs in a case against the governor of Illinois, demanding that the state better enforce a new federal law known as "motor voter," which allowed people to register to vote when they got their driver's license. We rated this statement Half True.
Are you forgetting his words from December 1st, 2007 when he said this at a speech in Des Moines--->
Snap... telling ACORN they will be helping shape the agenda. The examples are too plentiful to list. If you think the community organizer in chief is not tied to a major community organization group he represented as an attorney, and helped train in voter registration techniques, you need professional help.
Hmm, kinda like McCain being the keynote speaker for that AWEFUL, EEEVIL ACORN group in 2006?:
I am curious, however, if you could find a source other than Limbaugh that could put the entire quote and speech in full context. From what I understand, it was not just ACORN at this meeting, but a number of community organizations as well. If you could actually put that quote in full context and realize that he was not just speaking to ACORN but to community organizations in general, that little eeeevil bug slowly starts to diminish down. And, BTW, I have absolutely no problem having community organizations helping to shape our policy more. How is that a bad thing?
quote:
You mean like, how Halliburton had to compete (wink wink nudge nudge)? But here- it's demonstrated for you (a simple google search could have done the trick if you really wanted to find out).
The same Google search demonstrates that there were, in fact, contracts that were no-bid (albeit legal and done under not just the Bush Administration). Are you denying that? Well, in addition, that wonderful Google search found things like this as well:
That's BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars they either screwed us with or just got up and moved to another country so they wouldn't even have to ing pay. So again I ask, where the is your outrage over that?
The article has plenty of other interesting illegal activities perpetuated by this, as you believe, corrupt free organization with just a few bad apples.
The article is full of , and if you spent one ing iota of time investigating Issa and the claims made by the "Capital Research Center's", an extremist group by all standards, you wouldn't be so full of yourself:
quote:
Let's first look at how they arrived at that number. It includes, of course, the same $2.2 billion that Boehner cited from the stimulus package. Vadum also adds $1 billion in the stimulus for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. ACORN could potentially tap into that, he said.
The remaining $5.5 billion comes from the Obama administration's proposed 2010 budget, specifically the budget for Housing and Urban Development. The budget plan includes $1 billion for an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, plus $4.5 billion more for CDBGs.
CDBGs have been around since 1974. Obama is seeking to increase the CDBG budget from about $3.6 billion in 2009 to $4.2 billion next year. And then there's the additional $1 billion for CDBGs in the stimulus. But the point is, this isn't some new pot of money that hasn't been available in years past. To the extent ACORN has been eligible for CDBG money for decades, it is available to ACORN now.
But the fact is, ACORN isn't eligible for CDBG funding. At least not for the controversial voter registration efforts that Republican leaders claim are a willful effort to forward the group's liberal agenda.
ACORN has a complex corporate structure. It's actually a network of affiliates. The ACORN that Republicans love to hate gets involved in political activity like voter registration. But there are other entities, like the sister company, ACORN Housing Corporation, a nonprofit that provides free housing counseling to low and moderate income homebuyers. Some of the ACORN Housing affiliates have also dabbled in affordable housing projects and have received federal funding. But ACORN Housing doesn't get involved in voter registration activities.
CDBG money is given to local governments and states to use as they see fit for community development projects. But there are strings attached. CDBG rules list eligible uses of the money, including such things as building sidewalks, sewers and affordable housing, mostly. Specifically ineligible: "political activities." In other words, ACORN can't use the money for voter registration.
According to the Washington Examiner 's report, ACORN and its affiliates have received $53 million from the federal government since 1994. Most of that federal money went to the ACORN Housing Corporation, which by law could not be used for voter registration.
We checked, and there is no money in the stimulus package or the budget for voter registration programs.
So if ACORN Housing was to apply for and receive CDBG money, it would be for a very specific project. And legally, it could not be transferred to other ACORN affiliates to perform political activities like voter registration.
But some ACORN opponents allege that's exactly what would happen.
"ACORN is constantly shifting funding," Vadum said. If ACORN Housing were to get federal funding, "we don't know where it would go. The problem is that ACORN transfers vast sums of money around in its network all the time. We don't know whether the money would be spent on voter registration or other activities."
According to a July 2002 report from the Employment Policies Institute called "Rotten ACORN, America's Bad Seed," tax forms show that since 1997, the ACORN Housing Corporation has paid more than $5 million in fees or grants to other ACORN entities. The report does not claim, however, that federal tax dollars were shifted into ACORN voter registration efforts.
Asked what funds ACORN Housing has transferred to other ACORN affiliates, Vadum said ACORN Housing has paid over $1.5 million to Citizens Consulting Inc., which he describes as "the shadowy part of the ACORN network where money seems to disappear into."
That's absurd, said ACORN executive director Steven Kest. Citizens Consulting Inc. is the accounting arm of the ACORN organization. CCI handles bookkeeping, payroll accounting and other financial management services for ACORN and its many affiliates. And ACORN Housing doesn't even use CCI anymore, as it now does its accounting in-house, Kest said.
Bottom line, we don't see any evidence that ACORN Housing has transferred money to ACORN for voter registration, so we think it's incorrect for Bachmann to link federal money that ACORN Housing might receive with the more controversial voter registration activities performed by sister organization ACORN.
Even more ridiculous is the suggestion that ACORN or any of its affiliates might actually get $8.5 billion in federal tax dollars.
Vadum said his report has been misrepresented by many on that point.
"The key word here is eligible," Vadum said. "Eligible is a pretty expansive word. I made it clear they are not going to get that full amount."
Yes, he made that point in the Washington Examiner. But when Bachmann says ACORN could get that amount, it assumes the group would get every single dime in the stimulus for fixing up abandoned homes. And remember, they said they don't even have plans to apply for any of it.
"We think it's a great program," Kest said. "But that's not money we are applying for."
And they'd also need to get every single dollar allocated through the CDBG program. That's beyond preposterous. Those grants are allocated to thousands of organizations around the country to perform very specific community development projects.
"These are competitive grants for very specific projects," Kest said."The money can only be used for the project you bid for. It can't go to voter registration. If you've ever had any experience with grant funding from the federal government, they do a good job of making sure the money is used for the purposes it was intended. You can't use the money for any other reason. You can't transfer the money to other vehicles for other purposes."
Charges of voter registration fraud by members of ACORN during the 2008 elections are a serious matter. Investigators allege ACORN employees tried to fraudulently register thousands of ineligible voters. Among them, one Mickey Mouse.
But Bachmann's statement is irresponsibly misleading on several levels. She says the group under indictment for voter registration fraud could tap into billions of federal dollars. In fact, none of the federal money can be used for voter registration activities.
An affiliate like ACORN Housing could conceivably apply for a grant to build an affordable housing project, or to buy, fix and sell abandoned homes, but that's exactly what the money would have to be used for. Suggestions that one of the affiliates might funnel money to ACORN for political activity is, so far, unsubstantiated conjecture. And then there's the matter of trying to make a splash by throwing out the massive $8.5 billion number, suggesting ACORN "could get" it, as in all of it. That's absurd. We rule Bachmann's statement False.
Even the author from the Capital Research Center's report to which the IDB EDITORIAL you supplied conceded his $8.5 billion has been taken out of context. Again:
quote:
Vadum said his report has been misrepresented by many on that point.
"The key word here is eligible," Vadum said. "Eligible is a pretty expansive word. I made it clear they are not going to get that full amount."
And of course the problem is his figures and analysis is "unsubstantiated conjecture" - two ing words that pretty much sums up the majority of your arguments you continually and incessantly bring to this forum.
quote:
You need to acknowledge more than that... that there is a pervasive and systemic seed of corruption in ACORN that is germinating. All organizations have their share of ups, but this is NOT the norm.
Oh ing please. "Not the norm"? When you refuse to even acknowledge the billions of taxpayer funding to corporate execs and private subcontractors to Iraq, I suppose someone such as yourself can continue to have a warped sense of reality to believe $3.5 million/year is "not the norm".
Is it normal to not include the cost of war in the annual budget so the Administration can hide just how much the taxpayers are paying for that debacle?
Including tens of billions to the oil companies. Is that normal for Republicans to do that with our taxpayer money, especially when they rail against welfare to the poor?
Is it normal in Conservative standards to spend billions upon billions on a program that doesn't work for a threat that doesn't exist like the missile shield bologna? I believe Occrider said it best in his reply to you:
quote:
In other words why are you proposing an expensive and retarded military solution to achieve a geo-political solution when any number of alternative and more effective solutions are available to us? Hey, why don't we revive a Reagan-esque star wars ABM system at the cost of TRILLIONS of dollars and base the janitorial staff in Poland not because we actually care about nuclear deterrance but ummm yea so Poland won't get attacked??? FFS no wonder why the GOP is so out of touch with reality. Talk about black and white ... it's like they have no concept of Realpolitik at all.
Is it normal to spend countless oodles of taxpayer $ on programs like Star Wars by a former Republican Administration in the 1980's?
Shall we continue on down this road, or will you concede that your party has a propensity for wasted taxpayer spending at times as well, one to the likes of ACORN completely pails in comparison?
quote:
That is bull about James O'Keefe saying that in the context you are presenting... show me the exact quote on record of him saying he specifically went after ACORN because they register minorities.
Here:
quote:
"Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization,
He is directly referring to ACORN helping to register minorities who vote Democrats, period. How else can that be interpreted?
quote:
That is a pathetic attempt at injecting race into this, and no doubt a paraphrased comment by Media Matters or the like in the same way Maureen Dowd said Joe Wilson was really saying, "You lie, BOY!"
It was from the ing NYTimes, and it wasn't an editorial, unlike the many sources you like to cite to me. If the author of the article was incorrect in his statement before O'Keefe's statements, then we should expect to hear O'Keefe clarify it soon, right?
quote:
I watched every interview with O'Keefe and not once did he say that, and Andrew Brietbart never would stake his reputation on backing them if that were the case.
Is that supposed to be a funny? Breibart's reputation is pathetic as it is - what a wonderful protege Mr. Drudge must feel about his little wingnut. And how does it change the fact that he said what he stated to the NYTimes journalist because he never said something like that in the past?
quote:
And even if there was a racial context, which there isn't, it wouldn't change the facts of what was uncovered. You play the victim card for the poor and minorities almost as well ACORN does.
Oh Christ. Me playing the victim card? I'm simply putting your silly arguments against a small organization in full context to other organizations fully supported by Republicans.
Besides, one can easily argue that it's much more likely to find victimhood in the Conservative mentality. In fact, could we not easily see that here with what you're arguing? That Obama had help from a corrupt group of people getting elected, and woe is us poor Republicans because we NEVER get involved with corrupt groups or organizations that take any taxpayer $ and abuse it?
quote:
You are heading off the cliff with the grand old GOP conspiracy theory of trying to squash the poor and minorities. You're better than that man. Yeah ACORN is basically like a missionary group, who's goal is to help those who can't help themselves out of the goodness in their heart. ing spare me.
And save your santimonious bull for someone else, champ. You going after this group on a few charges to label them as you are as well as Obama, especially in full context to the billions of taxpayer funds spent and abused by Republicans in power is laughable at best and outright pathetic at worst.
quote:
And if you want to talk about voter intimidation, please discuss what just happened with our wonderful Attorney General letting the Black Panther Party members off the hook for clear voter intimidation in PA during the election... carrying around a gun at the polling place, and who's myspace page said one of his hobbies was "killing whitey". Unreal.
I have no idea what you're talking about with the myspace , and I honestly can't take anything someone says on those stupid networking sites seriously at all. But what we do know about that little incident that is being trumped up in the Conservative talk shows is the Philadelphia DA took no action because she found "no complaints and no evidence" of wrongdoing:
Second, an Executive Director of a nonpartisan poll-monitoring organization called Committee of Seventy mentioned that the men were "“off-putting, not quite intimidating.”
But what's ing hilarious is the basis for these allegations on voter intimidation were from 2 poll watchers from a group called, "Democrats for McCain". Gosh, can't imagine what bone they would have to pick, can you?
And you want to comare that to the record of voter intimidation from Republicans? From the wonderful phone jamming case to throwing out tens of thousands of legal, registered voters in Florida 2000, and this is what you come up with? If you want to discuss this record further, again I would ask that another thread on it would be appropriate, but all I have to say one more time is this -
ing please.
Communist
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
You know, it's quite interesting to me to hear rants and retorts like this. I always find it amazing how Republicans whine and complain about how bad government is, and then when they get into power it becomes their mission to defund and destroy government programs JUST TO PROVE THEIR ING POINT. I'm more than happy to get into a pissing match with you on this, by all means let's compare the last 3 Republican presidents versus the last Democratic president and how much of taxpayer money was spent and thrown out the window. I'm sure you're more than aware that Clinton had the smallest government than any 3 of those last Republican Presidents despite their tax cuts and "small" government philosophies, but hey, don't let that get in your way.
Would a Republican controlled Congress with a Democratic president have anything to do with it?
ziptnf
This thread is awesome.
Fir3start3r
quote:
Originally posted by Brahman
A problem relative to billions misspent on private contractors and yet nothing done about that? Not really. Never saw the government break a contract with Halliburton or KBR.
Your examples are valid however what's that got to do with what's going on in ACORN? :conf:
Communist
quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Your examples are valid however what's that got to do with what's going on in ACORN? :conf:
You mentioned a "systematic problem". ACORN's systematic problem is nothing compared to the systematic problem I just mentioned, yet, the right is turning it into a circus.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
holy mother of god... you've done it again. like the healthcare debate we got into a few weeks ago, I want to respond to this but it would take me at least 3 hours of research that, unless I'm getting paid for, I can't bring myself to spend the time and energy doing. I'll give it up for you though- you're good at doing research and you present some very good responses.
For the much needed sake of brevity, let me just make these quick points: we both acknowledge that there is wasteful spending on both sides of the aisle. At no point were my argument against government spending by democrats declarations of innocence for republicans. We both agree that ACORN is up to some dubious ... but it's a drop in the bucket to you on the basis of dollar amount, and to me it's a big deal because of the nature of what they are doing. A new Washington Post article from today points out their "reverse Robinhood scheme", where they've been caught taking millions of dollars intended to go to the poor, and gave them to politicians and themselves.... the newly revealed records show that ACORN may have a lot more problems than giving anti tax advice child-prostitution trafficking pointers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?hpid=topnews
You found one spun article extolling the virtues of Cash for Clunkers, when you know damn well there are at least 1000 pointing to the obvious failure of the program; success isn't defined by thousands of people lining up to get free money. $3 billion in taxpayer money (triple the intended budget)... and still only about 10% of the dealerships have been reimbursed by the government, which s up their operational abilities... plus, artifically stimulated demand caused manufactures to ramp up production, and now have an overabundence of vehicles with nobody buying them. Read this article about the C4C numbers. $1.22 billion indented ended up costing $2.88... with 690,000 cars sold. That means the administration blew 58% on overhead. Or, $1.36 of administrative cost for every dollar in subsidies granted. Sweet success! :stongue: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910...sh_for_clunkers
My favorite quote on the subject:
quote:
"It was probably, in the end, a complete waste of taxpayer money," said John Wolkonowicz, a senior auto analyst at IHS Global Insight, Lexington forecasting firm. "The dealers, who were supposed to be the primary beneficiaries, many were forced into cash flow problems because the government didn’t pay them in a timely fashion."
You should try running a business someday. Might change your perspective.
Oh, and if you think the Stimulus really stimulated anything other than government in reality, you're dumb. Government has grown 25,000 jobs, while 42 states noted job losses again in August, and our unemployment rate is 9.7%.
Communist
Single payer universal healthcare is the way to go. The United States is the ONLY industrialized country that does not provide universal healthcare and surrenders it to greedy corrupt profiteering corporate executives whose sole purpose is to save as much money for the shareholders as possible and deny coverage to their policy holders.
Instead of paying exorbitantly high premiums for crappy coverage from insurance companies making hundreds of millions in profit, we should pay into a cooperative or government run insurance fund which covers everyone. Nobody should pay ONE CENT for primary medical care. Not one ing cent. We have money to bomb the out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but can't make sure that our citizens have healthcare. Conservatives boil my blood on this one. Afghanistan, they need they'r freedom! But our own country, the least among us who can't help themselves, who work and do everything right, but just can't afford to pay for catastrophic losses due to healthcare.
Societies are judged by how they treat the least among them. Well, in America, we sure as hell aren't at the top of that list. The richest country in the world, choosing bombs over medicine. For 's sake, when is this country going to wake the up!?
Countries like Germany, the UK, and France not only have universal healthcare, but free college education, among other things. If countries far lower on the economy bracket can afford these things and successfully at that, why the hell can't the richest country on earth do it? America is morally bankrupt.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Communist
Single payer universal healthcare is the way to go.
Why... because politicians tell you this? If you are to believe the premise being used in passing Obamacare, that the public option is to create competition and "make insurance companies honest" (which we all know is bull), then why are you in favor of being beholden to an entity that will have no competition (since they do not have to show a profit to operate and can print their own money)?
Think about this rationally man. If this is such a dire emergency, if, as the Democrats say, "We need to do this NOW... we need to pass it YESTERDAY... the suffering of the uninsured can no longer be tolerated.... we needed to pass it in August before the recess. Now we need to pass it by Thanksgiving"......... then why the would it not go into effect until 2 months after the 2012 election? Take the emotion out of it and think rationally. The best answer is that Obama knows that the more people see what's in the plan, the more they realize it's filled with taxes, mandates, rationing, government control... waiting until after the next presidential election to make it effective is an admission that he knows the people wont like it once it is in effect and their wallets feel the fallout. Assuming he gets elected again, it would be too late to change that; otherwise, why such a need to hurry up and wait?
quote:
The United States is the ONLY industrialized country that does not provide universal healthcare and surrenders it to greedy corrupt profiteering corporate executives whose sole purpose is to save as much money for the shareholders as possible and deny coverage to their policy holders.
Boiler plate liberal democrat talking points, and buying hook, line, and sinker into the class warefare rhetoric. Why not open up insurance plans to compete across state lines? That would increase competition and lower costs in a heartbeat. Insurance companies currently have over 1500 mandates by the federal government on how insurers ar to operate in their states, who they can sell their plans to, what kind of plans they can sell, etc. Some insurance companies can't even sell packages their customers want! I'm not saying insurance companies are without fault, but don't be so quick to demonize them for everything. BTW- companies exist to make a profit, not work as charities.
quote:
Instead of paying exorbitantly high premiums for crappy coverage from insurance companies making hundreds of millions in profit, we should pay into a cooperative or government run insurance fund which covers everyone. Nobody should pay ONE CENT for primary medical care. Not one ing cent. We have money to bomb the out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but can't make sure that our citizens have healthcare. Conservatives boil my blood on this one. Afghanistan, they need they'r freedom! But our own country, the least among us who can't help themselves, who work and do everything right, but just can't afford to pay for catastrophic losses due to healthcare.
You don't get it, Jesus. When you become a budget item for the government in health care, the only way to stay "under budget" is for rationing to take place. It's a fact man. our country and the least among us who can't help themselves??? LOLOL!! We are more giving to the least among us than anywhere! What is considered "poor" in this country is considered rich in many others. People get unemployment checks for 79 ing weeks now... FREE MONEY from the government without having to work, and that is about to get extended to 92 weeks. The people who don't get treated for catastrphohic circumstances are more frequently seen in the countries who's health care system you seem to love... but the truth is here, you can't legally be denied if you walk into an emergency room.
Oh, and for the record, 80% of Americans OVERALL are satisfied with the quality of medical care available to them; 61% are satisfied with the COST of their medical care. 87% of people eare happy with the care they get through private insurance, and 61% of those are satisfied with the costs. And....50% of the uninsured are satisfied with their medical care. http://www.gallup.com/poll/123149/C...-Americans.aspx
And the more people are finding out about WHAT this piece of HR 3200 consists of, the less they want it. As of today, only 41% now favor Obamacare and 56% oppose it. Support among senior citizens has fallen to 33%. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lth_care_reform
You are following the lie like a pied piper my man. The Democrats will have to vote against the will of the people to pass this, because the majority of Americans DO NOT WANT IT. You are the one who doesn't get it.
Your messiah, who ran AGAINST individual mandates during the campaign said this in a debate with Hillary:
quote:
The reason she thinks that there are more people covered under her plan than mine, is because of a mandate. It is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody. It is a mandate that every individual purchase health care. And the mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton's plan and mine is the fact that she would force, in some fashion, individuals to purchase health care.
But he is fully supporting the bill being served up which now will give a $1900 fine for not purchasing health coverage, you will be charged with a crime, AND you will face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 fine. Are you motherfucking kidding me!? That is a fantastic idea for a free nation. Possible jail time and an/or an additional $25K fine? http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0...firmation_.html
quote:
Societies are judged by how they treat the least among them. Well, in America, we sure as hell aren't at the top of that list. The richest country in the world, choosing bombs over medicine. For 's sake, when is this country going to wake the up!?
It's really sad that you are so warped by the radical left's browbeating that you fail to see how much good and positive things happen in this country, and how lucky you are to live here.
quote:
Countries like Germany, the UK, and France not only have universal healthcare, but free college education, among other things. If countries far lower on the economy bracket can afford these things and successfully at that, why the hell can't the richest country on earth do it? America is morally bankrupt.
Yeah they have universal healthcare alright, and those systems are corroding from the inside out while their tax rates are subtantially higher. IT IS NOT FREE. The UK, Canada, and elsewhere... the wait times get longer, the rationing gets worse, and the quality of care declines. I must have at least 100 articles I could link you to describing the slow, incrementally creeping horrors of universal health care systems if you're interested; of course you're not going to get any of those from the Obama supporting media here.
Canada's new surgeon general just said their universal health care system is about to go belly up, and they best way to save it is for a private health care market to develop, which is happening in British Columbia as reported in today's LA Times. Government health care is a plan for government dependency, plain and simple.
Dude... this "I hate America" stuff is getting old. We are morally bankrupt? Do you have any earthly idea how much money we voluntarilly give to charity? $300 BILLION... with a B, went to charity in this country last year. Who is the first on the scene in places like Indonesia after the Tsunami (and countless other examples) offering aid? What... you think Libya is at the top of the speed dial on those calls? There is more good and optimism among the people of this country than you can imagine... it's a shame you're too wrapped up in hate to see it.
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Why... because politicians tell you this? If you are to believe the premise being used in passing Obamacare, that the public option is to create competition and "make insurance companies honest" (which we all know is bull), then why are you in favor of being beholden to an entity that will have no competition (since they do not have to show a profit to operate and can print their own money)?
Yes, I am brainwashed but you aren't? LOL.
I don't want competition. Why would I want for-profit corporations exploiting the public need for healthcare?
quote:
Think about this rationally man. If this is such a dire emergency, if, as the Democrats say, "We need to do this NOW... we need to pass it YESTERDAY... the suffering of the uninsured can no longer be tolerated.... we needed to pass it in August before the recess. Now we need to pass it by Thanksgiving"......... then why the would it not go into effect until 2 months after the 2012 election? Take the emotion out of it and think rationally. The best answer is that Obama knows that the more people see what's in the plan, the more they realize it's filled with taxes, mandates, rationing, government control... waiting until after the next presidential election to make it effective is an admission that he knows the people wont like it once it is in effect and their wallets feel the fallout. Assuming he gets elected again, it would be too late to change that; otherwise, why such a need to hurry up and wait?
It appears you'r speculating about what Obama knows and accusing him of having devious motives in trying to reform our healthcare system so it at least is on the level of our peers. How dare he! I have thought very rationally about this.
quote:
Boiler plate liberal democrat talking points, and buying hook, line, and sinker into the class warefare rhetoric. Why not open up insurance plans to compete across state lines? That would increase competition and lower costs in a heartbeat. Insurance companies currently have over 1500 mandates by the federal government on how insurers ar to operate in their states, who they can sell their plans to, what kind of plans they can sell, etc. Some insurance companies can't even sell packages their customers want! I'm not saying insurance companies are without fault, but don't be so quick to demonize them for everything. BTW- companies exist to make a profit, not work as charities.
Empirical evidence conservatives can only answer to with, "LIBERAL TALKING POINT! OH NOEZ!!!" For-profit corporations should not be allowed to exploit the public's need for healthcare.
quote:
You don't get it, Jesus. When you become a budget item for the government in health care, the only way to stay "under budget" is for rationing to take place. It's a fact man. our country and the least among us who can't help themselves??? LOLOL!! We are more giving to the least among us than anywhere! What is considered "poor" in this country is considered rich in many others. People get unemployment checks for 79 ing weeks now... FREE MONEY from the government without having to work, and that is about to get extended to 92 weeks. The people who don't get treated for catastrphohic circumstances are more frequently seen in the countries who's health care system you seem to love... but the truth is here, you can't legally be denied if you walk into an emergency room.
Unemployment benefits have nothing to do with this debate. Rationing? Obvious scare tactic. Everyone gets treated if they really need it. You want to talk about rationing, look to the insurance companies denying and watering down coverage so they can make a buck. Here's what Wendell Potter, the former spokesman for CIGNA, had to say...
“I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick—all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.”
Yea, you can't be denied treatment for acute illness, but you sure as hell are going to pay for it, and woe to you if you have cancer, a disease 1/3 people get!
quote:
Oh, and for the record, 80% of Americans OVERALL are satisfied with the quality of medical care available to them; 61% are satisfied with the COST of their medical care. 87% of people eare happy with the care they get through private insurance, and 61% of those are satisfied with the costs. And....50% of the uninsured are satisfied with their medical care. http://www.gallup.com/poll/123149/C...-Americans.aspx
80% of Americans being satisfied with the quality of healthcare? Great, that's not at all what this debate is about. 61% are satisfied with our country spending more of our GDP on healthcare than our western peers and their COMMUNIST HEALTHCARE (OH NOEZZZ!!)? Well, it appears 61% of Americans are idiots. 87% are happy with their private insurance coverage? You mean, this kind of coverage?
"The hearing was a follow-up to a lengthy investigation of health insurers that had recently been summarized in a compendious House report. Among the investigation’s discoveries was that the total compensation for one of the insurance CEOs (Identity not revealed in the hearing) was $1.2 BILLION, that rescissions of health insurance policies had netted insurance companies savings of $300 MILLION, and that, within the insurance industry claims investigation departments, insurance investigators were performance rated according to the sums they saved the company by rescinding policies. One such example cited was an employee who was heralded by the company for having saved the corporation $10,000,000 by canceling policies when healthcare claims were posted."
If 87% of Americans were truly happy with their private insurance, which I doubt, then this wouldn't be happening.
A recent Harvard study found that medical expenditure was a significant contributing factor in 60% of personal bankruptcies in the United States. "Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy...for middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection...," said Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard University, who helped compile the study.
The U.S. spends more on health care per capita than any other UN member nation. It also spends a greater fraction of its national budget on health care than Canada, Germany, France, or Japan who have PUBLIC INSURANCE.
quote:
And the more people are finding out about WHAT this piece of HR 3200 consists of, the less they want it. As of today, only 41% now favor Obamacare and 56% oppose it. Support among senior citizens has fallen to 33%. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lth_care_reform
Yea, they are dissatisfied by how watered down it's becoming.
quote:
You are following the lie like a pied piper my man. The Democrats will have to vote against the will of the people to pass this, because the majority of Americans DO NOT WANT IT. You are the one who doesn't get it.
The lie? Ha! I could say the exact same thing to you.
quote:
Your messiah, who ran AGAINST individual mandates during the campaign said this in a debate with Hillary:
My messiah? :rolleyes: Still mad conservatives got their asses handed to them huh? :p I sure hope health insurance becomes a mandate and not only that, for-profit health insurance completely phased out unless they want to insure stuff like cosmetic surgeries.
quote:
But he is fully supporting the bill being served up which now will give a $1900 fine for not purchasing health coverage, you will be charged with a crime, AND you will face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 fine. Are you motherfucking kidding me!? That is a fantastic idea for a free nation. Possible jail time and an/or an additional $25K fine? http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0...firmation_.html
Instead of giving me some ridiculous rumor, can you give the specific passage of the bill that states what you just claimed. The fine is actually too low!
I'd much rather have my taxes go towards health care than bombing the out of third world countries. No more paying insurance premiums to corrupt insurance companies.
quote:
It's really sad that you are so warped by the radical left's browbeating that you fail to see how much good and positive things happen in this country, and how lucky you are to live here.
It's really sad that you are so warped by the far right's browbeating that you fail to see how much bad and negative things happen in this country, and how unlucky we are to have people who refuse to address them.
quote:
Yeah they have universal healthcare alright, and those systems are corroding from the inside out while their tax rates are subtantially higher. IT IS NOT FREE. The UK, Canada, and elsewhere... the wait times get longer, the rationing gets worse, and the quality of care declines. I must have at least 100 articles I could link you to describing the slow, incrementally creeping horrors of universal health care systems if you're interested; of course you're not going to get any of those from the Obama supporting media here.
The money we now pay to private insurance companies would be more than enough to pay for a single payer system. End of story. No one ever said it was free. The fact of the matter is the UK, France, and our other peers have excellent healthcare systems and are laughing at our decrepit political discourse. I feel sorry for America as do they.
quote:
Canada's new surgeon general just said their universal health care system is about to go belly up, and they best way to save it is for a private health care market to develop, which is happening in British Columbia as reported in today's LA Times. Government health care is a plan for government dependency, plain and simple.
Oh no, Canada is having some problems! I thought it was perfect!? Nobody said it's going to be perfect, but the system we have now, is garbage compared to their system.
quote:
Dude... this "I hate America" stuff is getting old. We are morally bankrupt? Do you have any earthly idea how much money we voluntarilly give to charity? $300 BILLION... with a B, went to charity in this country last year. Who is the first on the scene in places like Indonesia after the Tsunami (and countless other examples) offering aid? What... you think Libya is at the top of the speed dial on those calls? There is more good and optimism among the people of this country than you can imagine... it's a shame you're too wrapped up in hate to see it.
Oh yea, I HATE America...:rolleyes:...I find your blind nationalism counter-productive in your refusal to believe America is anything but a heaven on earth. It isn't and America isn't God's gift to the world. We have a serious problem with our healthcare system, a PUBLIC need, which our peers have successfully addressed, but unfortunately, our country won't.
Lebezniatnikov
Is it just me or is Krypton moving further to the left and the17sss moving further to the right with each passing day?
You guys wonder why nobody posts in the PDD anymore - it's because nearly everyone has radicalized and there's hardly any room for give and take in discussion now.
Shakka
I'm kind of sick of this debate, but I will throw this in there regarding rationing. You would have to be crazy not to think there will be rationing of care at some level given current proposals. It is simply not feasible to try to bring that many tens of millions of people into the fold on any sort of limited budget and NOT have to ration care at some level. The argument is valid. It is mathematically irrational to believe otherwise with such conviction.
