As the Supreme Court gets ready to rule on the Affordable Care Act, John Liming revisits the question which stands at the center of the health care debate.
___
The Obama Administration seems to believe that affordable health care is a right that should be extended to all Americans regardless of their socio-economic status and the way I read it, many or perhaps even most of the Republicans, Conservatives and Far Righties think health care is a privilege that only those who have the financial means should be able to access.
Remember this if nothing else – - – It is President Obama who has fought for health care for everyone and it is his opponents who have, for the most part, fought against it. In my view, that should show everyone who cares and who may not care so much about what happens to us.
I tend to believe that if we are going to claim to be a “Christian Nation,” then we ought to be the kind of Nation that is united enough, caring enough, loving enough and giving enough to make sure that all our citizens have access to affordable health care – - – rich or poor – - – regardless of background or conviction – - – if we are going to be what we often say we are, then we need to step up to the plate and find a way for everyone who needs medical care to be able to get it without a lot of hassle or a lot of barriers.
Those “Opportunities” that some Americans often boast about having should include, among other things, the “Opportunity” to have the services of a physician when and if one is needed and for those who cannot afford to take advantage of the “Opportunity,” the rest of the country should use it’s vast store of resources to make some kind of provisions for such access. To me that is reasonable and fair – - -and the truly “Godly” thing to do.
I know what I am proposing would be expensive – - – very expensive – - – but America seems to have money to waste on all kinds of other things – - – I think it is time that America took better care of Americans in some of those areas that need a lot of attention such as affordable health care for everyone and not just those who happen to have a pot of gold stashed away somewhere.
Some troll who loves to haunt my blog will come on here and say something like, “Well that is all well and good until the money runs out and then what?”
To an idiot like that I would reply, “If The American People get their heads together, they are resourceful enough to create a situation where the money would never run out. America has faced greater challenges than that one and have come through with flying colors – - – every time.
Like someone suggested (The way I read it) in an article that was written in another blog – - -I do not understand how a nation as great as America can tolerate a situation where those who have the means to access health care (The 1%) can get away with constantly trying to crush access to affordable health care for the other 99% just for the sake of some lobbyists, special interest groups, greedy practitioners, some insurance companies and Big Pharma.
I mean doesn’t that “Pledge Of Allegiance” contain the words, “Liberty And Justice For All?” Does it say, “Liberty And Justice Only For Those Who Can Afford Them?”
America, as a nation, has vast resources at Her disposal. My question is “Doesn’t the Nation have some kind of responsibility as a Free and United People to use that vast store of resources for the good and benefit of the people who make up the nation? We send enough overseas in foreign aid often to countries who almost literally despise us, don’t we? How about keeping a little of that aid money here at home to help our own people when they need it? Is that being too unreasonable?
Of course Reichties love to complain and gripe and moan that whenever the government becomes involved in health care that some Liberty, Freedom or Right of theirs has been invaded or that The Constitution has been ignored or some such other Conservatist claptrap.
I do have to agree with them to some extent.
I have to agree that when government does nothing to get a program going to help people access affordable health care the right to a premature death for lack of care is sometimes assured – - -
I have to agree that when government does nothing to get involved in a program to help people obtain affordable health care the Right to pay sometimes unaffordable often seemingly exorbitant prices for needed medications is assured – - -
And let us not forget our “Right” to go bankrupt because of unaffordable exponentially high and ever-escalating medical bills. We need to protect the interests of all those Bankruptcy Lawyers, don’t we? Isn’t than an American obligation too?
In my view, these are all “Rights” that the Rightie-Tighties would love to see preserved for the 99% of Americans who cannot write big checks for their own health care needs.
So, the question remains as to whether affordable health care in America is a Privilege or a Right.
I guess it might be a “Moral” issue that could be addressed by the “Family Values, Religion and Morality Crowd” who are always and forever seemingly blowing the “America is a Christian Nation” horn.
But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for some of these obstructionist intransigents to bend on the issue.
John Liming publishes The Liming Liberal Democrat.
___
Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.
.
Most on the right lack the empathy gene so it’s always going to be a matter of privilege for them. They could not care less to what happens to the 50 million without health insurance and access to proper health care.
Here’s another viewpoint. The 1% have wealth because they understand how markets work, i.e. supply and demand. Anytime that you make more money available for something with a fixed supply, you get higher costs for it. They (the 1%) might be generally against government sponsored health care payments, because they know that unlimited federal funds targeted toward a commercial medical industry, will increase costs, not decrease them. They’re not heartless or out-of-touch. They’re actually more in tune with reality of market factors.
And totally out of touch with human needs, human concerns and human compassion in my humble opinion.
“Anytime that you make more money available for something with a fixed supply, you get higher costs for it.”
Kind of like how all those Trillions to so-called “job creators” have resulted in “higher costs” to find one’.
There is nothing that substantiates the statement “UNLIMITED federal funds targeted toward a commercial medical industry” – ad hoc comments like that too often form a false basis for peoples mistaken opinions which in turn produces Cowpie’s of Distortion that the American electorate has to muddle through, for the truth.
Tommy Paine says, ” Anytime that you make more money available for something with a fixed supply, you get higher costs for it. They (the 1%) might be generally against government sponsored health care payments, because they know that unlimited federal funds targeted toward a commercial medical industry, will increase costs, not decrease them.”
How do you explain the fact that this has not been the case in the rest of the world?
I have followed this article since firs PC’d by John Liming. Glad I held off on seeking permission to post it on my place, as I am glad to see it here. The topic is one that should receive deep exploration. There are reasons the United States is one of the few industrialized nations which has not adopted some form of healthcare system which covers their populations comprehensively. I have watched a few television shows related to free health clinics. One very popular show was recently re-broadcast on 60 Minutes.
http://www.ramusa.org/ (SITE)
http://youtu.be/ckPSrcJNLjg (vid link).
Of course, most who red here know that MSNBC broadcast a few segments related to Free Heath Care Clinics in a few major US cities (New Orleans, Kansas City, to name a couple).
I recall as I watched an MSNBC segment seeing a mature lady, sitting an waiting her turn to visit the free clinic. her husband had passed away a few years prior, and she said she felt, “well, I am going not go to the clinic”. She had no healthcare for some reason. I am guessing she was not eligible for Medicare or whatever social service would afford some form of healthcare. She was dressed as if gong to attend church and I will never forget her bright red coat and what appeared as a worship day hat. She was treated at the free clinic in Kansas city. Bth sets of clinics discovered people who were immediately transported to emergency rooms for care. Some had no dental and they sat patiently with children,. I cannot imagine a children suffering through a dental ailment. One more teal of sorrow. I have been recently reacquainted with a free form military passed years in the US Air Force. He retired within the past few months form his long-term employer. He thought his veteran status would suffice for medical care. I do not know why he is not enrolled in a COBRA Program, but that is not the focus of my using him as an example.
He was informed, as was I, upon requesting medical coverage form the VA that George W. Bush, pushed through a directive in 2003 to trim VA medical benefits. The site offers a few examples of how Bush used promises of care to vets as a ‘cut item’ to help fund a fabricated war.
http://www.awolbush.com/index.html
While not clearly delineated in the linked informational, I was told point blank that I could not have vets medical services because my income level from my last job higher than the Bush threshold (I believe $20,000 per year). And one yea had not elapsed, so that year was still causing me to suffer a disqualification.
When we joined the air Force we were told about GI Benefits (and we leveraged that bennie) and free medical care for services rendered. Well, very quietly Bush took that away with no notice to us Vets. So, I not only denied help, I was told I may was well just leave (Figuratively speaking, not literally).
I hope no omne goes to cost related to helathcare hor the nation.
Think I will just end this here…..
Want fair health coverage? Become a politician!
After all the arguments have been argued and all the words have been spoken, there remains nothing but the naked facts and the naked facts are: The Modern Extremest Conservatives have one goal – - – to feed the rich at the expense of everyone else and they will use any argument or any fabrication to advance their cause of total ownership of the society, the wealth thereof and the inhabitants thereof. The other side of the coin is Liberal Compassion – - – the true manifestation of Christian Love – - -that recognizes a nation as a group of people who have a common heritage, common destiny and who are inclined to watch each others backs regardless of privilege or social status or wealth. It doesn’t get any more complicated than that. I am sure that if Rightie can find a way to make more profit from Universal Health Care than might be required to sustain it, then Rightie will be right there on the bandwagon promoting it. That is the nature of The Beast.
John,
I had to add a piece on my place to accompany this piece and the artistry of Mario. Hope you think it relevant.
AGREE w/Nivi
I agree with Nivi too and that is exactly what President Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act – - – The one the Rightie hates so much – - – is designed to do; give all Americans the same kind of health care coverage enjoyed by The Members of Congress. What could be so bad about that?
Thanks for the links Pardu and your right Liming… Americans are not asking for welfare, they want and deserve affordable health care..
“How do you explain the fact that this has not been the case in the rest of the world?”
Charlie – Economic laws mimic natural laws. Under natural law, when you increase the food supply in an area, you’ll get more of the life forms that depend on that food supply. Decrease the food supply, and you’ll get less of them. The same is true in economics.
Medicine is a commercial industry in the U.S, and thus follows economic laws. I haven’t looked into it, but I would guess that in countries where the government pays for all medical needs, the medical suppliers are government owned, not commercial ventures.
“The Modern Extremest Conservatives have one goal – – – to feed the rich at the expense of everyone else and they will use any argument or any fabrication to advance their cause of total ownership of the society, the wealth thereof and the inhabitants thereof.”
John – Having a robust middle class benefits the rich. Why would they want to destroy it? How would the rich gain wealth if they had it all?
“The other side of the coin is Liberal Compassion – – – the true manifestation of Christian Love – – -that recognizes a nation as a group of people who have a common heritage, common destiny and who are inclined to watch each others backs regardless of privilege or social status or wealth.”
Instead of telling people to “watch each others backs”, tell people to not take what isn’t theirs. If we all lived with that viewpoint, we wouldn’t have to watch each others backs. Taking without permission is wrong, regardless of justifications.
A society is peaceful to the degree that people have to worry about protecting what they legally own. A society where everyone is forced to “watch each others backs”, is not my idea of a safe place to live.
Read your Bible and see how early Christians were instructed to watch out for one another and then when you are through reading all about that – - – make the typical Right Wing argument to me again about what a great “Christian” Nation The United States is. We are one people united – - – or we are no people at all! One of the great postulates of Right Wing ideology is that when we finally get government out of our business, the needs of society will be met by neighbor helping neighbor. Do you not know the mindless arguments advanced by contemporary Radical Conservatism?
Tommy, they already have it all. How is it that you don’t know this?
For more on the chart and why the top 10% should pay more, see here.
Tommy is a great debater (No great debater is always right and they often do not care if they are right. The debate is the charge..not referencing Tommy in that last statement)…I strongly suspects he ‘knows this’ as Mario stated. . Paradigm is a horrid thing. Once there it is hard to get the mind in a different place. Once the mind goes to that place, it finds cause to rationalize being there. Example, I know people who had very very well paying jobs, lived beyond their means and did not properly set aside for hard times. They were staunch, GIVE ME MORE conservatives”. “You Say it they did it. conservatives” They both worked for the same company, lose their jobs and within 9 months were on food stamps. Now, I will wager, they went through a paradigm shift back from their ‘roots in conservatism’ domain’.
I see Tommy is back, fatuous as usual,with no understanding of the man who’s name he usurps!
Mario. – Why is that chart a reason the top 10% need to pay more? And try to answer without using any derivative of the word “fair”.
We will completely disregard all charts and we will propose that all of us live in a community and are interdependent. Thus, those who reap more of the rewards of the community have a greater obligation to support the community.
In that I enjoy life among others, John, and appreciate the high standards we share, you and I agree.
Where we disagree, is that you want the commitment to the community mandatory, and I want it voluntary.
“Mandatory” would be part of the Ethic of membership in the community and voluntary would imply someone who wants the benefits of community with none of the responsibility for it. That does not square with the Judaeo-Christian values presupposed in Conservatism.
Sorry about the mistypes above folks…was at work and between classes. My PCs do not spellcheck here. Again sorry about that. I took my comment and added it to a third post related to this topic. (W/clean-up typing) Healthcare: Right or Privilege Deux and Tres,,,,,,
Charts and Top 10%. If John’s community is an ideal in a free and caring nation, the charts show just how income disparity is tearing at the basic fiber of the community. The charts for me denote success (Often off the sweat of others) without a corollary commitment to providing a community good for all. This guy speaks volumes about the charts Mario posted. And he is factual in his Business case for paying more.
http://www.theprogressivesinfluence.com/2012/05/outre-billionaire-nick-hanauer.html
But your “mandatory” isn’t equal. Those at the bottom of the economy, gain “the benefits of community with none of the responsibility for it”, while those at the top are forced to pay for the “Ethics” standards that you impose on them.
Because the country is in a financial crisis with a soaring debt and the wealth is held by the top 10%. And because of this:
Now you tell me, who is in a better position to help increase revenue as part of a plan to bring down the deficit…the top 10% or the bottom 90%? And if you’re not sure, read the above paragraph again.
Also, Tommy, you made a statement (see my previous comment) which was central to the argument you were making that wealth was not concentrated at the top. I’ve shown you that you were completely wrong on that point and yet your response was to ignore the point and to go on to ask me a question. Why not address the very important fact that the middle class is dying and that wealth inequality is a very real problem in the U.S.
Locked-In thinking processes can never be deterred by reasoned discourse– so don’t even persist . Nothing is accomplished in the effort.
Ignoring points of argument is a common debate tactic and indicate the debater wants to frame the discussion their point of view. Such a tactic makes it impossible for the debaters opponent to argue from an offensive (and often logical perspective). It is impossible for conservatives to avoid realization there is ‘UNFAIRNESS” and vital need to pay more in taxes. Their ‘uber’ wealthy brethren are spending millions to support their desire to establish a plutocracy with their support for a candidate who far seems to embody the perfect ‘elitist’ snob.
Mario – I don’t disagree with the chart, or the fact that wealth has moved toward the top. I disagree with the explanation of causes, and the resultant solutions that the left would impose on people.
The only solution I hear consistently coming from the left, is to forcibly take the wealth from people who they’ve determined “don’t deserve it”. The left believes that the rich took the money from the middle class, so it should be the government’s job it get it back for them. I disagree with that.
I believe that over the last 30 years or so, the tax code has been manipulated by the rich to “make money from money”, rather than making money from investing in companies that employ people. I think tweaking the tax codes would help to close the income gap.
And John, I don’t have locked-in thinking processes. I do have one fundamental belief that I use to gauge my view of right and wrong: “Am I taking something without agreement of the owner.” That “something” can be money, articles of property, time, attention, or beliefs. I try to live my life through the filter of “take only with permission”. I believe that all honesty and courtesy flows from that statement.
You know Tommy, The views and personal moral philosophy you assert above sound fine for a child being taught the virtues of common courtesy:
This sounds fine on the surface. But when applied to the income and asset inequality in this country it offers no remedy. Yes, I agree with you about the tax code – good start. But we won’t fix the problems with the middle class without compensating the system for what is wrong. This wealth HAS been taken from the middle class. Don’t forget what the Libertarians and Republicans are using now to persuade: “Tax breaks for the Job Creators.” (trickle down redux) You can’t get away with saying:
This shows that you have a typical Libertarian attitude that it is best to let the strong survive and too bad about the losers. The rich got advantages by fixing the system with their money and influence. Now they need pitch in and help the middle class that they took the wealth from.
OC – Ok, so according to Mario, and now you, the 10% have more than they deserve. Let’s say that you succeed in clawing back some of that wealth. How do you get it to the middle class?
“And John, I don’t have locked-in thinking processes. I do have one fundamental belief that I use to gauge my view of right and wrong: “Am I taking something without agreement of the owner.”
Like someone else’s name!
Enough Peter. The English hated Thomas Paine; he cost them a continent. So quit going on like he’s some kind of favorite son.
Why do some people insist that “manipulating the tax code” to make money is fair? Especially when that form of legal tax evasion is reserved only for those at the top 1% of earnings.
Even the word “earning” is deceiving because it implies that someone actually worked for that money, when in fact, the tax code discourages work, at least certainly for the rich.
Take a look at Line 7 of the 1040, the one where you report wages, salaries and tips — work. It’s from your W2. If you take Romney as an example, of course, he had “no wages, salaries or tips”, which can be taxed at up to 35 percent.
His biggest disclosure is Line 13, “capital gains” — paper profits — where he weighs in with $12,573,249 from 2010. On that, he pays a mere 15 percent.
Better to do no work and pay taxes at a far lower rate on “capital gains” or a category Romney shares with certain hedge fund managers: compensation from his Bain Capital days also taxed at 15 percent called “carried interest”.
Additionally, with a Swiss bank account and holdings in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, Romney by example demonstrated another kind of incentive — invest in foreign countries while paying the “absolute minimum in taxes” to your own nation.
Meanwhile, their are some saying, that the average American worker who actually do “work”, in construction, at factories, at shipping ports or just on the job every day in the service industry, are the ones that are receiving too many tax breaks and attempt to put the burden of a sluggish economic recovery on them.
No one asked the middle-class if they wanted to bailout the banks with taxpayer money, no one asked the middle-class if it was okay to lose all their savings in their 401k’s because Wall Street gambled their money away and no one is asking the middle-class why they should continue paying taxpayer subsidies to the richest corporations in the Nation, if not the world.
“Am I taking something without agreement of the owner.” Well if you consider over 15 million Americans without jobs, millions more who lost their homes, millions of others that continue to struggle because of a tax code that favors the wealthy….the grand answer is YES !
So did the fledgling French and American Governments. I never said he was a national hero, just one of mine.
Ok Tommy, Simple – Raise taxes (in the manner of progressive tax systems) on the rich and reduce them for the poor and middle class. Use some of the money to pull the 90% up by keeping the cost of higher education as low as you can, and fund head start programs and nutritious meals for poor kids. NOT as the moral choice (though that is great) but because it makes our whole country stronger and better and the next Einstein may be a poor kid in Detroit who’s brain will not form correctly because of malnutrition. My opinion.
I can’t say for sure, but I think it might be helpful if some of the more Liberal of the commenters on this subject were to read into the following link for awhile before attempting to respond to some of the air heads leaving inane remarks on this subject:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/#six
Peter Hockley says:
June 19, 2012 at 3:58 pm
“And John, I don’t have locked-in thinking processes. I do have one fundamental belief that I use to gauge my view of right and wrong: “Am I taking something without agreement of the owner.”
Like someone else’s name!
And John Answers: In a “Community” such as the so-called “Christian” America (Right Wing emphasis is always on “Christian”) every member would automatically consider the good fortunes of every other member because that is what “Christians” do – - – they (As The Holy Babble says) have all things in common…either actually or allegorically. I understand that Rightie tends to be selfish to a fault and does not wish to share and I do not blame Rightie for that because he/she doesn’t know any better. But, if we are going to be “Christian” America, we share and if we share no one can be accused of stealing from the other and that argument is inane, mundane, pointless to this discussion and totally non-applicable. Sorry Charlie!
Thank You for your informative material Mr. Liming, I have followed many of your posts over time and I am in agreement with most if not all. I congratulate you on your web site which I have visited from time to time.
I haven’t looked it up lately but when I have, I had trouble figuring out how to post a comment, but maybe that was just me.
May I ask – Which “troll” on this site are you referring to?
PS – Allow me to recommend:
Don’t Think of an Elephant!
Know Your Values and Frame the Debate
Author: George Lakoff
Publisher: Chelsea Green Publishing
Excerpts of this book can be found in pdf format – it relates to progressive talking points and in communicating them to others.
On the site, “The Liming Liberal Democrat” there is a small thing at the bottom of each post that says something like “O-Comments.” If you click on that, the slider on the right hand side of the screen advances backward a bit and you grab hold of that with your cursor and pull it down and the box appears in which to post your comments. It does get a bit tricky and I am sorry for any inconvenience.
If you are trying to comment on my other site, “American Liberal Times,” it should be easier because the “Leave A Comment” thing is somewhat more accessible at the end of posts.
As to which Troll I am referring to . . . the answer is: “I am not referring to any one on this site as a troll. I am just including the information in the link about how to deal with trolls because sometimes some of the arguments on issues seem to go around and around and on and on and get nowhere and real trolls sometimes like to keep these things going and going and going for no other reason than to stir pots or irritate others.
Some people who argue on forums seem to get their kicks from evoking responses from others rather than actually trying to profer or obtain any information and whenever I get into one of these verbal “Frays” it often seems that I have some difficulty extricating myself from them and I cannot really see any purpose in prolonging them.
No, I am not suggesting that anyone on site is a troll – - but I have included the troll link in the event that someone might find the information to be helpful or interesting – - or useful.
The Liming Liberal Democrat is at http://thelimingview.blogspot.com/ and American Liberal Times is at http://americanliberaltimes.com/
Thanks Mr. Liming, I’ll be sure to visit those sites soon.
Re Trolls – I think you are being too kind, certainly we have been “blessed” by one or more on Mario’s site.
To be “kind”, also, I’ll refrain from naming any – lol !
Trolls crave attention and the more people they have engaging in attempting to convince him of something, the more he’ll manipulate the conversation in circles so that nothing but a lot of waste of time, words and manpower is used to accomplish NOTHING.
It’s fun playing their game for a bit, if you have nothing else to do, but eventually one wearies of the silliness and one longs for “real” discussion on the issues of importance.
Thanks again, John !
OC – It sounds good, but haven’t we been doing that since the ’60s?
Most liberal economic decisions are based on the premise that consumers are the job creators. That’s why it’s OK for money to be taken from the rich, and given to the poor and middle class. You believe that by giving people more money to spend, companies will need to hire more to supply the demand. Am I right about that?
You and I have talked about this before. I believe jobs are created by people who have an idea for a product or service, develop it as a business, convince consumers through marketing and sales to buy what they’re selling, and then hire vendors and employees as the business grows. The money paid to the vendors and/or employees is the money that’s used to consumer things. In other words, the economy starts with someone’s hard work, and ends with consumption, not the other way around.
Now having said that, here’s what I see happening in today’s world. Prior to the mid 70′s, the rich used to invest their money in real companies that hired people. The increase in stock value or the dividends paid by the stock, were capital gains and considered a good use of the money the rich had accumulated because it helped to fund individual companies and even whole industries.
Over the last 30 years, the rich have moved much of their wealth into investment vehicles that don’t create jobs. But to the tax man, they’re still considered investments, and are thus taxed at the same rate as an investment in stocks. In other words, the rich are making money from investing in money, not investing in companies.
If we change the tax codes to encourage people with wealth to invest in stocks, and discourage them from investing in things that don’t create jobs, hiring would explode in a matter of years.
The short term solution of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, sounds good, but doesn’t actually solve any problems long term.
Yes I do, as do most of the world’s economists – it is economic flow based on demand and I DO think it is effective. What you advocate, Supply Side Economics, is in my opinion, a fantasy cooked up by people who benefit from being rich and getting richer – whether the working class scratch and starve is not their problem. I have NO DOUBT that it is more effective to give advantages to the middle classes because they WILL spend the money and stimulate the economy. Then the rich who own the stocks and factories do great.
Dude, you are in the minority and belong to a cult of convenience. Keep your damn hands off my shit. I get it. Your economic theories are not proved out, they just sound good to the cult of possession is 9 points of the law and this crap is in my house.
That would be a good start, call your conservative Congressperson, I will call mine. See we are the same team for that skirmish. :)
Well, it worked pretty well when they jimmied the tax code to benefit the rich. I just think they should give some of that back, but I don’t have millions to start a Super-Pac and buy me some fancy politicians.
The Quote Says: “You believe that by giving people more money to spend, companies will need to hire more to supply the demand.?”
I used to kind of believe this myself and then it occurred to me – - – If we give people more money go spend, they will no doubt spend it at companies who have moved their manufacturing facilities off shore and will be supporting good paying American Jobs for workers who live overseas and who probably laugh at us.
I like the idea of rewarding those companies who keep jobs here at home and penalizing those companies who run off to other venues to rake it in on the backs of their seemingly endless cheap labor pools.
Common sense and decency will never win an argument with today’s crop of Extreme Conservative Look-Alikes. (And this is only my personal opinion) (Miracles have been known to happen) That honor belonged to something that we used to call “Moderate” (Reasonable) Conservatives. I think most of them are more or less gone from the scene and their power has been overshadowed by something darker and more sinister—a new and more rigid style of “True Believer” whose only credo seems to be not so much “We and Us and Ours” but more Me, Myself and Mine (My way or the highway) – - – a positioning that can cause nothing in a government but stagnation and everlasting gridlock.
AWESOME , SHARING …THANK YOU … THE PUBLIC NEEDS THIS ONE!
Finally, a word to all those who get into seemingly fruitless go rounds with those who exhibit trollish behavior on forums – - -”Finally, don’t get sucked in to a long debate. “One-up-manship” is easy to get into and notoriously difficult to get out of. If you are sticking to facts and the essential points raised, you’ll never get into a back-and-forth argument that goes nowhere.” – - – unless, of course, you have managed somehow to get yourself snared by a … troll. LOL
Good advice on Trolls John.
Great analysis of the problems we are facing worldwide and locally. Thanks for such good ideas.
Sorry, Tommy, you are incorrect. Pharmaceutical companies, with the exception of China, are not state owned. The vast majority of the industry is in the US, Switzerland and France, and all are privately owned.
The French system, like the US system is made up of private/public sectors – We have the VA (state employed doctors) and Medicare (state regulated payments) so their private/public make up is similar to ours — with the exception that they provide care for about 96% of their population.
They also sell supplemental insurance coverage that covers what the state insurance plan does not cover. Sound familiar? There are both private for profit and non-profit clinics and hospitals, and the consumer can choose where they obtain care.
To a lesser degree there is private for profit and non-profit health care in England.
Want to try to answer Charlie’s question again?
Then why are a few of the richest men in the country backing a party platform based on making them even richer? If they believe inequality in the end will hurt them, then why do they continue to lobby for tax cuts? Sorry, Tommy, as usual you just blow things out of your ass with no logic (or facts) to substantiate your claims.
Look for a new planet – because that utopia doesn’t exist on earth and based on the human psyche, never will. If nothing else, the greed of the banksters should have made that perfectly clear to you,
You fail to recognize that we are already paying for it. 50% of uninsured care is reimbursed to hospitals by the government (so they can stay in business). The rest of the money they need to cover these losses, involves billing for exorbitant prices ($10 for an aspirin) that, in turn, increases the cost of your insurance premiums. So rather than provide coverage up front that would reduce costs by providing wellness care with no co-pays vs. sick care that costs more, your preference would be to just repeal Reagan’s law that forced hospitals to care for the uninsured? What’s your alternative, Tommy? Let them die?
I love this quote:
I think I’m going to print that up and hang it on my wall.
Diana, well put.
I live in a country, The UK, that thankfully has a National Health Service. I have worked for 35 years for this wonderful institution. I have had several motorcycle accidents, breaking my spine in several places. As a result I have had two major spinal operations and I require a lot of pain and other medication. I have paid tax and national insurance, all my health care is free a point of supply.
I and many of my compatriots do not understand, why a country, as socially advanced as The USA has not set up it’s own Health Service.
Dear Mr. Hockley:
It may not have occurred to you and your compatriots that perhaps much of the U.S. may not be as “Socially Advanced” as some might believe.
We do seem to have this one impediment to common sense government.
I like to refer to the “Impediment” with such affectionate tags as “Rightie, Rightie-Tightie, Radical Extreme Cob-servatists, and most recently, “Nasties” and “Neo-Nasties.”
In any event, this mindset to which I refer seems to be driven by something more akin to Paleoethnological Neanderthalism than actual intellectualism and they seem to love the sport of Obstructionism in Congressional Confrontations.
Until some such as these get their acts together and advance on the politicoevolutionary scale in America, we may be a long time yet waiting on something as common sensical as a National Health Service.
Tommy says, “Charlie – Economic laws mimic natural laws. Under natural law, when you increase the food supply in an area, you’ll get more of the life forms that depend on that food supply. Decrease the food supply, and you’ll get less of them. The same is true in economics.”
Now Tommy, would you please explain how that theory translates into lower per capita health care costs in France. Canada, and the UK. It is also interesting to note that those three countries also enjoy longer life expectancies than we do.
Dear Mr. Sommers:
You wrote: “It is also interesting to note that those three countries also enjoy longer life expectancies than we do.”
My answer to that is, “Those three countries don’t have the level of intransigence, stupidity, obstructionism and outright Nasty-Ism that The United States has to contend with on a daily basis from our Far Right Wingie-Dingie-Nutsoes.
Things like Rightie-Ism cause a lot of stress and, as everyone knows, stress can shorten lifespans.
Dear Mr. Liming, Your response indicates that you are a perceptive man with a great deal of wisdom. I wish your ilk was more common in this country.
Dear Mr. Sommers:
That is a very kind and complimentary thing to say.
I am very grateful.
Peter, we’re still a young country and living with a big wide ocean on each side of us, an always friendly country north of us (well, since 1812) and one we have defeated in decades past, we’ve been a bit isolated from the rest of the world over here on this side of the pond.
We’ve also never had to deal with rebuilding a country from war (other than the south following the Civil War – but that was nothing compared to the destruction of cities in Europe during WW I & II, have no history of the plague, and the many other events in the course of history that seems to be embedded into a European’s DNA. I suspect our isolation has made us, not a little, but a lot, cocky. In addition, so many seem to have no real sense of our history. It’s like it’s only existed since Reagan and anything beyond that was a progressive era that they pretend never existed. Unless, of course, it’s their “rugged individualist herd riding cowboy” (a figment of their imagination, like “free markets”). Europe had to work hard to put past differences behind them and put together a compromise that would keep the continent peaceful. America just bullies her way around the world.
Maybe one day we’ll grow up into a country run by adults, rather than a bunch of spoiled brats who want it their way, or no way.
I sure hope so, these people have jumped off a cliff and they’re trying to drag the rest of the world over with them.
I’ve been replying to the same ol’ right wing rhetoric since President Obama was elected in 2008.
Rhetoric that has little in documented facts or evidence but are just pre-digested talking points from Fox or Rush or some other pundit paid to spew propaganda from the party that caused the Worst Economic Crisis Since the Great Depression.
Funny how Republicans hate “Hollywood idiots” (could it be because they may vote Democratic?) Perhaps this joke may give you a chuckle:
“The head of the RNC Reince Priebus attacked Democrats today for worshiping Hollywood movie stars. And then he went outside and turned on the lights on the big 50-foot statue of Ronald Reagan.”
The point is Republicans never look at THEMSELVES, the thought that THEY may be part of the problem never even occurs to them.
They build their WHOLE belief system on falsehoods and lock themselves around those falsehoods, while all they are truly believing in are Cowpies of Distortion.
Example they shout “MINORITIES living on the government tit” – documented statistics show the majority of people using food stamps are “white single mothers” – I think even Gingrich stated this was the case.
As I have posted before – a great number, if not most, of the “poor” people are in Red States, yet Republicans refuse to help the poor.
In short, though there are areas of poverty throughout the Nation – the majority that seem to live ON those dreaded “government handouts”, are those in Republican states.
It is a matter of humor NOW, but the truth is, many of those on the “right” oppose “government healthcare” yet they are ON Medicare and Medicaid, GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE.
If you’re a vet – you have “government Healthcare” through VA.
If you were in the military in any capacity, you had a “government job” and many of the “government benefits” that came with it.
One of the best being the GI bill which gave the opportunity for Americans to get a college education and provide the basis for a prosperous family – Republicans called THAT welfare.
Republicans, somehow get brainwashed into believing that anything that doesn’t agree with THEIR agenda must be “communism, socialism, marxism” which they then pride themselves in fighting against, to the point that they themselves become “Fascists” forcing THEIR personal agenda on the American people – it is unbelievable!
Lastly they will state of the poor, “they will always vote for the hand that feeds them” – that, is a BIG misconception – people will vote for the hand that allows them the opportunity to feed themselves by having jobs, education and a measure of trust in their economy and our political leaders.
Yes to provide that, government may have to spend a little money, but it is hardly the amount we have spent on “corporate welfare” where the tax code that favors the very rich has allowed them over 4 Trillion dollars of revenue, to be so-called “job creators” – well… we’re about 15 to 20 million jobs short, not a good investment
We give billions of dollars annually in taxpayer money subsidies to the richest corporations on the planet, when “subsidies” are for the purpose of new businesses needing a helping hand. That money could be use to strengthen our economy – not pander to those funding elections.
I can go on and on – but I’ve said too much already – I can’t change people’s mind, but I can provide them with truth and facts.
Diana, thank you for your reply.
The theory you have sounds very reasonable to me, but I still find it very difficult to understand why The 99%(both here in the UK and USA) do not support political ideas and solutions that would make their lives so much easier and improve them immeasurably. Ho-Hum!
Happy Birthday to your great nation next week, I hope you all have a wonderful party.
And thank you John, please call me Peter, Mr Hockley makes me look over my shoulder for my father.
What you say , appears, from my POV to be very true. I just can’t wrap my head around the level of cognitive dissonance that a huge minority of your countrymen operate under!
Dear Peter:
Thank you for granting first name privileges. In my day, “Mr.” was a sign of respect and I do respect you because you write to truth and not to some kind of agenda. I appreciate that quality because in this agenda-driven world, it is all too rare. If you are not already a statesman, you surely should be one because there aren’t all that many good ones around anymore.
As to the “…level of cognitive dissonance that a huge minority of your [our] countrymen operate under…” I must admit that there is a great deal of cognitive dissonance inherent to The American Phenomenon and I think old King George III might have asked a similar question in the period of the 1700s.
It appears to me to be both a blessing and an aberration at one and the same time.
It has made America what She is and that too is a double-edged [Wilkinson] sword because what America “Is” or “Is Not” at any given period is never quite certain but always interesting – - – in my point of view.
I have this problem – - -I am hooked on America. I can’t help myself. It is in my genes I guess.
And, as I said, I do appreciate you because of your forthright honesty and the pleasure that flows from reading your responses.
Thank you for all that.
Quite a discussion!
I have believed for a long time that Liberals missed the boat particularly when they failed to sell the message of Universal Healthcare as a Right, not a Privilege. I am not saying that it doesn’t get said at all, but it is a short, clear message. The Righties will argue against the concept, no surprise there, but I think it is a foundation from which to draw battle lines. They are wrong and we are right.
As discussed above, our system is not LESS expensive because cold hearted bastards insist on making this issue about them paying for someone elses (deadbeats) healthcare costs. It is MORE expensive for a variety of reasons. And of course, they ARE paying for the uninsured, they are paying way more because the system works poorly.
You know, I hear people around me saying things like, “Obama wants to redistribute wealth.” That is very catchy with Fox News types. “Obamacare will bankrupt the country.” I always reply that our current system is on the way to doing that now, so what is the right wing alternative? Then the mumbling starts and they have no cogent answers.
There is no way around it. People cannot be turned away from the hospital, even if they are broke. We pay for them now in the most expensive, inefficient way possible. And conserva-chimps have no solutions, just talking points which are as hollow as their craniums.
I have read that a conservative estimate of the cost of an emergency room visit is around $1,000. A trip to a doctor’s office would be $50 to $100 depending on location. Those who can’t afford health care and instead rely on ERs are costing us dearly. I don’t see how or why the right either ignores or denies this fact. Universal care should lower our costs considerably.
OC – you’ll never sell healthcare to the right as a “right.” — Not ever. During the 2008 campaign when I was making calls for the Obama campaign I made a call to Indiana. I ended up getting into a conversation with a guy who was the comptroller for his company.
His worry was a single payer health care system might be enacted and he was opposed to that. When I explained to him that all other industrial countries that we compete with have a single payer system and our businesses are forced to compete with them on an unlevel playing field, his entire mindset changed. At that time there were many articles discussing the fact that companies were relocating to Canada so they would not have the health care obligations there that they have here. (And, yes, companies in most of these countries do pay into those systems, but not to the extent they do here.) When I pointed that out to him, his entire attitude about it changed and he was more receptive when I explained how we’re paying for those uninsured costs in both our taxes and premiums.
If you want to change the mind of a conservative about anything, you have to go at it from “how it will help business.”
They have made it clear they don’t care about people (other than themselves) because all other people to them are unworthy (i.e. poor, lazy, pot smoking liberals).
Frame your positions from their angle and you’ll have more success.
I’ve been occupied for the last few days, so I haven’t been able to comment. I wanted to, but there was always something else that needed to be done first. It fascinates me the way “life” will hold us back from doing something for some unknown purpose.
I haven’t read or commented on any blogs except liberal blogs for the last 2 years, 98% of that on this blog. Because of that, I’ve always felt like a lone voice, like I’m some sort of contrarian.
Then I read this blog post. It explains pretty well the point I was trying to make about economics. And the comments! Sweet sounds of common sense! There are brethren out there. Others see what I see. I’m not alone.
I can see why people with common viewpoints will congregate on “friendly” blogs. They feed each others realities. It feels good to be in the midst of so much agreement.
But don’t worry Mario. I’m having too much fun to stop bringing new viewpoints to you. I don’t care who tries to call me a troll, or how subtly they deny it, I’ll stick with you.
Oh where to start — Erika Johnsen — a paid political commentator at townhall.com. Definitely not the journalist she’s pretending to be at hotair.com (no mention there that she’s a “political commentator” there) – just another political hack with a one sided and fact free based commentary to push her own political agenda.
She laments “gigantic bailouts,” but offers just that as her solution to solve the problem. She claims, “peeling back regulation and lowering taxes is the way to create bottom-up economic growth” — seriously? This is just laughable. Nothing more than a continuation of the “gigantic bailouts” she just railed against.
The Bush tax cuts have lost us $2 trillion in revenue – that’s one hellava bailout. (Don’t even bother Tommy – you and I will NEVER agree on this one, so don’t waste my time and yours responding to it.)
The auto loans are making us money. The banking bailout was done by Bush with no strings attached and we’re still seeing how that’s [not] working out. The banks are still gambling and while the markets aren’t as frozen as they were when it comes to loaning money, it’s still not back to where it was. And with all the griping about Dodd-Frank only about 1/4 – 1/3 of it has been implemented, since the GOP withheld funding to the agencies responsible for writing the rules, putting them behind their target date for completion by 1 year. So it’s not even close to being effective yet. And won’t be if the GOP takes control of the Senate and keeps the House.
Profits are higher than they have ever been, while wages are lower than they have ever been.
I guess she just forgot to mention that phenomenon. Somehow that “trickle down” managed to trickle up. GOP doesn’t mind redistribution of wealth, as long as it floods up to the top, rather than sending even a golden shower down to the bottom.
She states, “How and why is an American entrepreneur going to start a small business if he knows that, even if he manages to get through all the red tape and make a profit, the government will tax the bejeezus out of him?”
But she fails to mention all the tax cuts put in place for small business: Facts about small business tax cuts from the SBA
Small business can’t blame all their problems on the tax breaks they are getting — these are new businesses with people often just getting started – many with little business accumen. I saw a segment the other day where several small business owners were brought in for training and learned how they could increase their profits considerably from the training they received.
And how does she explain this, Recession Brought a Small-Business Boom
While she contends “President Obama’s policies discourage growth, and the free market can solve our problems,” she forgets it was the “free market” that screwed us over and put us in this mess in the first place.
The deregulation of the financial industry giving them free rein over derivatives and a 40/1 leverage — let’s see, it all began with the savings & loan debacle after deregulation allowed them to run amok, then MCI, Tyco, Enron (derivatives there, too) and then with the Glass Steagall repeal, the Great Depression II held off by what little Bush & co did and tying Obama’s hands behind his back to prevent him from doing all that could be done to get us back on track.
And then, of course, the biggest omission is the stock market, The Stock Market Loves Obama:
Had the states not laid off so many public sector employees, we’d be at 7% or less unemployment. The GOPs failure to participate in governing this country has kept us at 8%.
Gee, taking this argument apart is child’s play — give me something I have to work hard at refuting. She needs to learn how to do research…unless of course she wants to be nothing more than be a paid political hack all her life. No wonder she’s posting on “hotair” — she’s full of it.
Henry Ford had the right idea – pay his workers more so they could afford to buy the cars they were building. Unfortunately, the greedy Dodge brothers just couldn’t stand giving up a bit of profit so they could make more in the end by selling more cars. And that case just put another rung on the corporate ladder to personhood.
Thank you John.
I’ve been an Americanophile since I was a child. It seemed like a true land of plenty to a child of the 50′s. I’ve spent a lot of time in your beautiful and extraordinary country. I’ve always been made to feel very welcome there, the hospitality of your countrymen has surprised me on numerous occasions. A warm and generous people, if some what preoccupied with gun ownership!
I’m a member of Charter 88 here in The UK, we are trying to establish a Constitution and Bill of Rights, similar to that which you have in The States. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are 2 of the most important documents produced by the enlightenment. It always amazes me that a bunch of 18th Century landowners, scientists and general contrarians established a country on the basis of a constitution that has been so robust as to have survived, with minor alterations, for over 200 yrs!
Once again thank you for your kind compliments, and have a splendid birthday party for your amazing and strangely wonderful country.
I still like the description of the relationship between our two countries as divided by a common language!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter88
http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?page_id=551
@Tommy.
I won’t bother ripping apart the HotAir piece you linked to. I could never come close to doing as fine a job as was done by Diana (see above.) Instead, allow me to zero in on the following statement you made.
Sweet sounds of common sense? Really? Here are the first 7 comments from that post.
And the comments only get emptier and uglier as one reads more of what you refer to as “sweet sounds of common sense.” If you take comfort in that type of drivel, Tommy, so be it. I will only say that the U.S. is at a point where corporate interests are on the verge of buying the White House (they’ve made great advances in the last 30 years but never like this.) Also, decades of trickle down economics has left a greater economic divide between rich and poor than has been seen in the last 70 years. It doesn’t work…you have the proof before you. And yet you choose to ignore it.
Welcome to the United States of Koch.
I’m Lovin’ It – - – Righties and Nasties will be true believers until the day it all comes to fruition. Watch the young officer at the end of the film entitled Schindler’s List and see what I am talking about.
“Here’s a counterintuitive take on the Great Recession for you. There are actually more small businesses now than there were in 2006, when the recession began.”
There is one very easy explanation for this statistic, more unemployed, no safety net, one option start a business.
Mario are you beginning to understand why I find Mr “Pane” so infuriating? Pane by name pain by nature!
Exactly, Peter. There are typically more business start ups during this period. People who have longed to start their own companies, rarely have time to do it while they are employed for the man. The sorry excuse we have for a safety net is the added impetus to get people motivated. So between necessity and desire these businesses have looked for and found a niche — many supporting the needs of other businesses, rather than direct dealings with a public still forced to hold onto their wallets.
Mario,
Thank you for dealing with that nonsense…I couldn’t even bring myself to read beyond the first two. These people are so warped by their hatred their logical thinking skills have been incapacitated, if they ever had any.
I see the progressive intellectuals are debating with those who wish to turn America over plutocrats. It really is shameful as conservatives have proven over time they govern for the nations monies class. It takes but a moment secure data that illustrates the points espoused by each progressive who have written here. Their own father of conservatism said. “facts are stubborn things”. Btw, I have yet rorwada libertarian who did not suffer from the same anti humane paradigms as conservatives. While there more than libertarians arguing points here….I am reading a lot of Koch talking points. iPhone use cannot proof… This time… Diana. Peter John Mario great points
Diana mkes a point I made minutes after the thread started. Hard to debate with people who have voted for Bush twice….. Sure my liberal friends here have seen this . Pls do not giveme any advice or comment, if you voted for Bush. If you voted for Bush twice, read previous to yourself out loud !
You’re right Diana. We’ll probably never agree. You define virtue by how much you give. I define virtue by how little I take. Don’t get me wrong, I give freely, but only of what’s mine to give. You give what isn’t yours by taking from people who you define as having too much. It just feels so good to give that you just can’t wrap your “logical” mind around the harm you’re doing by giving what isn’t yours to give.
Tell you what, Diana, go back to that blog and post a rant about how much better your ideas are. I’d love to see how your “logic” stands up.
Mario, I’m going to say this very definitively, so there’s no misunderstanding of where I stand with regard to big corporations.
Big corporations want big government, and all the regulations that it imposes, because it keeps their competitors down.
I don’t like the power imposed on us by big corporations, any more than I like the power imposed on us by big government. You’re failing to recognize that they’re in bed together.
Am I clear?
“Tommy Pane says:
June 24, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Mario, I’m going to say this very definitively, so there’s no misunderstanding of where I stand with regard to big corporations.
Big corporations want big government, and all the regulations that it imposes, because it keeps their competitors down.
I don’t like the power imposed on us by big corporations, any more than I like the power imposed on us by big government. You’re failing to recognize that they’re in bed together.
Am I clear?”
Yup!
And as fatuous as ever!
Tommy what corporations want are no rules – when they can’t get that, they want all the loopholes they can get which is why government is so bloated. They don’t want simple rules – like putting a limit on how much you can pollute. If they can’t pollute all they want, then they want to make sure they get as many exemptions as they can. And, yes, they want to use as much regulation as they can to kill their competitors…and then they act like a bunch of crybabies whining about regulations.
It’s one thing to allow lobbyist to lobby their representatives, what we also allow is their ability to lobby the regulators.who write the rules because the regulators need their help in writing the rules. The government should be paying for the high priced lawyers to write loophole proof enforcement rules that keep it simple and end the exemptions.
Companies, instead of trying to kill their competition, need to be making better products to compete. When they are allowed to kill their competitors, we lose. The problem is not the regulations, the problem is the exemptions.
Diana, the remedies you have suggested for regulation of companies are simple but effective, the one thing we need to do both in The USA and The UK is to halt the lobbying of the regulatory framework. Simple but effective.
It’s not black-n-white. Both contribute to the problem. Large corporations don’t have a problem with a high corporate tax rates, because they can lobby for the exemptions that will save them from having to pay it, while knowing that their smaller competitors won’t be able to take advantage of them. The smaller companies have to pass the tax rate on to their customers, while the big corporations don’t, resulting in an unfair competitive advantage for the big corporation.
Since the corporate taxes are passed on to the consumers anyway, how about if we just eliminate them. That will take away the competitive advantage of the big corporations, eliminate the need for lobbyists, and end up lowering the price paid by consumers. Any lost tax revenue would be more than made up for by all the companies who would locate in the US if the corporate tax rate was zero, especially if it was phased in over a 10 year period. The economy would explode.
Yes, Peter, it may begin in Congress or the Parliament, but it ends with those actually putting the rules together in those agencies responsible for enforcement.
If you want to change what’s wrong, then you have to get down to the processes — those are really the place where all the sell outs begin and end.
I hear all the screaming about the budget not being passed – the budget is merely a blueprint – it is not a law that requires it be followed and since it’s not a law, it doesn’t require Presidential signature.
But the ONLY place in Congress where the money comes from is through the Appropriations Committee. That’s why Ted Stevens was so powerful on the Senate side. No one could get a dollar for their state without his approval.
You don’t play ball with the Chairman/woman of these Committees, you get nothing.
Well now – - – that kind of puts the Ka-Hoosh on a lot of those myth-informed Rightie-Tighties who like to complain that all the national spending is the fault of President Obama, doesn’t it?
Are you Right Wing Obtusians listening?
That will never solve the problem of small business against big business — Big business will always have the competitive advantage over small business.
Big business can their raw material in larger quantities so they will always get a better price. They can purchase finished products made by Chinese laborers for huge discounts over the mom and pops. Therefore, they will always be able to undercut their smaller competitors.
They will always be able to spend more in advertising dollars, get better deals from local governments for land, tax rates, infrastructure, etc.
Small companies trying to compete with larger ones can only be successful if they can find their niche market. Take the local hardware store vs. the big box. If I know I need to buy something from someone who can tell me how to use a product, I go to the local store who has knowledgeable people that can give me guidance. If I know how to use the product, I’ll go for the cheaper price at the big box, because even if they have knowledgeable staff, you can never find them.
Taxes are the least of your problems, Tommy. Especially if you are a small business – 18 tax breaks have been created just for small business. If anything, you should want big business to pay a larger share of the taxes — they do, after all, use more resources — cops to protect their property, roads to keep customers coming to their stores, water, sewers, electricity (through worn out grids that waste huge amounts of electricity getting it to the end user), etc.
There’s a lot more to it than taxes, Tommy, but that’s all you ever seem to focus on.
Tommy, I read the post you linked. Do you see the difference in the quality of comment response compared to this site? Many of the comments are “Drive bys” or talking points dealt with no explanation or nuance. Most of the bloggers here are informed and adept at articulating an argument based on facts studies and statistics (not to mention science). I am not generally impressed.
Ka-hoosh? Obtusians?
Gotta Love It? Mr. Liming creative use of the English language keeps me entertained !
Dear Golden Sun:
Thank you for your kind encouragement concerning my coinages.
Sometimes I find that by creating a word, I can express emotions that run deep without invoking the traditional and often socially taboo expressions. Thus “Ka-Hoosh” becomes the anatomical posterior parts of Homo Sapiens until such time as I can think up something that resonates a little better with me.
I have one Rightie who gets so confounded by this habit of mine that she complains, “Your writings are nothing but incomprehensible gibberish and I fear that you have become incoherent.”
Of course I think this is one of those that I often refer to as having been absent – - – perhaps away on jury duty during her 5th grade graduation – - – you know, the typically totally obtuse Rightie Extremeist personna.
Yes, it is fun to create and I hope the audience kind of fills in the blanks and has fun with reading this stuff.
Here is another one that just occurred to me: To express someone elses angst at something, I would write that what I said must have “Twisted Their Twine.”
I think I have used “Moulded Their Marshmallow” at one time or another and then there is always this one: “He acts like he has a river slug in his toupee.”
But it thrills me to no end when someone pays me a compliment like this and I am sincerely grateful to you. Thanks loads.
John, how about one I read today “I pop up to say they’ve got a face like a butcher’s perineum” , courtesy of Charlie Brooker at The Guardian. Got to say I love Ka-Hoosh, wonderfully onomatopoeic!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/thank-god-for-clive-james?CMP=EMCNEWEML1355
Mr. Liming and Mr. Hockley,
Thanks for the good natured chuckles !
Mr. Liming – “Your writings are nothing but incomprehensible gibberish and I fear that you have become incoherent.” – Classic lol !
When having a battle of wits with Republicans one often finds that they generally are unarmed ;- )
At least you don’t get the comments I get from frustrated righties faced with fact and/or truth – i.e.:
“Oh, Golden Sun, one of the biggest Obozo sheep on these blogs…he is good at turning a piece of chit into a babe ruth bar!!!” – That one made me laugh too, lol !
Mr. Hockley.. “butcher’s perineum” – that would stump any rightie, they’re usually not too literate … but I must admit even I had to look up “onomatopoeic”. Good One !
Though we love to flaunt our knowledge of the queen’s English – I’m sure we can all agree Republicans have basic understanding levels – thus the use of chalkboards, picture drawings and puppet shows by Fox’s Glenn Beck and the ritual of pretty blond ladies “googling” the hard words for our Foxaholic friends. Hilarious !
Please Carry On the Great Work My Friends !!