France rejects EU constitution

[jersey_guy]

This might be the first useful thing the French have ever done. The monstrous, undemocratic "constitution," pushed down the Europeans' throats by Chiraq, Schroder and other eurocrats, was overwhelmingly rejected by the French people in today's referendum (latest returns show 56% voted against it with a record 70% turnout!).

And on Wednesday Holland is holding its own referendum, and polls show the constitution will be overwhelmingly rejected there as well.... Not to mention it has minimal chance of passage in the UK as well.

The constitution would take away a lot of right from sovereign nations and place it in the hands of unelected eurocrats in Brussels, so no wonder it is very unpopular in many member states. What it means is that the liberal deranged dream of creating a semi-democratic superstate with a giant unacountable bureaucracy was derailed for a long time.

Even better for America, it showed that Franss and Germany in general and Chiraq and Schroder in particular are no longer "in charge" of Europe. It is a tremendous blow to the anti-American OLD EUROPE and a success for Britain and our allies in the NEW EUROPE who will now not be browbeaten into submission by the frogs.

It was also an overwhelming rejection of Chirac and his government who campaigned very hard to approve this CON-stitution, but apparently Mr. Chirac is hated as much in Franss as here in the US (outside of Upper West Side and San Francisco).

And best of all,

BUSH and BLAIR were reelected

while

CHIRAC and SCHRODER are quickly going down the toilet!!!!

There is justice in the world!!

[Jwaksman]

Well, actually, most of the French who voted against the EU constitution thought that it was too far to the right. Remember, Chirac is a French "conservative." His main opposition is the French Socialist Party. Many frenchmen were afraid that the constitution would lead to people from poorer countries coming in and taking French jobs.



So.... French rejection of Chirac is not a good thing for Bush. If Chirac loses office, his replacement will be even more anti-capitalism and anti-Bush.



Don't confuse that with Germany, where Schroeder is, in fact, in the more leftist party. And with his declining popularity the government is being made up more and more of the Democratic Christian Party and the Libertarians. I believe his party is called the Social Democrats, which is the leftist main party.

[jersey_guy]

I know why most of the frogs voted against it, but it does not matter. what matters is that the constitution is dead on arrival. Ironically, it was made up mostly by the French politicians and "intellectuals" (meaning socialists).

Remeber that the Socialist Party also supported the constitution.

And by Frunch standards, Ted Kennedy is an extreme right wing radical, so calling Chirac a conservative does not mean much.

In France the main conflict is not between conservatives and socialists (because they both agree that America and free market are the two worst things in the world), but between the ruling elite and the masses (since about 1789).

So French rejection of Chirac is a good thing for Bush. The favorite to win the next presidential election if Frankistan is Nicolas Sarkozy, who is from the same party as Chirac ("conervatives"), but at least he is not mentally deranged and has not attacked America much in his speeches.

Schroder's government is made up only of Social Democrats (SPD) and Greens (commies) while Christian Democrats (CDU) are the main opposition party. SPD has been doing so poorly in state elections (voted out of office in 3/4 of German states, including last week in North Rhine-Westphalia, which has 25% of Germany's population and where SPD has ruled continously since 1966!) that Schroder was forced to call federal elections early. They will now be held at the end of this summer in September, and the polls show SPD will be crushed with more pro-American and pro-free market CDU retaking the government for the first time since 1998.

[MoMo]

j_g, in France the constitution was opposed not only by the extreme right National Front but by the communists. which side are you allying yourself with?

It was favored by those in the middle.

you say it was written by leftists. the principal author was the former french president valery giscard d'estaing, a noted conservative.

you can call it non-democratic, but it was just rejected in a ... a what? ... a vote by all French adults. under EU law, it had to be approved by ALL 25 countries to take effect. very non-democratic indeed.

[Jwaksman]

MoMo, the constitution was written to the right of the average Frenchmen. But the reason it was destined to fail was because even if they made it to the left enough for France, it would be rejected by most of the other countries. Polls in Britain and Belgium already showed defeat as well, with both countries fearing that workers would no longer be allowed to work up to 48 hours per week if they desire, among other things.



The thing I noticed is that the EU constitution is the epitome of a bureaucratic disaster. It is over 250 pages long. That's unbelievable to me. If you look at the US constitution, it's mostly about electoral rules. There are only one or two pages that detail actual rights. And even that had trouble passing through 13 states that speak the same language. The EU constitution has pages and pages of "rights". Look at some of these:


Part II, Title II:
Article II-17-1: Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired
possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest
and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation
being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law insofar as
is necessary for the general interest.

Article II-23: Equality between men and women must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and
pay.
The principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for
specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex.

Article II-24-2: In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private Institutions,
the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.

Article II-25: The Union recognises and respects the rights of the elderly to lead a life of dignity and
independence and to participate in social and cultural life.

Article II-34: 1. The Union recognises and respects the entitlement to social security benefits and social
services providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents,
dependency or old age, and in the case of loss of employment, in accordance with the rules
laid down by Union law and national laws and practices.
2. Everyone residing and moving legally within the European Union is entitled to social security
benefits and social advantages in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices.
3. In order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right
to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack
sufficient resources, in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law and national laws
and practices.

Article II-35: Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical
treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human
health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and
activities.




Those are just a few hand-picked items, that guarantee all citizens some ridiculous number of "rights". The US gives you only the few, necessary, natural rights as defined by the great philosophers of the past - the right to free speech, to defend yourself, to private property, to a fair trial, to fair punishment, etc. The "rights" I've copied and pasted include the right to social security and "health care", whatever that means. The government has the "right" to decide what is best for a child, rather than letting parents decide for themselves. The government has the "right" to discriminate against males in order to achieve "gender equality". And some of the greatest rights are things like the guarantee for the elderly to live a "life of dignity". What does that even mean? How do you define that? How can something so vague and arbitrary be defined as a right.



If the EU constitution is ever going to pass they're going to need a system with very strong states rights (like our country was originally) and with 98% of this original constitution cut out.

[Jwaksman]

Layla, thanks for the "Bureaucratic BS to Reality" translator, hahaha. I wonder if that is one of the settings on Altavista Babblefish...

[MoMo]

well, obviously it's going to have to be dramatically redrawn -- in other words simplified and re-centered -- before anyone will dare put it before european publics again.

but i don't think the complexity of it was what bothered the french (it didn't seem to bother those from the countries who have already ratified it). the issues in france were many and varied, but foremost reflecting concerns about immigration, free enterprise and globalization, and chirac himself.

[jersey_guy]

j_g, in France the constitution was opposed not only by the extreme right National Front but by the communists. which side are you allying yourself with?


With the American side. It's in America's best interest to antagonize Old Europe against the New Europe and to cripple the Brussels bureaucracy before it creates a mandatory 35-hour work week maximum in the whole EUSSR (they already managed to ban working over 48 hrs, further crippling their economy).

[jersey_guy]

but i don't think the complexity of it was what bothered the french (it didn't seem to bother those from the countries who have already ratified it).

Uh, no. 8 of the 9 countries that ratified it did so through their parliaments, often against their citizens' wishes. Only Spanistan ratified it through a referendum, but if Spaniards let Osama elect their government then listening to orders from Chirac and Schroder was not a problem at all.

[MoMo]

With the American side. It's in America's best interest to antagonize Old Europe against the New Europe and to cripple the Brussels bureaucracy before it creates a mandatory 35-hour work week maximum in the whole EUSSR (they already managed to ban working over 48 hrs, further crippling their economy).

Ah! I am enlightened! You actually have Europe's best interests at heart, eh?

You don't want to see the European economy go (further) down the tubes?

Glad to have that clarified.

[Jwaksman]

I'm certainly not going to try to speak for JG here, but for myself I'm not entirely sure what I want. I do want Americans to realize the folly of universal health care and other things like that, and apparently the huge difference in growth between the US and France & Germany over the past 30 years hasn't been enough. So, the continual decline of those countries will help save the country that I care the most about, the US. But at the same time, I feel bad for the people who live in those countries. I think France is a great place to visit - I've spent 2 weeks there before and I plan on going back. I don't want more people there to suffer with 6 month waits for basic surgery.


So, I suppose I'm glad the EU constitution is dead. It would just make the lives worse for people in countries like England and in eastern Europe, which is much more capitalistic after spending so much time behind the Iron Curtain. Also, it would delay the demise of France and Germany, which would have been forced to actually open up their economies a little.




Of course, it doesn't really matter. No one ever really thought this constitution would survive. Initially people were surprised that France was going to reject it. Most people figured that it would be scuttled by Belgium and Britain, which are both very much against it. But all roads lead to the same finale.



Besides, we wouldn't want to give the French and the Germans more excuses for why their economies are so horrid. I was just waiting for them to blame their shortage of medicine and doctors on Turkey dragging down the EU economy...

[jersey_guy]

Ah! I am enlightened! You actually have Europe's best interests at heart, eh?

You don't want to see the European economy go (further) down the tubes?

Glad to have that clarified.

We need Europe to be wealthy enough to buy our exports. However, it's also to our advantage for Frankistan and Germany to have high enough wages and taxes to make it unprofitable for US companies to outsource any jobs there.

[Jwaksman]

The US is not outsourcing jobs to France and Germany. Do you realize the overhead cost in moving entire factories? And France & Germany have such high minimum wage laws and such tight labor laws that it wouldn't even be any cheaper to do business there. Jobs are outsourced to Asia, where labor laws are often more open and where salaries are often 1/10th of US wages, or less. Many US factories that move to countries like China and Thailand pay on the order of 50 cents per hour. That's way above the mean incomes in those countries, but still far, far less than anything that you could pay an American.

[jersey_guy]

But at the same time, I feel bad for the people who live in those countries.

I don't. If they want to have a welfare state and keep electing politicians who create it, then they should pay the price for it.

Europe needs more leaders like Margaret Thatcher. I hope when Christian Democrats win the German elections this summer, they will lower taxes and relax labor laws to make EU's biggest country at least a little more competitive on the global scene because the only other alternative is a 20% unemployment rate by the end of the decade.

Another positive outcome of the constitution's failure is that it will probably significantly delay the admission of Ukraine and Turkey into the union. Those two very poor and very populous countries would drag down the whole continent's economy because the way the EU budget works now it's a giant redistribution of wealth with money going from rich countries (like the UK) to the poor ones, and they simply cannot afford adding another 130 million poor people to the welfare rolls anytime soon.

[jersey_guy]

The US is not outsourcing jobs to France and Germany. Do you realize the overhead cost in moving entire factories?

We do not outsource jobs there directly but through buying local corporations. For example, GM owns Opel and Saab (and also wanted to buy Fiat before they realized it was totally unprofitable) and you know about the Daimler-Chrysler partnership. But it is increasingly cheaper for multinational companies to hire people in the US instead of EU, that's why GM is closing many of its European factories, and IBM just laid off thousands workers in France and Germany.

[Jwaksman]

I don't. If they want to have a welfare state and keep electing politicians who create it, then they should pay the price for it.




That's not the way countries are supposed to work. Most of the world, like the United States, lives in a constitutional republic. That means that the government has to govern the proper way, even if the public is too stupid to realize it. For example, recently we found out that the majority of teenagers think that the news media has too much freedom. But, thankfully, we have the first Amendment so that even stupid people can't take away those rights. Humans should have certain inalienable rights. And, by definition, you cannot vote away inalienable rights.

[jersey_guy]

And, by definition, you cannot vote away inalienable rights.

Yes you can, by amending the Constitution.

[Jwaksman]

The constitution cannot be amended without overwhelming support of Congress or Parliament, which is supposed to be more intelligent than the average citizen. That's why we live in a Republic, and not a Democracy. Only about 1 in every 1000 Amendments that has been proposed in American history has been passed.


Of course, not every politician is in fact more intelligent than the average citizen. For every Barney Frank you have two Rick Santorums and Ted Kennedys... But atleast that's the theory :rolleyes:

[mzungu]

you have a lot of nerve to disparage ted kennedy's intelligence. ted kennedy is by far the most distinguished senator we have had in decades. how many times has he worked with republicans to pass legislation? now, name me one more distinguished senator than kennedy.

[Jwaksman]

Name you one more distinguished senator? I can name approximately 99 current senators who didn't let their prostitute drown after driving off a bridge in Chappaquiddick.


Ted Kennedy is a lowlife and an alcoholic, and you know that. Don't just defend every Democratic and Bush-hater because they have a (D) next to their name.


Being more open-minded, I can separate between intelligent Democrats (like Barney Frank) and idiots who get elected on their name (like Ted Kennedy). Try to do the same, please.

[mzungu]

no, that's not going to do it. name a single one. if your answer is barney frank, he's served 18 years less than ted kennedy, and kennedy's sponsors many times more legislation than frank. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=edward+kennedy+sponsored+legislation
compare that to frank--medicinal marijuana, a few other things.

[Jwaksman]

So you're telling me that all that "distinguished" means is being there a long time? So I guess the three most "distinguished" members of congress are Inouye, Kennedy, & Byrd, huh? Yeah, Robert Byrd, he's certainly a hero... didn't he fillibuster for 14 hours to try to prevent Civil Rights Legislation from getting passed in the 1960's? I guess that's par for the course for a former KKK member. And I guess Strom Thurmond was distinguished for serving for 48 years, right?



You can't be that naive to not realize that after a while, people become institutions that will be re-elected forever. Thurmond couldn't even spell his own name by the end of his career, but there was no way he would lose an election in his state. Same for Robert Byrd, who is to the left of 99.9% of his state, but will continue to get re-elected because of his name.


Even people who are huge Kennedy family fans make sarcastic comments about how of all of the Kennedy family members to survive, why did it have to be Ted. He is an alcoholic and a womanizer, whose use of prostitutes is well known. In the Senate he's a hypocrite, like how he pushed for No Child Left Behind and then turned around and viciously attacked it when elections rolled around. And his comments are so low that no one takes him seriously anymore.


It bothers me that Kerry & Kennedy take up the two Massachusetts senate seats when someone as intelligent and honorable as Barney Frank is stuck in the House.

[Zat0pek]

kennedy's sponsors many times more legislation than frank. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=edward+kennedy+sponsored+legislation
compare that to frank--medicinal marijuana, a few other things.

So....GREATER volume of legislation = MORE distinguished?

What, exactly, is your definintion of "distinguished" as that term is applied to U.S. Senator? Becaue the volume of legislation one sponsers would be of little interest to me, and could even be a significant negative if the volume were high enough. I am far more interested in quality over quantity.

I suspect that both of our definitions of "distinguished" would in the end be nothing more than those with whom we are most politically aligned.

[MoMo]

I don't think more DOES mean better.

But many people charged last year that because Kerry had sponsored relatively little legislation, it made him LESS distinguished.

[TI83]

The Dutch have rejected it also (www.cnn.com)

[MoMo]

Yeah, resoundingly. The Euros are gonna be navel-gazing for some time now -- may take two years or more to come up with a real Plan B.

[mzungu]

in terms of publicly available criteria, the most ready to hand would be time of service and activity. activity can be quantified by sponsorship and qualified by the importance of sponsored legislation. in other words, quantity of major sponsored legislation, plus longevity, indicate leadership. longevity is more or less a necessary condition for distinction and leadership in the senate, because its powers are dispensed far more by longevity than other institutions. kennedy sponsors far more major legislation than just about any other senator, despite the fact that his party has been out of power in the senate for quite a good deal of time during his career. no child left behind is hardly reason to criticize kennedy. he was a major sponsor of the legislation under the assumption that it would be fully funded, rather than passing on enormous unfunded mandates to the states, but instead bush has never fully funded it, despite, to his credit, massively ramping up federal primary and secondary school funding. hence, kennedy's criticism was absolutely justified. bush reneged on his promise to kennedy. as far as whether he's been whoring and drinking and so forth, well, that's par for the course in government, as newt gingrich and many other republicans and democrats have proved. i would choose robert byrd FOR THE SECOND HALF OF HIS CAREER, if not for the first half of his career, which was execrable. kennedy is a brilliant public speaker. i had the good luck to see him speak in person in nyc last year, and even at his age, he has an astonishing grasp of any possible issue you could bring up. he did a terrific job in the question-answer period as well as his speech. like bill clinton, and unlike george w. bush, kennedy knows his business. and i don't see any viable alternative candidates mentioned here, jwaksman. i twice asked for an alternative.

[Jwaksman]

You would be one to like someone more for trying to pass more laws. I, however, do not worship the government. I would like a Senator much more who repealed more laws. Our government is way too large as is. And I'll make you a bet that no law Kennedy ever passed made the government smaller.


As I told you, I would take every single sitting Senator as a better Senator than Kennedy, save perhaps Byrd. Even John Kerry, who is running for the 2008 Democratic Nomination 24/7, is a better Senator.

[jersey_guy]

The Dutch not only voted against the constitution, but rejected it much more overwhelingly than Frankistan (63% against, 37% for).

Meanwhile, 56% of Germans want to wihdraw the euro and go back to the Deutsche Mark. Even the German government is increasingly against the euro.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4599681.stm

The EU is falling apart day by day, just like USSR in early 1991. It's going to be a rough summer ending with the fall of Schroder's government in Germany in September.

And the double defeat of the constitution should paralyze the eurocracy enough to delay the entrance of Turkey into EU by at least another decade.

[mzungu]

your ideal of a senator is doing nothing, passing nothing? sure, it's possible and frequently happens that there is bad legislation, such as the $120 billion+ giveaway to corporations, esp. hollywood, last year, but kennedy is always looking to make this country better, to raise up the poor, to improve american education, which is much cheaper as a social program than imprisonment, i.e. max $10k/year vs. $50-100k/year. obviously, john kerry is not a better senator than kennedy. kennedy's had a more active senate career and a longer career with more influence. and kennedy, unlike kerry, has never lost his sense for his political identity, his core political values. kerry has been better and more active and more influential than e.g. barney frank, but he is no ted kennedy. i still don't see a credible alternative from you, other than the idiotic blanket statement that 99 other senators are better.

[Jwaksman]

I didn't say that an ideal senator does nothing. Again, you always like to put words in my mouth to try to take down the straw man... What I was pointing out is that most legislation makes things worse, rather than better. So I don't care how MUCH legislation someone proposes - I care WHAT they propose.



And my point about Teddy Kennedy, which most people recognize, is that he is the black sheep of that family. He is a horrible human being, and a waste of space. And he's about as pathetically partisan as they get. He should be in jail for what he's done, he only gets by on his name.


I don't want to go through his track record, but I can assure you that if Ted Kennedy voted the identical way he has over the past 40 years, but he did it while calling himself a Republican, that you'd hate him. And don't deny that.

[Dragonsoul]

Hi, I'm in the library and some man I don't know started talking to me about this, and I had no idea what he was talking about, but now I know more, Please explain the whole situation for me in a few sentences please

[Jwaksman]

Basically Chavez runs his government in a Stalinist fashion. He can get away with it, without Bush and others doing much about it, because he sits on a lot of oil. He uses terror tactics and tries to keep his people nationalistic by making up stories about Bush trying to overthrow him. And actually, they have often fought in the neighboring country, Colombia.

The United States has long supported the Colombian government, giving them money to try to stop the drug trade. However, there is a large group of communist revolutionaries. And the US is funding and arming the Colombian government while Chavez is aiding the revolutionaries.


To come back to the issue at hand, Venezuelans had grown tired of Stalinist terror (no surprise), so they tried to get Chavez thrown out of office. After several referendums were thwarted by Chavez's police, they eventually got a vote to be held. Polls leading up to the election showed Chavez losing, and Clinton's polling company ran an exit poll that showed Chavez losing 59% to 40%. But Chavez ended up winning, officially, by more than 15%. The election was under the supervision of Jimmy Carter and his group, and they have stuck by their results, as have Clinton's pollsters.

So, it's up to you to decide, I guess...

[Zat0pek]

That's what I suspected, mzungu. Your view of Kennedy as "distinguished" is simply because he has been a consistent and hard-core liberal his entire career. Many, though by no means all, of the things you count as positives I would count as negatives.

"Distinguished" as that term is applied to a U.S. senator is purely in the eye of the beholder and is a sole function of how closely they mirror our own political beliefs and template, with a few exceptions that prove the rule.

It has nothing to do with objective criteria because in politics, and political "science" (that term has always amused me, likening politics to physics), at the end of the day, these things really are just beliefs, not facts. It doesn't make them any less real, but it only undermines any political discussion to pretend our beliefs are "facts" when the reality is that we only perceive them as so because our beliefs filter out contrary facts and let through supporting facts.

I, on the other hand, would put Kennedy on the list of the ten most destructive senators sitting today for many of the same you reasons you perceive him as distinguished. And that to say nothing of his murderous, drunken, lying, licentious lifestyle and past history.

[MoMo]

Just wondering, zat.

In your eyes, can a person get past his past?

I'm not trying to be a wiseguy. I ask the question with reference not just to Kennedy but to people like Byrd, Trent Lott, etc., etc. (or for that matter, to our supposedly onetime fast-living president).

[Zat0pek]

Just wondering, zat.

In your eyes, can a person get past his past?

Absolutely, unequivocally, yes. If not, I would be in BIG trouble! :o

But not through the mere passage of time. It must be earned. It takes actual repentance and reform. And when it is real, it is not only worthy of forgiveness, but actual praise. But Kennedy's lifestyle (and his actions speak much louder than his words) since watching Mary Jo disappear into the lake then running off to hide shows neither real repentance or reform. Did he stop drinking? Nope. If one had true moral regret for being solely responsible for the death of another human being as a result of driving drunk, it is reasonable to expect that person to immediately seek help. He didn't stop then.

He is, in my opinion, a despicable and duplicitous human being with the famed Kennedy gene for criminal recklessness (eg, all of my pilot buddies tell me that under the circumstances of his limited training and experience, all three people were dead the moment the wheels of JFK Jr.'s plane left the ground, which is why the wrongful death case was settled quickly and quietly with his estate). Whether its skiing into trees, sexual assualt at the compound, not caring about your life or the lives of your passengers on a plane or in your car, the Kennedy penchant for self-destruction and destruction of those around them is indeed larger than life.

I'm not addressing the politics here only because you didn't ask about it. With mzungu, I was only addressing the politics, lest I be accused of an ad hominem attack (as though those are without any merit.)

Contrast Kennedy with Bush in this one regard. No one questions the legitimacy of Bush's reform from substance abuse. I don't doubt the guy did coke. I also don't doubt that he's been truly sober (as opposed to being a "dry drunk") for the better part of two decades. Byrd? Not sure about him. Did he REALLY renounce his days as a Grand Wizard in the KKK because they were wrong or because it was no longer politically expedient? I suspect the latter, but have no proof, so I'll call him a toss-up. Ditto Lott.

[MoMo]

Zat, I agree with you up to a point.

I'd be a little skittish, though, about condemning the entire Kennedy clan for the sins of some.

JFK Jr., for example, may have been overconfident about his abilities -- a sin not uncommon to young men -- but that doesn't mean he was flat-out reckless or in other known respects reprehensible.
The following is from CNN:
Arthur Marx, a Martha's Vineyard flight instructor who had given lessons to Kennedy, told CNN the relatively inexperienced pilot loved to fly, and was cautious in the air. "The last time I flew with him was a year ago, and I definitely did not see the kind of person who took unnecessary risks."
"If anything, (he was) underconfident," said Marx.

[Zat0pek]

Zat, I agree with you up to a point.

I'd be a little skittish, though, about condemning the entire Kennedy clan for the sins of some.

JFK Jr., for example, may have been overconfident about his abilities -- a sin not uncommon to young men -- but that doesn't mean he was flat-out reckless or in other known respects reprehensible.
The following is from CNN:
Arthur Marx, a Martha's Vineyard flight instructor who had given lessons to Kennedy, told CNN the relatively inexperienced pilot loved to fly, and was cautious in the air. "The last time I flew with him was a year ago, and I definitely did not see the kind of person who took unnecessary risks."
"If anything, (he was) underconfident," said Marx.

Didn't mean to implicate the whole lot of them; just pointing out what appears to be a dominant gene within the clan.

And every pilot I spoke to said it was a suicide run for JFK, Jr. In the words of one long-time Air Force pilot now flying international commercial flights, "Its almost like he had a death wish to take off in those conditions."

[MoMo]

Well, fair enough. That probably is a direct result of inexperience: improperly evaluating questionable conditions -- or failing to respond to them properly.

[mzungu]

what year was chappaquiddick and what has kennedy done since that drunken driving accident? (bush had dui's--lucky he didn't kill anyone until becoming president and lying to the nation, causing the deaths of over 20,000 civilians alone in iraq, justifying torture, etc.). so, kennedy is evil because of an idiotic thing he did in his youth. laura bush plowed through a stop sign and killed her best friend when she was in high school. is she as evil as kennedy?

but your 'arguments' here are ridiculous, as usual. you have never offered a single reason not to believe that Kennedy's SENATORIAL CAREER has been distinguished and you have never offered a single other senator as a better example. moreover, you offer a position of naive relativism as a justification for a self-refuting claim that no one can judge the relative quality of a senator.

[mzungu]

chappaquiddick was 36 years ago.

now, here is an example of a rating of senators that is based on political decisions. I didn't use any such measure. But if you do, it's pretty pathetic to get a much higher rating on corporate welfare than child welfare.

JULY 10, 2002
12:01 AM
CONTACT: Childrens Defense Fund
Gigi Hinton 202-662-3609

Corporate Welfare vs. Child Welfare:
Congressional Scorecard Reveals Who Chose Children

WASHINGTON - July 10 - In 2001, Congress passed the President's $1.3 trillion tax cut, which gives hundreds of billions of dollars to the wealthiest taxpayers while leaving millions of children behind. The 2001 Children's Defense Fund Action Council Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard, released today, documents how U.S. Senators and Representatives used the power of their offices as they cast votes affecting the lives of America's children. It records vote after vote in which individual members made choices that favored corporate welfare and the rich over child welfare and the poor.
Members of Congress were scored on 10 key votes cast in 2001 that had a significant impact on children's well-being. Co-sponsorship of the comprehensive Act to Leave No Child Behind (S.940/H.R.1990), introduced in May 2001 by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Representative George Miller (D-Calif.), was also considered. The CDF Action Council applauds the 10 Senators and 48 Representatives who co-sponsored the Act and scored 100 percent in 2001. Eight Senators and 95 Representatives consistently left children behind in 2001 with disgraceful scores below 10 percent.

"How can any Member of Congress say we don't have the money to pay for child care and health care and education and after-school programs for our children when the same Congress voted for a tax cut that gives billions to the richest Americans with average incomes over $1 million," said Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund and the CDF Action Council. "We don't have a money problem in this country, we have a priorities and values problem. We must hold our leaders accountable for the choices they make. It is time to freeze the tax cuts for millionaires and invest in our children."

The Best Senators for Children in 2001

Clinton (NY).....100 percent
Dayton (MN)......100 percent
Dodd (CT)........100 percent
Inouye (HI)......100 percent
Kennedy (MA).....100 percent
Mikulski (MD)....100 percent
Reed, Jack (RI)..100 percent
Sarbanes (MD)....100 percent
Schumer (NY).....100 percent
Wellstone (MN)...100 percent

The Worst Senators for Children in 2001

Allard (CO)...........9 percent
Smith, Robert (NH). 9 percent
Enzi (WY).............9 percent
Voinovich (OH)........9 percent
Gramm, Phil (TX)......9 percent
Helms (NC)............0 percent
Kyl (AZ)..............9 percent
Nickles (OK)..........0 percent

[mzungu]

"Ah, the perils of open microphones. An open microphone in 2000 caught George W. Bush calling a New York Times reporter, Adam Clymer, a major-league a*****e.

A microphone caught Jack Kennedy in 1958 telling Teddy Kennedy that being married didn't mean having to be faithful to his bride. That conversation was recorded on Teddy's wedding movie, as related by Teddy's biographer, Adam Clymer.

Clymer is best known for being the target of Bush's epithet. But Clymer deserves to be known for his 1999 book, Edward M. Kennedy, A Biography.

The subtitle is a slight misnomer. This is specifically a legislative biography. It mentions Kennedy's scandals and tragedies, but doesn't dwell on them. Rather, it focuses on Kennedy's career as an effective and productive US senator. Kennedy the masterful legislator is ultimately more interesting than the figure of scandal and tragedy.

Page after page, chapter after chapter, the pattern in Clymer's book is Kennedy's relentlessness. Kennedy has been fighting for health care for decades, and he won't give up. He's been fighting for a decent minimum wage for decades, a battle that, with inflation, never stays won.

He's fought against nuclear arms and fought for human rights. He's largely responsible for the Americans with Disabilities Act, which just celebrated its tenth anniversary.

The book includes details that you probably don't know and details that you've forgotten. Kennedy has taken the leading or second-leading role on so many legislative struggles, you need a 692-page book to remember them all. The book recounts Kennedy's legislative maneuvering and skirmishing for the rights of labor unions; the law requiring that workers be notified before plants are closed; a ban on polygraph tests in the workplace; a ban on job discrimination against gays; education funding; civil rights; AIDS research; nutrition and hunger programs; regulating tobacco; and deregulating airlines.

OK, so airline deregulation didn't turn out as we had hoped. Still, it shows that Kennedy is not a doctrinaire liberal.

What's ironic is that Republicans use Kennedy to incite their ranks, while Clymer portrays Kennedy as often a conciliator, even with Republicans. In 1983, the Moral Majority mistakenly sent one of its fundraising letters to Kennedy, asking for money to "fight ultraliberals such as Ted Kennedy."

That computerized letter led to an exchange of personal letters between Kennedy's and Falwell's offices. Kennedy ended up having dinner at Jerry Falwell's house, and speaking to an audience of 5,000 of Falwell's followers. Falwell was so impressed that his fundraising letters stopped attacking Kennedy.

That's how Kennedy got to be so successful: building consensuses with Republicans."

[mzungu]

even this hit piece on robert byrd, which neglects to mention his work over the past thirty years or more for civil rights (in contrast to, say, dick cheney, who opposed the MLK day holiday, as well as the extension of civil rights legislation in the 1980s), acknowledges his extraordinary qualities, as "conscience of the senate," etc. byrd's KKK experience in 1943, his 1946 support for the KKK, and his 1940s letter against military de-segregation, as well as his 1964 filibuster against the voting rights act, will always stand against his claim to higher senatorial distinction. but byrd, unlike trent lott, turned away from segregation nearly forty years ago.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com

[Jwaksman]

That ranking of senators was absurd. You konw that ther are a million of these "scorecards", and they are always absurd. For example, I've seen conservative groups that rate senators on "fiscal conservatism" and give Senators good marks for voting against abortion. What does that have to do with fiscal conservatism? Nothing, of course. They're just ranking "How Republican are you?" And that's what that list was. They rank voting against the tax cut as being "for children"??? Come on... :rolleyes: ... That's just "How Democratic are you?" And, ironically, that's how mzungu ranks Senators. So I guess that works for you...



Any list that has all Republicans on top and Democrats on the bottom, or all Democrats at the top and Republicans at the bottom, is a bad, partisan list. Any ranking of senators should have a mix of Republicans and Democrats all over the place. Both parties have good and bad politicians. Well... neither have too many good politicians. Let's say that both parties have mediocre and bad politicians, and that occasionally there is a good politician here or there.

[mzungu]

that was the premise of my post above, if you had read it more carefully. however, those rankings indicate more than whether you are a republican or democrat: they indicate in many cases whether you vote for child welfare/corporate welfare/military increases, etc.

I have gone through multiple sites on kennedy and find evidence of one major scandal--chappaquiddick, where the police report showed him to have braked suddenly, causing his brakes to lock, ending with him skidding off the bridge, whereupon he escaped from the car and kopechne did not. kennedy says he went down multiple times to get her, and three of the windows were broken, but he never found her, if he searched. he was not at a bar or his hotel the rest of the night, contra certain conservative blogs. also, kennedy's doctor said he suffered a cerebral concussion, which seems extremely likely. the william kennedy smith scandal had nothing to do with kennedy. cheating on his wife? definitely. but there he's identical to condit and gingrich and clinton and all the rest.

clymer's biography claims that kennedy has been among the most effective legislators in senate history. and kennedy has worked with mccain, kassebaum, frist, and others on legislation over the years.


"Mary Jo Kopechne, the daughter of an insurance salesman, was born in the village of Forty Fort, Pennsylvania, on 26th July 1940. After graduating from Caldwell College for Women in New Jersey, she moved to Washington where she worked as a secretary for George Smathers and Robert Kennedy. During this time she shared an apartment with Nancy Carole Tyler, who worked for Bobby Baker.

On 17th July, 1969, Kopechne joined several other women who had worked for the Kennedy family at the Edgartown Regatta. She stayed at the Katama Shores Motor Inn on the southern tip of Martha's Vineyard. The following day the women travelled across to Chappaquiddick Island. They were joined by Edward Kennedy and that night they held a party at Lawrence Cottage. At the party was Kennedy, Kopechne, Susan Tannenbaum, Maryellen Lyons, Ann Lyons, Rosemary Keough, Esther Newburgh, Joe Gargan, Paul Markham, Charles Tretter, Raymond La Rosa and John Crimmins.

Kopechne and Kennedy left the party at 11.15pm. Kennedy had offered to take Kopechne back to her hotel. He later explained what happened: "I was unfamiliar with the road and turned onto Dyke Road instead of bearing left on Main Street. After proceeding for approximately a half mile on Dyke Road I descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge. The car went off the side of the bridge.... The car turned over and sank into the water and landed with the roof resting on the bottom. I attempted to open the door and window of the car but have no recollection of how I got out of the car. I came to the surface and then repeatedly dove down to the car in an attempt to see if the passenger was still in the car. I was unsuccessful in the attempt."

Instead of reporting the accident Edward Kennedy returned to the party. According to a statement issued by Kennedy on 25th July, 1969: "instead of looking directly for a telephone number after lying exhausted in the grass for an undetermined time, walked back to the cottage where the party was being held and requested the help of two friends, my cousin Joseph Gargan and Paul Markham, and directed them to return immediately to the scene with me - this was some time after midnight - in order to undertake a new effort to dive."

When this effort to rescue Kopechne ended in failure, Kennedy decided to return to his hotel. As the ferry had shut down for the night Kennedy, swam back to Edgartown. It was not until the following morning that Kennedy reported the accident to the police. By this time the police had found Mary Jo Kopechne's body in Kennedy's car.

Edward Kennedy was found guilty of leaving the scene of the accident and received a suspended two-month jail term and one-year driving ban. That night he appeared on television to explain what had happened. He explained: "My conduct and conversations during the next several hours to the extent that I can remember them make no sense to me at all. Although my doctors informed me that I suffered a cerebral concussion as well as shock, I do not seek to escape responsibility for my actions by placing the blame either on the physical, emotional trauma brought on by the accident or on anyone else. I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not report the accident to the police immediately."

At the inquest Judge James Boyle raised doubts about Kennedy's testimony. He pointed out that as Kennedy had a good knowledge of Chappaquiddick Island he could not understand how he managed to drive down Dyke Road by mistake. For example, on the day of the accident, Kennedy had twice had driven on Dyke Road to go to the beach for a swim. To get to Dyke Road involved a 90-degree turn off a metalled road onto the rough, bumpy dirt-track.

An investigation at the scene of the accident by Raymond R. McHenry, suggested that Kennedy approached the bridge at an estimated 34 miles (55 kilometres) per hour. At around 5 metres (17 feet) from the bridge, Kennedy braked violently. This locked the front wheels. According to McHenry: "The car skidded 5 metres (17 feet) along the road, 8 metres (25 feet) up the humpback bridge, jumped a 14 centimetre barrier, somersaulted through the air for about 10 metres (35 feet) into the water and landed upside-down."

Investigators found it difficult to understand why he was crossing Dyke Bridge when he said he was attempting to reach Edgartown which was in the opposite direction. They also could not understand why he was driving so fast on this unlit, uneven, road. They also could not work out how Kennedy escaped from the car. When it was recovered from the water all the doors were locked. Three of the windows were either open or smashed in. If Kennedy, a large-framed 6 foot 2 inches tall man could manage to get out of the car, why was it impossible for Mary JO Kopechne, a slender 5 foot 2 inches tall, not do the same?

Local experts could not understand why Kennedy (and later, Markham and Gargan) could not rescue Kopechne from the car. It also surprised investigators that Kennedy did not seek help from Pierre Malm, who only lived 135 metres from the bridge. At the inquest Kennedy was unable to answer this question.

There were also doubts about the way Kopechne died. Dr. Donald Mills of Edgartown, wrote on the death certificate: "death by drowning". However, Gene Frieh, the undertaker, told reporters that death "was due to suffocation rather than drowning". John Farrar, the diver who removed Kopechne from the car, claimed she was "too buoyant to be full of water". It is assumed that she died from drowning, although her parents filed a petition preventing an autopsy.

Other questions were asked about Kennedy's decision to swim back to Edgartown. The 150 metre channel had strong currents and only the strongest of swimmers would have been able to make the journey safely. Also no one saw Kennedy arrive back at the Shiretown Inn in wet clothes. Ross Richards, who had a conversation with Kennedy the following morning at the hotel described him as casual and at ease.

Kennedy did not inform the police of the accident while he was at the hotel. Instead at 9am he joined Gargan and Markham on the ferry back to Chappaquiddick. Steve Ewing, the ferry operator, reported Kennedy in a jovial mood. It was only when Kennedy reached the island that he phoned the authorities about the accident that had taken place the previous night.

Dr. Robert Watt, Kennedy's family doctor, explained his patient's strange behaviour by claiming he was in a state of shock and confusion and "possible concussion."

[mzungu]

The Republican Adultery
Honor Roll of Shame:

Rep. Henry Hyde Broke up a family during his seven year adulterous affair!
Mike Bowers Cheated on his wife for FIFTEEN YEARS!
George Bush Linda Tripp says had he an affair with a woman named "Jennifer"
Newt Gingrich Dumped his ex-wife while she was in a hospital bed suffering from cancer....
Bob Dole Cheated on his first wife with his current wife, Elizabeth Dole.
Former Rep. Bob Dornan Reported to have cheated on and beaten his wife.
John Linder Has a wandering eye for his female staff members.
Ronald Reagan Dumped Jane Wyman by cheating on her with several Hollywood starlets
William Cohen Dumped his white wife for a new black one.
Guy Millner Has been married three times, partly because he has sex with women he isn't married to....
Rush Limbaugh Fat as he may be, he cheated on two of his three wives...
Mitch Skandalakis Hired hookers from his Las Vegas hotel room!
Michael Deaver Was so drunk he doesn't remember hiring hookers...
John Warner Dumped his wife for Elizabeth Taylor...
Bill Randall A Florida Congressional candidate and minister, he fathered an illegitimate child during his affair!
Bill McCartney Promise Keepers founder who didn't keep his Promise to his wife and then lied about it for 20 years!
Rep. Dan Burton Had at least six adulterous affairs, and fathered a bastard son who, today, he ignores!!
Rep. Bob Barr Cheated on all three of his wives - and coerced one into having an abortion - then lied about it!
Rudolph Giuliani Boffs his assistant in Gracie Mansion while his wife stays home with the kids!
Sen. Strom Thurmond Cheated on his fourth wife at age 88!!
Gilbert Davis Paula Jones' attorney, who allowed himself to be videotaped DrUnK during his adultery!
Bob Packwood Drank huge amounts of hard liquor and then tongue-kissed his female staffers against their will!
Gov. Kirk Fordice Got so hopped up by his mistress that he crashed his Jeep Cherokee and got himself hurt!
Beverly Russell The Christian Coalition coordinator who molested his stepdaughter Susan Smith, who later killed her own kids.
Marv Albert Calls himself a Republican, bites his longtime mistresses, and has sex with her while wearing women's panties!

Other Horny Republicans:

N.C. Rep. Sue Myrick - Who cheated on her husband and left him for another man!

LA. Rep. Bob Livingston - The GOP Speaker-to-never-be, who cheated on his wife Bonnie - with at least four women!

Michael Huffington - The Former GOP Congressman who cheated on his wife Arianna - with other men!

Oklahoma Lt. Gov. Mary Fallin - Who had an adulterous affair with her Security Guard - a state trooper!

Rep. Helen Chenoweth - Who screwed most every married male member of the Idaho Legislature!

The Charleston County, S.C. Solicitor, a Republican, who had an extramarital affair - a GAY affair with another man.....

Jim Bakker - Who eventually got locked up in chains and sent to federal prison.

Jimmy Swaggart - Who broke down crying after he got busted with an ugly hooker!



We really should mention John Tower, the infamous alcoholic woman-chasing midget U.S. Senator, but he's dead, so he doesn't count!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honorable Democrat Mention

President Clinton, who allowed himself to be the benficiary of fellatio from a fat chick. Big Freakin' deal.....

Rep. Joe Kennedy, who took his cue from Master Mike Bowers and "came out of the closet" a while back with that unbelievable and totally shocking revelation that yet another Kennedy had engaged in an Adulterous affair. I was floored when I heard that. Joe also was forced to come clean for fear of exposure......now doesn't that sound like someone we all know????

Sen. Ted Kennedy, who crashed his car with his mistress and drowned her.

Rev. Henry Lyons, the President of the National Baptist Convention, who bought a Rolls Royce and a Mercedes and a $700,000.00 house with his mistress, which his wife tried to burn down.

Colorado Governor Roy Romer, the head of the Democratic National Committee, who recently admitted a longtime but "non-sexual" (yeah.....right!) relationship with his top aide.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if you are a female, beware in the presence of Republicans. Statistically, there is a 33 to 10 likelihood that you will be propositioned by one of them, and at least two of them will be stinking drunk - and two of them will be GAY! Somebody really ought to do something about the "Party of Family Values!" They're simply too horny!

© 1999 JeffBob. All Rights Reserved.

[Jwaksman]

And it's well known that Kennedy partook in prostitutes for many, many years. He also is an alcoholic, and you could bet he'd have 20 DUIs if his last name wasn't Kennedy.


It's like that former Republican governor of South Dakota (or was it North Dakota?) who used to speed all the time but never got a ticket cause he was governor. Like, he got 1 or 2 speeding tickets a year and then got elected governor and didn't get another ticket for 20 years. And then a year or two ago he ran over and killed a motorcyclist and got sent to jail for manslaughter.

[mzungu]

I don't see any evidence of that, but if true, as shown above, it will place him in the solid majority of u.s. politicians. roughly 60% cheat on their spouses in this country and 43% of first-time marriages end in divorce.

Now that you've been given five chances to cite a better senator than kennedy, I have to conclude that you cannot think of a better senator than him.

[Jwaksman]

My grandfather was a NY City streetcop and motorcycle cop for decades. He escorted and guarded every major politician and figure that came to the city, from Harry Truman to Lyndan Johnson and Jackie Robinson. And you have no idea how many stories he told about Teddy Kennedy and his prostitutes.


Come on, now, even hardcore Democrats admit that Teddy was the "weakest link" of the Kennedy family.




There's a reason no one bothered to assasinate Teddy....



Edit: by the way. I love how I can present dozens of pieces of evidence from legitimate news sources (like Bloomberg) and you'll dismiss all of it as propaganda and lies, yet you have no problem throwing around made-up numbers like "60% of politicians cheat on their spouses" as fact.

[Zat0pek]

what year was chappaquiddick and what has kennedy done since that drunken driving accident? (bush had dui's--lucky he didn't kill anyone until becoming president and lying to the nation, causing the deaths of over 20,000 civilians alone in iraq, justifying torture, etc.). so, kennedy is evil because of an idiotic thing he did in his youth. laura bush plowed through a stop sign and killed her best friend when she was in high school. is she as evil as kennedy?

but your 'arguments' here are ridiculous, as usual. you have never offered a single reason not to believe that Kennedy's SENATORIAL CAREER has been distinguished and you have never offered a single other senator as a better example. moreover, you offer a position of naive relativism as a justification for a self-refuting claim that no one can judge the relative quality of a senator.

Yes, I did. The trouble is you can't see them because you think his liberal legislation is a GOOD thing. In most instances, I don't. The personal stuff was in response to MoMo's specific question about him overcoming his past. You are reading WAY too much into it. I was responding to a specific question about a specific incident. As for relativism, that is your domain, as your flurry of posts pointing out how the evil Republicans, including the vile Laura Bush, are at least as bad or worse. My comments below were without consideration to his dispicable personal character, which I made clear at the end.

The notion that Ted Kennedy's work (note the distinction between his work and his personal life) is "distinguished" is every bit as laughable to me as my notion that, say, Newt Gingrich's or Antonin Scalia's work is "distinguished" is to you. The only difference is political view.

To refresh, here was my response to your comment:

That's what I suspected, mzungu. Your view of Kennedy as "distinguished" is simply because he has been a consistent and hard-core liberal his entire career. Many, though by no means all, of the things you count as positives I would count as negatives.

"Distinguished" as that term is applied to a U.S. senator is purely in the eye of the beholder and is a sole function of how closely they mirror our own political beliefs and template, with a few exceptions that prove the rule.

It has nothing to do with objective criteria because in politics, and political "science" (that term has always amused me, likening politics to physics), at the end of the day, these things really are just beliefs, not facts. It doesn't make them any less real, but it only undermines any political discussion to pretend our beliefs are "facts" when the reality is that we only perceive them as so because our beliefs filter out contrary facts and let through supporting facts.

I, on the other hand, would put Kennedy on the list of the ten most destructive senators sitting today for many of the same you reasons you perceive him as distinguished. And that to say nothing of his murderous, drunken, lying, licentious lifestyle and past history.

[KenA55]

Yeah, enough on the gossip column, either side of the aisle- just not an issue. Judge the senator on his ability to get things done, forge alliances accross party lines, resolve issues for his constituents, etc. Longevity counts pretty big.

Love him or hate him, Kennedy is an icon in the senate.

[Zat0pek]

Love him or hate him, Kennedy is an icon in the senate.

And those are pretty much the only two choices with him. Not much middle ground.

[KenA55]

Sure there is, indifference is always an option. It's not like Kennedy can actually get anything done, positive or negative, without getting a consensus on board with his proposals.

[Zat0pek]

Sure there is, indifference is always an option. It's not like Kennedy can actually get anything done, positive or negative, without getting a consensus on board with his proposals.

How many people do you know that are actually indifferent to Ted Kennedy? My point was that he is a polarizing figure that doesn't engender much indifference.

[KenA55]

Practically everybody who doesn't really care much about national politics, and good or bad- it's a lot of people.

But I really do think more people tend to use his image as a polarizing device, rather than the man himself attempting to be that. If anything, the consensus efforts he's able to build reflect just the opposite, a man who knows how to bring opposite sides together when it matters, who obviously knows how to respect and listen to the other's point of view.

[mzungu]

again, zat0pek, your argument amounts to:
1. no one can determine how distinguished a senator is, because the ONLY criterion for judging is their politics and there are no non-subjective standards for judging political values (=relativism)
2. I hate his character.

You provide no evidence for #1 and I do not refer to any particular policies to justify my claim--hence, the possibility of judging or rating political values is irrelevant to my argument. Again, if you deny the possibility of ranking political values, that is textbook relativism. The use of legislative activity and longevity as standards are NOT dependent on political values.

#2 seems to be based on the fact that 36 years ago, his brakes locked and he drove off a bridge, and the woman he was driving died (his actions after the crash are unknown--he says he went after her multiple times and then got his friend to come and they failed, opponents suggest something more sinister), plus he's an adulterer. Laura Bush also killed someone with a car, and she was sober at the time. Is she "despicable"? The adultery part--that's George W. Bush, Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, and plenty of other republicans, so that's not going to serve as a means for distinguishing between too many politicians.

[mzungu]

jwaksman, I don't say that 60% of politicians cheat on their spouses IS a fact, but we do have proof that many of them cheat, and the survey statistics do give figures for the general population that range from the incredible low of 15% to over 70%. considering that the divorce rate is 43% for first time marriages, the higher figures on cheating are quite credible. when you cite a relative's claims about kennedy, that's not going to do it. how about something published?

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, this is another one of your "prove that the sky is blue" things. Even big time Ted Kennedy supporters say, "Yes, I know that he's a drunk and that he used prostitutes, but _______". Just read Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Kennedy) on him. From the wife of a former Kennedy campaign aid:

"Teddy Kennedy was the weak kitten in the litter, never able to measure up to his brothers. The accident at Chappaquiddick displayed his chronic immaturity. One problem Teddy has always had was keeping it in his pants - even when other people are around."



It's impossible to have a rational discussion with you if you insist on closing your eyes to obvious things that are wrong with Democrats. Your partisanship is really making you a non-credible source if you insist on Kennedy's innocence and then attack Delay.


Again, if you want to earn your credibility back, you have to accept obvious facts as what they are - facts.

[Zat0pek]

Again, if you deny the possibility of ranking political values, that is textbook relativism. The use of legislative activity and longevity as standards are NOT dependent on political values.

You aren't serious, are you? I will guarantee you I can create criteria for the rankings that will result in the most obscure senator being the most distinguished.

Since when was longevity a factor in quality? Hell, on that criteria, Stom Thurmond would have won hands down, and I hardly think many people would have slapped the "distinguished" label on him. Longevity as a function of quality in the U.S. Senate? That's a total joke, given how difficult it is to unseat someone (especially with the last name Kennedy in Massachusetts) once they're in. Kennedy, like a lot of senators, has that job for life if he wants it. Just like Dole did, Thurmond did, and a ton of others. That's a big part of the problem in the Senate; there isn't enough turnover.

That leaves "activity." More activity = more government, in general. Well, that's often a black mark in my book. And the criteria you apply for "activity" are going to be deeply rooted in political philosophy, like most of your examples. For example, lets take a hypothetical senator the proposes more legislation than anyone during a particular term. That legislation includes a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, abolition of the Department of Education, the complete privatization of Social Security by the year 2025, a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, expansion of the death penalty to include drug dealers, and closing the border with Mexico. That's a lot of "activity." Would you consider this senator "distinguished?" Of course not; you'd be calling for his head on a platter.

And so we return to what I said before. How "distinguished" you judge someone in the Senate to be is largely a function of how well they agree with your personal political beliefs. It is an absurd judgment, overwhelmingly dependant on subjective criteria. There is an old saying in the field of entertainment about not believing your own press releases. Ditto an old lawyer mentor of mine that constantly warned against the danger of believing in the rightness of your own arguments and believing your own bull****. The same warning applies here. "Distinguished" as it applies to a senator is an absurdity, based on wildly subjective criteria.

It is far more honest to simply say you like and respect a certain senator because of his/her long service on issues that you personally value. Any purported ranking or designation as "distinguished" beyond that is largely meaningless, and not much more sophisticated than the playground exchange of "my dad is better than your dad because. . . "

[mzungu]

longevity's key because longevity's key to power. if you want to accomplish anything in the senate, regardless of whether this is cutting taxes, expanding the military, giving corporate welfare, expanding welfare, supporting schools, etc. you have to be powerful and respected, you have to chair various powerful committees and you have to get YOUR legislation passed and THEIR legislation defeated. the senate's on a seniority system. and it doesn't matter what kind of legislation we're talking about. the terri schiavo legislation was CONSERVATIVE legislation. the bush tax cuts were conservative legislation. there's no shortage of conservative legislation. You would be closer to the truth if we were talking about historical legacies--i.e. if you are strom thurmond or robert byrd, you have on your record opposition to civil rights, which history looks very poorly on, by most of our accounts of history. other cases would be more controversial. of course, trent lott believed in 1979 and again the past couple years that segregation was good.

[Jwaksman]

So I guess you believe that Democratic Senator Chris Dodd supports segregation also, right? I mean, I assume that you're saying that Lott supports segregation because he said that Strom Thurmond would have made a good president during Thurmond's 100th birthday party. So, then during April of 2004, during Robert Byrd's 17,000th Senate vote, Dodd said:


"It has often been said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. Robert C. Byrd, in my view, would have been right at any time."

“He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation's 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country. Certainly today that is not any less true.”



By your same logic, then doesn't Dodd support segregation?









Or...... we can actually come to the reasonable conclusion that both Dodd and Lott were offering innocuous compliments during celebrations for two people who had been around a long time. If you really think that there are any senators in the US who support Jim Crow Laws and segregation then I have a bridge that I want to sell you.

[mzungu]

I'm sorry but here is the truth. you are just too illogical and non-empirical to argue with anymore. dodd praised byrd, and the byrd he knows is the anti-racist byrd of the past twenty years, but he did not say that "this country would have been better if byrd had been elected president in 1948 (if he had then been running on a PLATFORM of segregation)." dodd did not praise byrd's KKK days, and no one thought that was what he was doing, because Dodd 1) did not mention that and 2) has no history of racism or pro-segregation policies. but Trent Lott worked AGAINST segregation in the 1960s, made roughly the same remarks about Thurmond in 1979, and then again said the country'd have been better off had Thurmond won in 1948. On A SEGREGATION PLATFORM. Trent Lott's entire career has been built on racial fingerpointing. That is why it was such a big story, and that is why he APOLOGIZED (but tried not to recant). Even the Bush administration criticized his comments. Apparently, you're further than Bush to the right when it comes to denying racism, just as you denied that the South began the civil war.

[Jwaksman]

Obviously you didn't read my post, so let me repeat. Dodd said:

"He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation's 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country. Certainly today that is not any less true.”


That is as much of a supporting comment of segregation as what Lott said. Of course, NEITHER of them support segregation. It's just completely absurd. You're like trackdaddy, who believes that anyone who opposes affirmative action also supports segregation. So, since Lott opposes AA, I mean, he has to support segregation, right???



I would bet every penny that I own that if Lott said exactly what Dodd said and vice versa that you'd still only be criticizing Lott. Because that's what blind partisans do.



Let's see, you're at a birthday party for a 100 year old guy, do you think it would be polite to make an attack on his politics? Or... do you think it might be polite to say, "Oh, what a great politician you've been". When people compliment Robert Byrd on being a great senator, do you think they're specifically thinking about his stiff opposition of the civil rights acts (he did a lot more than Lott did)? Or, do you think they're just talking in general, of his entire career and of him as a person?


You have to be pretty desperate on material if you're going to tell me that Lott was specifically thinking about segregation when he said that Thurmond would have been a good president.

[mzungu]

thurmond's entire platform in 1948 was pro-segregation, as the campaign poster showed (posted on this site last year).
NY TIMES
Op-Ed Columnist
The Mobility Myth

By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 6, 2005
The war that nobody talks about - the overwhelmingly one-sided class war - is being waged all across America. Guess who's winning.

A recent front-page article in The Los Angeles Times showed that teenagers are faring poorly in a tight job market because of the fierce competition they're getting from older workers and immigrants for entry-level positions.

On the same day, in the business section, the paper reported that the chief executives at California's largest 100 companies took home a collective $1.1 billion in 2004, an increase of nearly 20 percent over the previous year. The paper contrasted that with the 2.9 percent raise that the average California worker saw last year.

The gap between the rich and everybody else in this country is fast becoming an unbridgeable chasm. David Cay Johnston, in the latest installment of the New York Times series "Class Matters," wrote, "It's no secret that the gap between the rich and the poor has been growing, but the extent to which the richest are leaving everybody else behind is not widely known."

Consider, for example, two separate eras in the lifetime of the baby-boom generation. For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent of the population between 1950 and 1970, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162. That gap has since skyrocketed. For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent between 1990 and 2002, Mr. Johnston wrote, each taxpayer in that top bracket brought in an extra $18,000.

It's like chasing a speedboat with a rowboat.

Put the myth of the American Dream aside. The bottom line is that it's becoming increasingly difficult for working Americans to move up in class. The rich are freezing nearly everybody else in place, and sprinting off with the nation's bounty.

Economic mobility in the United States - the extent to which individuals and families move from one social class to another - is no higher than in Britain or France, and lower than in some Scandinavian countries. Maybe we should be studying the Scandinavian dream.

As far as the Bush administration is concerned, the gap between the rich and the rest of us is not growing fast enough. An analysis by The Times showed the following:

"Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000. Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000."

The social dislocations resulting from this war that nobody mentions have been under way for some time. But the Bush economic policies have accelerated the consequences and intensified the pain.

A big problem, of course, is that American workers have been hurting badly for years. Revolutionary improvements in technology, increasingly globalized trade, the competition of low-wage workers overseas and increased immigration here at home, the decline of manufacturing, the weakening of the labor movement, outsourcing and numerous other factors have left American workers with very little leverage to use against employers.

Many in the middle class are mortgaged to the hilt, maxed out on credit cards and fearful to the point of trembling that all they've worked for might vanish in a downsized minute.

The privileged classes, with the Bush administration's iron cloak of protection, avoid their fair share of taxes, are reluctant to pay an honest dollar for an honest day's work (the federal minimum wage is still a scandalous $5.15 an hour), refuse to fight in their nation's wars, and laugh all the way to their yachts.

The American dream was about expanding opportunities and widely shared prosperity. Now we have older people and college grads replacing people near the bottom in jobs that offer low pay, no pensions, no health insurance and no vacations.

A fellow named Mark McClellan, who was bounced out of a management position when Kaiser Aluminum closed down in Spokane, Wash., told The Times in the "Class Matters" series: "I may look middle class. But I'm not. My boat is sinking fast."

E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com

[mzungu]

lott said the same thing in 1979 and lott also worked for segregation in the 1960s both as an aid in congress and at his college in mississippi, i believe.

[jersey_guy]

What does Herb's Communist rant have to do with Thurmond?

[Jwaksman]

You know what would be the first sign of the end of the universe: when the NY Times writes an article about mobility in France and Germany. The level of mobility in the US is still 10, 20 times greater than it is in France, which has grinded to a complete halt. Something like 1/4 of French under the age of 28 are unemployed - there just haven't been any new jobs created. Unfortunately, pointing that out would go against the NY Times agenda, and any writer who mentioned some blasphemy would immediately be fired.


As for how this came up on the thread, I think mzungu forgot which Democratic Talking Point he was supposed to be regurgitating. It's like how every protest I ever see on campus ends up being about every single leftist talking point. Like, when people were protesting about the investigation into anti-semitism on campus they ended up protesting about how great Palestine is, about creating a grad-student union, about the tax cuts hurting the poor, about Bush's imperialism, and several other topics that had nothing to do with the issue at hand...

[jersey_guy]

The two funniest things in Herb's blabber were:

#1 "teenagers are faring poorly in a tight job market" - of course it's Bush's fault because a college degree is only a piece of paper and you should be making $15 an hour at Wal-Mart as soon as you get a driver's license.... come to think of it, $15 an hour should be the minimum wage

#2 "Many in the middle class are mortgaged to the hilt, maxed out on credit cards" - that's of course also Bush's fault somehow; i don't know yet how, but I'll figure it out

Can't wait for them Herberts & Co. to move to Scandinavia to study the Scandinavian Dream themselves. Apparently the millions of immigrants who keep coming here every way possible each year did not get Herbert's memo.

[Zat0pek]

All you have to do to blow away Herbert's diatribe is read The Millionaire Next Door, which I think should be required reading for every high school senior (I can guarantee you my daughters will read it in high school.)

The overwhelming majority of millionaires (people with a net worth of $1 million or more) in this country didn't come from money. They were "C" students at state universities that work 60 hours+ a week, saved about twenty cents out of every dollar they made and live frugally and modestly. They also have adult children that are financially independent, meaning they didn't get their money - whatever it is - from mom and dad. In other words, the dominant profile is that they are simply hard working, fiscally conservative, responsible people. Funny how people like Herbert never want to look at that and prefer to carp about how rotten things are (for the life of my I'll never understand why folks of that particular political stripe always seem so negative and pessimistic). There is also a very interesting section on wealth v. income as it relates to taxation.

Let's arbitrarily say that your station in life is determined 20% by society and 80% by your own motivation (which I guesstimate is probably pretty close; libs will reverse the numbers). You can either chose to live in the 80% or the 20%. Even that choice is yours.

[Jwaksman]

Yes, well the percentage of current millionaires who were not born millionaires is several times higher than it was even 25 years ago. The Internet has been a big help in allowing people to make a lot of money without needing a lot of initial overhead. That's why it would be a huge mistake to start cracking down on the Internet with regulations...

[mzungu]

It was Clinton's idea not to tax the internet during its infancy. But that's irrelevant to the income tax question and the income gap. The stock market gains in the 1990s were key to the extremely rich becoming richer, but Bush tax policies have exacerbated the problem.

[mzungu]

What does Herb's Communist rant have to do with Thurmond?

apparently, you believe that everyone who opposes an aristocracy of the top 0.1% of the wealthy is a communist. extreme wealth inequities undermine our democracy.

[mzungu]

You know what would be the first sign of the end of the universe: when the NY Times writes an article about mobility in France and Germany. The level of mobility in the US is still 10, 20 times greater than it is in France, which has grinded to a complete halt.


herbert's article says that mobility in france IS THE SAME as in the u.s.

"Economic mobility in the United States - the extent to which individuals and families move from one social class to another - is no higher than in Britain or France, and lower than in some Scandinavian countries. Maybe we should be studying the Scandinavian dream."

so, you should read better.

regarding your second point, this is a thread critiquing the European Union, NOT ABOUT STROM THURMOND, so the post of herbert's column was directly relevant to the economic comparison with europe.


regarding zat's criticism, you're going to have to refute the statistics concerning mobility and income inequity to show that herbert is wrong. you do nothing other than, as usual, offer anecdotal evidence of people who made it. there are 300 million people in this country, so you're going to find plenty of examples even if we were the least mobile people in the world. moreover, economic mobility was much greater in the 1990s than now.

[jersey_guy]

apparently, you believe that everyone who opposes an aristocracy of the top 0.1% of the wealthy is a communist. extreme wealth inequities undermine our democracy.

There is no aristocracy in America, and we are not a democracy but a republic. When you digest those two basic facts, you can continue the discussion.

[Zat0pek]

regarding zat's criticism, you're going to have to refute the statistics concerning mobility and income inequity to show that herbert is wrong. you do nothing other than, as usual, offer anecdotal evidence of people who made it.

LOL. You clearly haven't read the book. It is not "anectdotal" evidence. It is an exhaustive demographic study.

And, BTW, there is an enormous difference between an anectdote and an example.

[jersey_guy]

The whole NYT class warfare series is a load of neo-Marxist bull****.

A few weeks ago they had an article on a Mexican immigrant living and working in NYC who was living in relative poverty (compared to Americans). That Mexican:

a) was an illegal immigrant
b) had a nasty, confrontational personality and kept getting fired from his minimum-wage jobs because of it
c) gambled away $75-$100 a week
d) refused to learn English

Yet the NYT propaganda managed to claim that it's the fault of the "system" that he is poor (which isn't true anyway because he makes 10 times as much money as in Mexico).

It's hilarious to follow the thinking of mzungus of this world.

[mzungu]

and somehow this immigrant's malfeasance shows that the top 0.1% of the rich are not getting far richer in comparison to the rest of the population?

[mzungu]

zat, I'll be happy to check out this book if I ever think about it when in a library or bookstore, but how is a book published in the past going to disprove the current statistics on economic mobility?

[mzungu]

we're not an aristocracy? well, in 2003, at least 40 senators were millionaires (probably a lot more based on the way the study was conducted), as against only 10 with fewer than $100,000 in holdings. yet, let's say 90% of americans have fewer than $100k. the rich rule. and it is not merely because people prefer the rich, but because it is incredibly expensive to run successfully for public office.

net worth avg. in 2000 was about $46,600. blacks had a net worth on average of just $6100, hispanics $6700, and non-hispanic whites of $67,000.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/wealth/1998_2000/wlth00-1.html

[Zat0pek]

the rich rule.

Can you show any sustained political or economic system where that is NOT true? Even at the height of the Soviet Union, what wealth there was to be held was held by top Party officials.

[mzungu]

the soviet union's rulers were the wealthiest in the soviet union, no doubt.

but it is a new and destabilizing event in the united states to have a de facto requirement that you be a millionaire to hold national office. i'll look for stats showing that or whether there has been a difference.

[jersey_guy]

we're not an aristocracy? well, in 2003, at least 40 senators were millionaires (probably a lot more based on the way the study was conducted), as against only 10 with fewer than $100,000 in holdings. yet, let's say 90% of americans have fewer than $100k. the rich rule. and it is not merely because people prefer the rich, but because it is incredibly expensive to run successfully for public office.


Newsflash: people do prefer the rich because they use their own money on their campaigns instead of stealing that money from taxpayers and because they are generally successful in life. Americans hate losers, that's why nobody with fewer than $100k in holdings will ever be elected president. If you don't know how to make yourself rich, then how can your constituents believe you will help them become richer?

[Zat0pek]

but it is a new and destabilizing event in the united states to have a de facto requirement that you be a millionaire to hold national office. i'll look for stats showing that or whether there has been a difference.

I'm curious about this as well, because TV had totally changed campaign costs. As long as you're looking, see if you can find something comparing the average income or net worth of a senator to U.S. norms rather than simply going on straight dollar figures, which would be highly misleading.

[jersey_guy]

but it is a new and destabilizing event in the united states to have a de facto requirement that you be a millionaire to hold national office. i'll look for stats showing that or whether there has been a difference.

It's neither new (look at 1890s and early 1900s) nor destabilizing. If anything, the rich would want the national situation to be as stable as possible to protect their assets.

Come to think of it, almost all of the Founding Fathers were rich bastards, landowners, plantation owners, and slave owners. Surprisingly few Communists among them.

[MoMo]

I'm guessing, j_g, that the slave-owning part was o.k. with you -- so long as there were no Commies in the bunch? :cool:

[jersey_guy]

Communism IS slavery.

[MoMo]

You side-stepped the point.

A system run by "rich bastards" is not necessarily good for all of society -- just as early America was not particularly kind to the slaves.

But you seem to prefer that -- with its inherent short-term stability but explosive longer-term injustice -- over a fairer system.

[jersey_guy]

Uh, no, I prefer a system where anyone can become a rich bastard if they dedicate their lives to it. There is no "fairer" system.

[Zat0pek]

But you seem to prefer that -- with its inherent short-term stability but explosive longer-term injustice -- over a fairer system.

MoMo (not to speak for J_g here), its not a PREFERENCE, it is a REALITY. There simply has never been any long-term stable, dynamic economy or government where positions of power were NOT the province of the wealthiest citizens. It doesn't matter if you are talking about untamed capitalism or untamed socialism.

Does that make it right? I dunno. Does it make it wrong? I dunno. It just. . .IS. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth over it is wasted effort, like complaining about the force of gravity. Should we temper it, try to keep the gap from being too great? Probably...maybe. But the real question becomes whether the cure is worse than the disease. The doctrine of unintended consequences can be a real bugger in these instances.

What always fascinates me is the contempt for the ultra wealthy by the left (even when some of them ARE the ultra wealthy). I'm not one, never been one, never wanna be one. But I don't understand all the vitriol.

[jersey_guy]

What always fascinates me is the contempt for the ultra wealthy by the left (even when some of them ARE the ultra wealthy). I'm not one, never been one, never wanna be one. But I don't understand all the vitriol.

Liberals always worry about EVERYBODY ELSE'S money and what they do with it. That's how you spot a communist from half a mile away.

[KenA55]

I don't worry too much about what the ultra wealthy want to do with their money- until they decide to close up shop at their businesses and reopen them somewhere overseas- but still sell the product here primarily. If his neighbors are thrown off his employee rolls, then keep them off his customer rolls as well. At that point I wouldn't worry too much, either, if they simply shipped that individual overseas as well, allowing him to keep whatever he could pack into a small suitcase perhaps. We can't remain the strongest consumer nation very long if we don't respect that those consumers need good incomes to remain such. Now GM is going to be downsizing again significantly because we've given up control of our borders. It's a little foolish to be so concerned about terrorism coming in when we let things in unimpeded that do so much more damage here over the long haul.

[jersey_guy]

We can't remain the strongest consumer nation very long if we don't respect that those consumers need good incomes to remain such.


During the last 2 years the per capita disposable income rose by about 6% after adjusting for inflation:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/percapin.htm


Now GM is going to be downsizing again significantly because we've given up control of our borders.


Uh, no, GM will be downsizing because instead of making cars it turned itself into a giant welfare organization. I believe GM right now pays out pensions to more former employees than the number of their current employees. That's what happens when you let labor unions terrorize you into doling out welfare.

Plus they make ****ty cars. Half of their cars go to employees and their families and the other half to government agencies and police departments.

[KenA55]

Uh, no, GM will be downsizing because instead of making cars it turned itself into a giant welfare organization. I believe GM right now pays out pensions to more former employees than the number of their current employees. That's what happens when you let labor unions terrorize you into doling out welfare.

Pensions aren't welfare. They're paid only to those who contributed to a point of becoming fully vested. If there were excesses, it's because GM & the UAW lacked the good sense to turn the money over to the pension and let it operate in a sound manner, basing benefit levels on predicted future contribution and maintaining sound reserves. Company pensions are always risky business, and any good union insists on the money now, and they operate the pension themselves with what they have rather than what the company can afford to pay out on old pomises 20 years down the road.

But the whole reason the pension issues exist is because of prior downsizing. There would be many more current employees supporting those pensions if our border's leakage had never become a flood. Don't blame that on GM or the union, that's a complete cop-out. Those decisions were in the hands of wealthy and powerful people, who, beginning in the '80's primarily, decided that having a strong and robust America, across the board and especially including heavy manufacturing, was no longer going to be a priority. Those are the people who created the GM 'welfare state' as it exists today. Put the blame where it belongs.

Plus they make ****ty cars. Half of their cars go to employees and their families and the other half to government agencies and police departments.

I drive a Pontiac. Before that I drove a Chevrolet. I drive a lot of miles in case you haven't picked up on that already- about 35,000 per year. They've been very trouble free miles, I have no complaints whatsoever. I have no idea what you're talking about on this one. Take a look out there on any highway. GM cars are everywhere in good numbers, and we don't have much in the way of GM employees here.

[KenA55]

During the last 2 years the per capita disposable income rose by about 6% after adjusting for inflation:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/percapin.htm.

I gave the chart and the background information you linked a good read before commenting. Some points-

That isn't a chart reflective of wage/salary earners. It reflects investment income as well, and doesn't cap incomes viewed at a reasonable level to reflect what's actually happening with the other 99% of us. The wage/salary earner picture gets dwarfed when you throw the big money in- and you therefore see that chart reflecting market trends more than anything else. Produce a similar chart for people with incomes up to double today's individual median income only and the picture is starkly different.

This, again, is a per capita chart, subject to all the vaguaries of household size and working population changes. Produce data based on the wage/salary-earners incomes only, or save yourself the trouble and simply blow smoke around literally.

I was hoping to find, somewhere in that BEA site, the precise inflation percentages they're applying across that time period. I failed, they have a thousand charts but no inflation data to compare to private industry calculations by investment firms and the like. Gov't inflation figures do not have a good track record- it simply goes against government self-interest to do anything other than provide softened inflation figures.

We've been through these points before ad nauseum. If you're going to indulge in charts, graphs, and statistics, limit your choices to those directly pertinent to question.

[jersey_guy]

That isn't a chart reflective of wage/salary earners. It reflects investment income as well, and doesn't cap incomes viewed at a reasonable level to reflect what's actually happening with the other 99% of us. The wage/salary earner picture gets dwarfed when you throw the big money in- and you therefore see that chart reflecting market trends more than anything else. Produce a similar chart for people with incomes up to double today's individual median income only and the picture is starkly different.

This, again, is a per capita chart, subject to all the vaguaries of household size and working population changes. Produce data based on the wage/salary-earners incomes only, or save yourself the trouble and simply blow smoke around literally.

If you're going to indulge in charts, graphs, and statistics, limit your choices to those directly pertinent to question.

Your original comment was that "consumers need good incomes." Now you are going to tell me that the rich are not consumers and should therefore be excluded?

About half of all Americans, including the majority of the middle class, receive investment income. So much for your comment about "other 99% of us." Did you not figure out yet that there is no law prohibiting you from buying stocks or bonds or starting a savings account if you are not in the richest 1%?

[jersey_guy]

Pensions aren't welfare. They're paid only to those who contributed to a point of becoming fully vested. If there were excesses, it's because GM & the UAW lacked the good sense to turn the money over to the pension and let it operate in a sound manner, basing benefit levels on predicted future contribution and maintaining sound reserves. Company pensions are always risky business, and any good union insists on the money now, and they operate the pension themselves with what they have rather than what the company can afford to pay out on old pomises 20 years down the road.

But the whole reason the pension issues exist is because of prior downsizing. There would be many more current employees supporting those pensions if our border's leakage had never become a flood. Don't blame that on GM or the union, that's a complete cop-out. Those decisions were in the hands of wealthy and powerful people, who, beginning in the '80's primarily, decided that having a strong and robust America, across the board and especially including heavy manufacturing, was no longer going to be a priority. Those are the people who created the GM 'welfare state' as it exists today. Put the blame where it belongs.



I drive a Pontiac. Before that I drove a Chevrolet. I drive a lot of miles in case you haven't picked up on that already- about 35,000 per year. They've been very trouble free miles, I have no complaints whatsoever. I have no idea what you're talking about on this one. Take a look out there on any highway. GM cars are everywhere in good numbers, and we don't have much in the way of GM employees here.

Most GM cars are just plain ugly and have a reputation for unreliability compared to, for example, Japanese and Korean cars. Why do you think their market share keeps falling year after year?

China is already developing its own line of cars for export. When a decade from now the Chinese will be able to produce cars that are as reliable as Japanese ones but for half the price, then GM will be really screwed, and there really isn't much you can do about it.

Besides the pensions and health care costs, GM's biggest problem is its bloated management. For some reason they still have 8 car divisions (Chevy, GMC, Pontiac, Buick, Cadilllac, Saturn, Hummer, Saab), which means 8 sets of executives, designers, engineers, etc. out of which 6 produce identical cars. What an unbelievable waste of money. They should have 3 divisions max (one for cars, one for trucks/SUVs, and one for luxury cars).

And I don't see how immigration plays into this at all. It's cheaper to make cars abroad, period.

[Jwaksman]

GM has a very bloated retirement and medical plan, that's true. But there's no reason to hate on their cars. Their cars are fine, just a little expensive because they have to pass on so much of their healthcare costs onto us. GM spends more money on their employee healthcare plans than they do on steel. This is because the unions that have employees at GM have gotten what they want, which is an extremely comprehensive healthcare plan for all employees.

GM simply made a mistake, it's not the government's fault. The government, and other companies, should simply take note at the economic troubles that occur when everyone gets guaranteed viagra and a dozen other unnecessary things...

[MoMo]

I believe GM right now pays out pensions to more former employees than the number of their current employees. That's what happens when you let labor unions terrorize you into doling out welfare.


No, that's what happens when you can't sell cars. If they were selling more vehicles -- and hadn't had to repeatedly downsize their staff over the past 20 years -- they wouldn't have two or three retirees for every active worker (Chrysler has a 1-to-1 ratio), and the per-car costs of health care, etc. would be more reasonable.

[KenA55]

Your original comment was that "consumers need good incomes." Now you are going to tell me that the rich are not consumers and should therefore be excluded?

About half of all Americans, including the majority of the middle class, receive investment income. So much for your comment about "other 99% of us." Did you not figure out yet that there is no law prohibiting you from buying stocks or bonds or starting a savings account if you are not in the richest 1%?

The top 1% certainly are consumers- though as a proportion of their total wealth, not even close to what those near poverty level are at. Do you imagine that trump's new car expenses are anywhere near the percentage of his income that the npl family is facing. Wait, they probably aren't new car customers in most cases. A healthy consumer base requires more well-off consumers, not a tight concentration of wealth.

I have a modest amount of investment income- though the lion's share of it is tax-deferred and untouchable presently. This is where most middle class investment lies. It certainly isn't disposable income at present.

[KenA55]

The Korean cars!! Haha, my ex-gf's Daewoo wasn't able to make it 30,000 miles w/o developing a miss that's unfixable due to questionable (to say the least) fuel delivery timing engineering. There is no heat to speak of in the winter- t-stats come in one choice of temp setpoint only- and if you want to replace it, you can't just buy the stat- you get to pay well over 100 dollars for the entire casted piece containing the T-stat.

You've got me in stitches on the Korea statement. They haven't been at it long enough to get much right. In fact Daewoo threw their hands up and quit, and are back to heavy equipment only.

The Japanese have more experience and do better.

[Jwaksman]

I have a modest amount of investment income- though the lion's share of it is tax-deferred and untouchable presently. This is where most middle class investment lies. It certainly isn't disposable income at present.



No, but that's why it's so good. More and more middle class families are investing for their retirement. Fewer and fewer people are unsure of whether they'll have enough money to live comfortably once they retire. The number of Americans who invest has constantly increased, even since the bubble burst. And that's a great thing.

[KenA55]

Of course investing is a great thing- but so is a healthy domestic consumer base. These people losing jobs are part of that eroding picture. GM will continue to produce to meet demand, just do more of it overseas. And all of those pensions, not just at GM but everywhere, are underwritten by all of us. The government backs up those pensions and pays them when funds evaporate. That's what the ERISA act is all about.

Anytime you allow cheap overseas labor to replace good American incomes here, you pay the costs of that decision, not just up front in terms of immediate social expenses, and dwindling tax base- but for years down the road for the vested former workers if the company no longer exists to meet its liabilities.

[KenA55]

I finally did find something on inflation in that BEA site, a frame in a slideshow-
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/2003benchmark/10
where they list average inflation rate, 1992-2002, at an average of 1.8% annual, and base it on Gross Domestic Purchase Prices, whatever that means precisely. Then they list 2001 3rd quarter through 2003 2nd quarter at 1.6% annual.
The inflation calculator
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/InflationCalculator.asp
puts that 10 year period, 1/1/92-1/1/02 at 28.24% across that 10 year period overall. Annually, that breaks down to a 2.52% annual average rate, quite a difference from 1.8%. You calculate that by taking the tenth root of the 28.24%, expressing it as 1.2824 in decimal form. Or you can take the BEA's 1.8% increase (1.018), and raise it to the tenth power to get their overall inflation increase over that period, which comes out to be 1.1953, in other words an overall 19.53% inflation across that decade. Pretty big difference, percentage-wise, between 19.53 and 28.24. one is 45% greater than the other. This is how government soft sells inflation as compared to the real world analysis.

The two year period, 7/1/01 to 6/30/03, according to the BEA- 1.016x1.016=1.0323 for an overall 3.23% two year inflation figure compares to 3.61% from the calculator. Closer in this case, but one is still 12% higher than the other. The calculator averages out to 1.9% annual for those two years.

Always assume government inflation calculations to be low. In any given year they may not be that low, but since it's cumulative over time, the longer the time frame in question, the more misleading such govt. data becomes.

[mzungu]

i haven't read the whole debate above, but jwaksman suggests that more and more people are saving and more and more people have an independent retirement fund that will support them. however, in fact, the national savings rate is extremely low, way below the past, and many pension funds are going bust, such as United's and likely GM's.

[MoMo]

Not to mention Enron's...

[mzungu]

i agree with zat that the tendency is for the richest to rule in many societies. but there are many differences. for instance, in 18th century france, the richest DID NOT RULE. the french landed aristocracy was much poorer than the new capitalist bourgeoisie. same thing in england. in ancient athens, all free-born athenian males ruled, taking turns in government. that meant that many poor athenians ruled. aristotle described many different societies in which the rich did not rule--reserved for the oligarchies. in any case, most of us agree that it is not a good thing for the rich to rule. if you believe it is inevitable, then it doesn't matter what we do, so why object to criticism of it? if you believe it is not inevitable, then it's reasonable and popular to oppose it by mandating government funding of all candidates for public office.

[Jwaksman]

i haven't read the whole debate above, but jwaksman suggests that more and more people are saving and more and more people have an independent retirement fund that will support them. however, in fact, the national savings rate is extremely low, way below the past, and many pension funds are going bust, such as United's and likely GM's.



I wasn't talking about the savings rate - you continue to fail to read my posts.... I said, correctly, that more and more people are investing, which the key to making money. If your money is in the bank you're just keeping up with inflation, you won't become rich.

[mzungu]

investment is included in the saving calculation. but you're wrong there. during the 1990s stock boom, there were record high percentages of the people investing in stocks. not now. there is a housing bubble right now, but that doesn't encompass as high a percentage of the people.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, what did I tell you about providing statistics to back up your assertions? When you don't do that, you tend to be wrong with your assumptions. Despite what you may believe, more and more Americans own stocks. I didn't have the stats on hand, but I found a few websites with a google search.


First, an article from Grover Norquist in 1999 (http://www.americanshareholders.com/commentary/children.php) that says that their poll of 4000 Ameicans found that 39.9% of adults owned stocks. They then, in 2004 (http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2124) cite that over 60% of American adults own stocks. In fact, even websites (http://www.cbpp.org/1-24-03tax.htm) that vehemently opposed the Bush tax cuts have no problem offhandedly commenting that: "Despite the growing number of Americans who have some stocks, the benefits of the dividend tax cut would flow primarily to very wealthy individuals."


Please, you could save half of your typing time if you just looked up these stats before posting what you think they are, rather than what they really are.

[mzungu]

that is utter b.s. there is no way that stock ownership could have risen 50% (from 40% of the people to 60%) in five years during a period of decline and/or stagnation of the stock market and with an intervening recession. that grover norquist is not exactly the fount of truthfulness.

[mzungu]

prior to verifying the stats, this information undercuts completely the point of your argument: the bottom 40% of americans own 0.2% of stocks.

[mzungu]

from morgan stanley's chief:
"For any nation, saving must always equal investment. Unfortunately, America’s national saving rate is plunging into the danger zone. In the first quarter of 2003, gross national saving -- households, businesses, and government units, combined -- fell to 14.0% of gross national product; that’s down 1.5 percentage points from the year-earlier rate and fully 4.8 percentage points below the post-1960 norm of 18.8%. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

The problem is that most of America’s national saving now shows up in the form of depreciation -- funds that are earmarked for the replacement of worn-out physical assets. In the first quarter of 2003, such depreciation accounted for fully 94% of total saving. That means that the net national saving rate -- that portion of national saving that is available to fund the actual expansion of productive capacity -- fell to a record low of 0.7% of gross national product in the first period of this year. That’s off sharply from the year-earlier reading of 2.3% and is well short of the nearly 5% average of the 1990s and the 11% norm of the 1960s. There are few macro gauges that tell us more about an economy’s internally generated growth capacity. Sadly, America has all but depleted its reservoir of net saving -- the sustenance of longer-term economic growth."

[mzungu]

from the fed 2001:
Stockholding Is StillHighly Concentrated
The 1990s turned out to be an exceptionally good period for stock market investors. The Standard and Poor’s 500 index, which measures the value of the largest 500 firms, reported increases eight years during that decade and climbed 15 percent per year on average. Many observers have noted that the stock marketboom in the 1990s coincided with a surge in the number of households that owned stocks, either directly or indirectly—through mutual funds, retirement accounts and other managed assets. As shown in the accompanying chart, the stock market participation rate rose sharply from 32 percent in 1989 to 49 percent in 1998. Thus, the proposition that a large influx of new investors propelled the stock market in the 1990s is worth examining. Economic theory suggests that if an increase in the number of shareholders spreads stock-market riskover a larger pool of investors, then the rate of return required to compensate shareholders for the risk they bear ought to fall—causing a one-time increase in stockprices. It is tempting, then, to argue that the increase in stock market participation played a significant role inthe recent stock market boom.

A close examination of the data shows, however, that most new shareholders own a relatively small amount of stocks, so that aggregate stockholdings remain highly concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest 10 percent of households.

As shown in the accompanying chart, the share of stocksheld by the richest 10 percent of U.S. households remained between 78 and 82 percent for the period 1989 to 1998.

Hence, the economic argument discussed above does not apply because, even though thenumber of shareholders has increased, a relatively smallpool of wealthy investors still bears most of the risk inthe stock market.

[Zat0pek]

From the Joint Economic Committee Study in 2000:

Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent. According to one observer, this explosion in stock ownership has been "one of the great social movements of the 1990s."1 (http://www.house.gov/jec/tax/stock/stock.htm#endnot1) The shift of many individuals from wage earners to worker capitalists has stimulated discussion on the implications of this economic shift. On the surface, it might seem that broadened stock ownership is of little importance. There are many positive benefits, however, to the expansion of stock ownership. Not the least of these benefits is the ability, over the long-term, for families to accumulate wealth to provide for their needs including retirement, education, medical care, and potential unemployment.


http://www.house.gov/jec/tax/stock/stock.htm

[Zat0pek]

From the same report:

The first lesson to be taken from the broadening of stock ownership is that Americans want access, control, and choice over their retirement and other saving options. Prior to the introduction of the IRA and 401(k) plan, there was little to no choice in retirement saving. Firms promised a specific pension benefit based on salary and years of service. Accumulating retirement savings using stocks, bonds, or savings accounts was possible, but was unlikely due to burdensome taxes, low rates of return, and the large amount of money needed to invest adequately. The introduction of the 401(k) plan, the IRA, and the proliferation of the mutual fund industry changed retirement planning by allowing the middle class to control their financial future.


The second lesson is the importance of a tax policy that minimizes the multiple taxation of saving and investment while shifting attention towards longer-term planning. IRAs and 401(k) plans remove some of the excess burden that the income tax places on savings and investment and some recent changes in the tax laws have made important progress in expanding IRAs.

However, current tax policy continues to discriminate against savings and investment, an issue frequently addressed in recent legislation. For example, the $2,000 annual IRA contribution limit introduced in 1981 was not adjusted for inflation. Several proposals have been introduced that would increase the IRA contribution limit to a level that reflects the eroding effects of inflation and the need for expanded saving incentives.21 (http://www.house.gov/jec/tax/stock/stock.htm#endnot21) Increasing the contribution limits would enhance the tax benefits of IRAs, allowing middle class Americans to shield a larger portion of their savings and investment from multiple taxation.

Recent U.S. tax policy towards savings and investment contains an underlying trade-off – a general reduction in the multiple taxation of savings and investment in exchange for planning for long-term financial needs. This policy has been very successful in getting Americans to take a more active role in their future, a role that many have embraced.

However, an unfortunate aspect of the tax code works against this policy. According to current tax law, senior citizens are required to begin withdrawals from IRAs by April 1 the year after they reach age 70½. Withdrawals must be of an amount sufficient to empty their account according to an actuarial schedule, or a 50 percent excise tax is applied to the deficiency. This unfortunate aspect of the current tax code seems to be at odds with prevailing views regarding the proper role of federal tax policy, since it directly promotes the erosion of personal saving. Another example of federal tax policy promoting the erosion of personal saving is in the tax treatment of capital gains attributed to mutual fund shareholders. Mutual funds are required by the tax law to distribute capital gains to shareholders on an annual basis – a taxable event for the taxpayer over which they have little control. These realizations are involuntary and capital gains taxes are due on the forced realizations. This tax treatment of gains that would otherwise be unrealized has been estimated to reduce the annual return of the average mutual fund shareholder by 2.3 percentage points a year, at least 10 percent of their annual return.22 (http://www.house.gov/jec/tax/stock/stock.htm#endnot22)

[mzungu]

we're in agreement that stock ownership climbed to 50% by around 2000-1, as stated also in the fed report 2001 just above. but that was during a massive rampup in stock market value. i seriously doubt that there was a further advance to 60% since then even as the stock market was declining or stagnating in value. another article I saw from 2004 continued to claim 50% ownership overall, but only 1/3 owning stocks outside pension plans.

[Zat0pek]

another article I saw from 2004 continued to claim 50% ownership overall, but only 1/3 owning stocks outside pension plans.

Why does it matter if they are outside pension plans? Come to think of it, all the stocks we own are in my SEP, my wife's 401(k) and our daughters 529 college savings accounts.

[mzungu]

taxes are a very limited deterrent to savings in comparison to the absence of good jobs or the presence of high rents due to the bubble in real estate speculation. for instance, if I am making 30k, taxes will take out maybe 4k and yes I will lack that much for savings--26k left, most of which goes to basic necessities--food and shelter, no health care. but if I get a better job making 40k, then taxes will take out maybe 6k, leaving 34k. if 26k goes to basic necessities, then I save 8k. the emphasis has been on tax policies that dramatically aid the superrich who really have the means to put a high percentage of their income into stocks and investments. that is a big part of the reason that the superrich, the top 0.1 %, have DOUBLED their share of national wealth since 1980. top tax rates have plummeted, especially in the reagan years, but also under bush, and bush eliminated dividend taxes and estate taxes temporarily, both of which affect almost entirely the very rich.

[mzungu]

Why does it matter if they are outside pension plans? Come to think of it, all the stocks we own are in my SEP, my wife's 401(k) and our daughters 529 college savings accounts.

first, pension plans are in trouble throughout the united states (see united, gm, enron, etc.--all of which were allowed to contribute inadequate amounts for many years).

second, pension plans enjoy much lower gains, typically, than outside plans.

third, pension plans typically provide little or no benefits until retirement (substantial penalties, whether tax or private, tend to apply).

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, you have this attitude that has to change. Everytime I point out how much better things are getting for America's poor and middle classes, you shoot back a statistic about how things have gotten even better for the rich. Well, why should that MATTER??? I don't get it. I don't care if America's top 1% own 99.999999% of the wealth. They could all have $10 Trillion - what do I care?


The point is whether the poor and middle classes are benefitting - that's it. And they are. You provide the stat that the bottom 40% of Americans hold 0.2% of stockholdings. Okay, fine. But that still means that some of the bottom 40% of Americans hold stocks. And if people making less than $25,000 a year are holding stocks, then that means that most Americans who aren't in the bottom 40% own stocks. That backs up my 60% statistic, which you dismissed not because you had evidence but because you didn't want to believe it.


I'm sorry, mzungu, I know that you want for the poor to suffer so we can all understand how much better they'd be under a Franco-German system.. Unfortunately, they're doing much better than you think they are.

[Jwaksman]

first, pension plans are in trouble throughout the united states (see united, gm, enron, etc.--all of which were allowed to contribute inadequate amounts for many years).

second, pension plans enjoy much lower gains, typically, than outside plans.

third, pension plans typically provide little or no benefits until retirement (substantial penalties, whether tax or private, tend to apply).




Hmm... a retirement plan that it is in trouble because the people running them are contributing inadequate amounts of money for many years... that enjoys lower gains that outside plans... that provides little or no benefits until retirement....


... sounds a lot like a certain government program that you are desperate to keep people from reforming. If you like it so much, why are you complaining about it? :D

[MoMo]

I just heard that Howard Dean -- under mounting pressure to give up the Dems' position -- is weighing two very serious job offers...

One is as spokesman for
Jacques Chirac.

The other is as spinmeister for...
Michael Jackson.

[mzungu]

it's amusing to see criticism of howard dean, considering that republicans every day of the week throw worse red meat to their followers without any media uproar. dean, like lee atwater, like terry mcauliffe, etc. is right to attempt to speak bluntly in order to excite the faithful. democrats need people who aren't mealy-mouthed types if they are going to stand for something, and the reason that the republicans over the years have directed most of their criticism at various times against 1) bill clinton, 2) hillary clinton, 3) tom daschle, 4) harry reid, 5) john kerry, and 6) howard dean, is that they want to break down the most powerful democrats. it's fear or realism. but notice that the reporters with tim russert on sunday weren't buying it at all. they pointed out for instance that republicans are far more outspoken than dean (but especially reserving some of this for direct mail and other under the radar forms of communication), that dean has actually closed the gap from the republicans in fundraising (republicans raised 3 times as much as dems under mcauliffe two years ago, but only 2x as much under dean in the first three months of the year), and that dean is also, in less reported comments, beginning to articulate a message of very broad appeal in terms of expressing democratic values.

[mzungu]

Hmm... a retirement plan that it is in trouble because the people running them are contributing inadequate amounts of money for many years... that enjoys lower gains that outside plans... that provides little or no benefits until retirement....


... sounds a lot like a certain government program that you are desperate to keep people from reforming. If you like it so much, why are you complaining about it? :D

If you consider a plan that would be in trouble forty years from now IF and only if the economic growth rate is considerably lower than most projections to be akin to pension plans that are currently going bust, then you would be right. the social security fund has nothing like the problems of medicaid or private pension plans or the government pension-guarantee fund. i am pro-social security reform, like most americans, but i and most americans also oppose destroying the fund by adding a massive new debt and risk as per bush's privatization program. maintenance of current benefit levels and cutting out even the highly speculative 40 year deficit could be done simply by raising the cap on ss taxes, so that it is less regressive.

[Jwaksman]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006813


Wait a second, you mean that the laws of economics do apply to health care???... I quote:


Let's hope Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy were sitting down when they heard the news of the latest bombshell Supreme Court ruling. From the Supreme Court of Canada, that is. That high court issued an opinion last Thursday saying, in effect, that Canada's vaunted public health-care system produces intolerable inequality.

Call it the hip that changed health-care history. When George Zeliotis of Quebec was told in 1997 that he would have to wait a year for a replacement for his painful, arthritic hip, he did what every Canadian who's been put on a waiting list does: He got mad. He got even madder when he learned it was against the law to pay for a replacement privately. But instead of heading south to a hospital in Boston or Cleveland, as many Canadians already do, he teamed up to file a lawsuit with Jacques Chaoulli, a Montreal doctor. The duo lost in two provincial courts before their win last week.

The court's decision strikes down a Quebec law banning private medical insurance and is bound to upend similar laws in other provinces. Canada is the only nation other than Cuba and North Korea that bans private health insurance, according to Sally Pipes, head of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco and author of a recent book on Canada's health-care system.

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court last week. Canadians wait an average of 17.9 weeks for surgery and other therapeutic treatments, according the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. The waits would be even longer if Canadians didn't have access to the U.S. as a medical-care safety valve. Or, in the case of fortunate elites such as Prime Minister Paul Martin, if they didn't have access to a small private market in some non-core medical services. Mr. Martin's use of a private clinic for his annual checkup set off a political firestorm last year.

The ruling stops short of declaring the national health-care system unconstitutional; only three of the seven judges wanted to go all the way.

But it does say in effect: Deliver better care or permit the development of a private system. "The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance might be constitutional in circumstances where health-care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness," the ruling reads, but it "is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services." The Justices who sit on Canada's Supreme Court, by the way, aren't a bunch of Scalias of the North. This is the same court that last year unanimously declared gay marriage constitutional.

The Canadian ruling ought to be an eye-opener for the U.S., where "single-payer," government-run health care is still a holy grail on the political left and even for some in business (such as the automakers). This month the California Senate passed a bill that would create a state-run system of single-payer universal health care. The Assembly is expected to follow suit. Someone should make sure the Canadian Supreme Court's ruling is on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's reading list before he makes a veto decision.

The larger lesson here is that health care isn't immune from the laws of economics. Politicians can't wave a wand and provide equal coverage for all merely by declaring medical care to be a "right," in the word that is currently popular on the American left.

There are only two ways to allocate any good or service: through prices, as is done in a market economy, or lines dictated by government, as in Canada's system. The socialist claim is that a single-payer system is more equal than one based on prices, but last week's court decision reveals that as an illusion. Or, to put it another way, Canadian health care is equal only in its shared scarcity.

When asked whether he was worried about being known as the man who helped bring down his country's universal health-care system, Mr. Zeliotis told the Toronto Star, "No way. I'm the guy saving it." If the Canadian ruling can open American eyes to the limitations of government-run health care, Mr. Zeliotis's hip just might end up saving the U.S. system too.

[mzungu]

you cannot be serious if you're claiming that the u.s.'s HMO-based system is more efficient. we have 13-15% annual price increases with worse results than europe and 45 million uninsured.

[mzungu]

that article proves nothing. the claim is that the system is unequal. well, our system is many times more unequal than canada's. 45 million have zero access to health insurance, whereas all canadians have access to health care. if there is a year delay for a replacement hip, that's not good and should be improved. but in this country, there'd simply be NO replacement hip or any other treatment for tens of millions of people, and rapidly growing. better a year delay than forever. and it makes no case whatsoever about all the other treatments in the system.

[Jwaksman]

you cannot be serious if you're claiming that the u.s.'s HMO-based system is more efficient. we have 13-15% annual price increases with worse results than europe and 45 million uninsured.



This is your typical response. You only care about money. Well, I care about actual access to the medicine. The average wait for surgery in Canada is nearly 5 months. That's insane!


Also, in typical mzungu form you are manipulating numbers. 45 million uninsured doesn't mean that 45 million Americans are destitute, without any health care at all. First of all, over 99% of those over the age of 65 have health insurance, and nearly all kids are covered as well. Also, many people simply pay for health care out of pocket. That may seem insane on the west coast or the east coast, but in central America it is much cheaper to get most medical things done. Also, a lot of people are just temporarily without health insurance, as many people are going in between jobs at all times.


Also, studies show that the main reason for the recent increase in those uninsured was immigration. The reason being that a law was changed which keeps new immigrants from receiving federal health care. And many immigrants work in poor, labor jobs that don't offer health care.




Regardless, this all shows your typical attitude towards health care. You don't care how bad it is, or how long people have to wait to get it - you only care that everyone has the same system. I've already shown you, before, that the price of drugs and healthcare has actually not risen faster than inflation - the increase in health care spending is due to an increase in treatments and in the number of treatments and medicines covered by health care providers.


I'd rather have expensive health care than no health care. Mzungu would rather no health care.

[MoMo]

the increase in health care spending is due to an increase in treatments and in the number of treatments and medicines covered by health care providers.


Hmmm. Why does this not make me feel any better? More treatments and medicines are NOT making us a particularly healthier nation -- certainly not in proportion to the rising costs. We are a scandalously over-medicated, over-treated country. You think we shouldn't mind that, that we should just have a "whatever you say, doctor" attitude?

As a nation, we could probably have perfectly decent health care for all -- at current costs -- if we simply diverted some of the OVER-care to those now UNDER-cared.

[KenA55]

Here state programs have to insure availability of health care to those of lower income through our Minnesota Care program that buys down private insurance cost, to whatever extent we decide we can afford- which has been on the decline recent years.

I do think that universal health care carries with it certain trade-offs that are far from desirable for many- there probably isn't ever going to be perfect equal availability, along with timely availability, whether private or state-operated. Nor will there ever be a situation where gov't doesn't pay for a great deal of health care through taxation- economic redistribution. Hey, the world never promised to be fair in either regard, and maybe some sort of hybrid of the two systems is the best that can be hoped for. Gov't pays for only some health care for those who need it most and can't buy it themselves; the wealthier get to pay for most of that but still enjoy a private system with instant availability to those looking for instant medical gratification. And the medical profession remains lucrative enough to attract some of the very best.

[mzungu]

I see no reason not to have a public-private system in which many of the most expensive treatments and drugs unnecessary to core health or unproven (the NIH is now rightly requiring statistically-valid, randomized studies for federal money--this would remove most mental health and sexual health drugs, as well as many of the drug-company constructed illnesses, such as SAD) are paid out of pocket by individuals, rather than by the system, and preventive/diagnostic/curative treatment for core health issues is paid through the system. as several democratic candidates last year mentioned, there has to be some means of removing catastrophic health cases from the main systems, so as to limit the toll on the entire system due to incurable, end of life cases. the emphasis has to be on preventable and curable illnesses/injuries. also, there needs to be a lot more stress on practically successful forms of physical therapy (occupational/sports) in place of costly initial meetings with general practitioners and additional meetings with 'experts' who do not know anything about the mechanics of actually curing or overcoming e.g. overuse injuries. (my example is patellar tendonitis--turns out to be very easy to treat with exercises using ankle weights, IF YOU SEE A PT WHO KNOWS THIS).

[Jwaksman]

Ken, you are correct that people are taking way too many treatments and drugs nowadays. But you can thank our federal government and their friendly lobbyists for that. What happens when you have a national healthcare, as mzungu wants, is that healthcare becomes political. The treatments that are covered by your insurance plan will be selected by lobbyists. The treatments that are developed by politically-connected companies will be covered by insurance, regardless of their actual value. That's why so many people have Viagra covered in their insurance, for example. Pfizer is simply a big political donor.


Private insurance companies will actually make cost-benefit analyses based entirely on need and cost. Politics won't be a part of it. Also, people will be able to buy different types of insurance. For example, poor Americans would be able to afford insurance to cover emergencies, since they wouldn't have to pay for insurance plans that cover more frivolous procedures. Meanwhile, richer people would get more comprehensive plans.




Think of it like a house. Everyone should have a home to live in. But we don't have the government make a law saying that everybody automatically gets a house, just on the basis of being born. No, what we do is have an open market where the richest people get the biggest houses and the poorest people have smaller houses. Seems to work pretty well there...

[mzungu]

they would be selected by lobbyists PRIMARILY if republicans are in the majority, as they have explicitly and proudly used lobbyists to produce their legislation and the open door from administration and republican house/senate to oil companies is a huge proof of this. for instance, the republican former oil exec who was crossing out negative portions of climate research goes to work at exxonmobil. the halliburton ceo comes to work as vp and halliburton gets enormous no bid contracts. the republican congressman from San Diego who gets an $800,000 gratuity in return for a military contract. the republican from alaska who gets an $800,000 profit in return for a $400 million military contract. all in the news in the past two days. currently, private corporations do ALL of the choosing for many on health care, so hard to believe it would be worse if it were a public affair open to the light of day.