Air America Steels From Boys And Girls Club

[brijonmang]

im glad to see the world is a better place now lol

[kjb434]

Yeah, out ideaologies can be complele polar opposites, but we aren't blinded by the face our polictal institutions are the biggest mess and thorn in our countries sides.

[Ashikaga]

Showing that no one listens to liberal radio, Air America has to pay radio stations to get aired.  Also, a recent scandal has shown that Air America has stolen money from a New York City you organization that is funded by taxpayer money and used it to fund the network.

See Below:

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

Article 4 - Washington Time Op-Ed

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about the conservative Republican-controlled Texas State Legislature who recently took money that was being used to help low income and elderly people pay their electric bills?

[RedScare]

That is a somewhat different, albeit heartless situation. However, the Abramoff indictment and Tom DeLay's past statements that Abramoff was one of his "closest and dearest friends", shows that members of both parties will get in bed with whoever brings the cash. In my neighborhood, they are known as prostitutes or hookers. In the 3rd and 5th wards, they are called hoes. In Washington, they are called politicians.

[brijonmang]

...shows that members of both parties will get in bed with whoever brings the cash.  In my neighborhood, they are known as prostitutes or hookers.  In the 3rd and 5th wards, they are called hoes.  In Washington, they are called politicians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol that sounds exaclty like the N.E.R.D. song "lap dance"...if youve heard it you know exactly what im talking about

[uncertaintraveler]

Those stories exists everyday.  Conservatives much much rather use the prove method of market economics to raise people out of poverty instead of just give them what they need.  The prevents the since of entitilement and encourages an atomsphere of earning what get.

Many social programs exists that use this approach and have seen much sucess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This statement is a bedrock of conservative thought. Sadly, it isn't a valid point. Not everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and no one (NO ONE!) has ever gotten to where they are today simply on their own. Liberals historically prefer to help people with things, conservatives prefer to help people with ideas. It doesn't take a genius to realize that people prefer things over ideas.

In the US the poor and disaffected has grown since Johnson pushed through his liberal social programs creating a large welfare state.  Luckily there is a movement in the US to roll back many of these moneypit programs that produce no results except for more poor and more dependent people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh really? We are lucky that there is such a movement???

I guess we should be happy and overjoyed then to hear that the numbers of uninsured are increasing every year, that quality housing is quickly becoming unaffordable for many, and that more schoolchildren every year need assistance paying for their lunches? And that all of this will continue to increase? And, similiarly, we should be happy to know that what little money our government actually spends on welfare programs is instead being "diverted" in the form of tax breaks for some of the most profitable companies on earth?

Don't fool yourself. Whatever "movement" you are referring to only wants to cut programs for the "undesireables." Those in the "movement" aren't about to give up the handouts that benefit them, like social security that isn't means-tested, tax breaks, and so on.

The truth is America is leaning towards more conservative ideas mainly is because they have been presented them.  I still try to find what liberals stand for.  It's hard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And don't kid yourself....The reason America is leaning towards more conservative ideas is for one very simple reason: its easier not to care. Heck, that's basically the "conservative" theme: Vote Republican---its easier not to care.

[kjb434]

Again with emotion and lack ideological solution. Instead just attacking my statements, why don't you truly explain your side and view?

About the uninsured: It is far better to be uninsured in this country than to be moderately insured. Being unisured, you can walk into any emergency room or any charity hospital and get treatment.

Housing cost gone up? What about HUD and local housing programs to put people into real houses with mortgages. I've worked on over 1000 lots in sudvisions within the city of Houston for developers that will be offered as low income housing. Not projects, but real houses with some yard and community playgrounds and parks.

This is common in many of Americas large cities where housing cost have escalated. These HUD programs I would agree to be one of the best uses of government money for housing. It involves the family and the community.

Why don't you stop reading talking points and start looking at the real problem. Start looking at the real numbers and how the situation really is.

[RedScare]

"About the uninsured: It is far better to be uninsured in this country than to be moderately insured. Being unisured, you can walk into any emergency room or any charity hospital and get treatment."

Sounds like you've never been without insurance...or never been sick. I've been without insurance several times, including for the last year. That's what happens to the self-employed, as well as the unemployed. Luckily, in spite of my smoking and drinking habits, I rarely get ill. Good genes. But, those less fortunate aren't so lucky.

BTW, liberals don't use talking points for a couple of reasons. One, they don't have their own cable network for the dissemination of said talking points. Two, liberal viewpoints can be very divergent. They do, however, have one common thread. They believe that giving a little to help the environment or the less fortunate pays for itself many times over with a healthier, better educated and more prosperous society, and that helps even the wealthy conservatives.

Ever priced a jail cell or a hospital emergency room?

[uncertaintraveler]

Again with emotion and lack ideological solution.  Instead just attacking my statements, why don't you truly explain your side and view?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't have any emotion in my comments. And I wasn't so much as attacking your statements as I was trying to expose them as being a completely myopic viewpoint.

About the uninsured:  It is far better to be uninsured in this country than to be moderately insured.  Being unisured, you can walk into any emergency room or any charity hospital and get treatment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Glad you brought this up, because this is a fine example of what is wrong with your points in prior posts. You imply people should get their own health insurance, instead of obtaining goverment handouts. Yet now you state it is better to be uninsured (and thus, by extension, obtain government handouts) than it is for someone to purchase their own insurance. So which one is it?

Personally, I think it is shameful that this country doesn't have national healthcare for everyone (a program could easily be paid for by sales tax), and it is shameful that the federal government doesn't set caps on drug costs, instead of giving free-passes to drug companies so we can pay more than anyone else in the world for medicine. But conservatives are so blinded by their loyalty to the "free market" system that they fail to see that the market isn't really free and is instead propped up by their all their special-interest legislation that benefits everyone but those who eventually get sick (ie, every natural person).

Housing cost gone up?  What about HUD and local housing programs to put people into real houses with mortgages.  I've worked on over 1000 lots in sudvisions within the city of Houston for developers that will be offered as low income housing.  Not projects, but real houses with some yard and community playgrounds and parks.

This is common in many of Americas large cities where housing cost have escalated.  These HUD programs I would agree to be one of the best uses of government money for housing.  It involves the family and the community.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great. That's a start. But there are still too many people in this nation who struggle to survive because they can't get paid a living wage through little fault of their own.

Why don't you stop reading talking points and start looking at the real problem.  Start looking at the real numbers and how the situation really is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've never read "talking points" in my life, so I have no idea what you are talking about. But I look at the real numbers and the situation isn't good.

Unemployment is marginally increasing, real job growth is stagnant (and for several years, was negative!), the relationship between long and short term interest rates is becoming inverted, national debt is expanding...I could go on and on. Conservatives see nothing wrong with this---prefering to spend their way into (and allegedly out of, although its never actually been done before!) deficits.

You want my view? How about this for a start...we could make America the best place is the world again if we just did the following: increase taxes on everyone to pay down the incredible national debt; Institute a penny federal sales tax to pay for national health care; Legalize all drugs (and tax them too), because the war on drugs has been such a great success and a wonderful use of tax dollars; Re-regulate all utility companies to restore sane pricing levels and avoid market manipulation; Make education a real priority, by scrapping all state education standards and federalizing all schools, institute education standards, and pay every teacher a minimum of 250% of the average national pay in hopes of making teaching a career people would actually be interested in; Scrap the current student-loan system and make repayment based upon a percentage of your income, so that people can take jobs in fields that don't pay so well (but that they are passionate about) without worrying about how they will pay off their student loans; Mandate 6 week minimum paid vacations for all workers, so people can spend time with their families; Create a valid and useful homeland security program by searching cargo containers at ports instead of wasting time at airports by hounding passengers to remove their shoes; and, of course, get the heck out of Iraq now, because we can spend our money elsewhere and the whole place is going to descend into civil war once we leave anyway.

[dbigtex56]

Forgive me, but what the hell are "talking points"?

This Orwellian 'Newspeak' grates on my nerves. By 'talking points', do they mean issues? Or sticking to the subject?

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

Humpty Dumpty played by his own rules. He defines 'glory' as "There's a nice knock-down argument for you!", 'impenetrability' as "we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you mentioned what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life." Yet, he expects his nonsense will be not only understood, but respected as well.

Unfortunately, Humpty Dumpty's rules seem to be more the rule than the exception. People who have extremely liberal views about the government granting financial breaks to the ultrawealthy and megacorporations call themselves conservatives.

People who hold extremely conservative views about governmental involvement with matters of religion and personal morality call themselves liberals. These words are so consistantly misused that they've lost any meaning.

What are words for? When no one listens, it's no use talkin at all.

- Missing Persons, Words

When people cannot comprehend nor express themselves clearly, all that remains is noise.

[sevfiv]

...Scrap the current student-loan system and make repayment based upon a percentage of your income, so that people can take jobs in fields that don't pay so well (but that they are passionate about) without worrying about how they will pay off their student loans...

your entire post was very interesting, and practical at that, but those conservatives you speak of will either ignore or it will go over some heads...

as for loans, that would be wonderful - i am taking out loans to fund graduate education in a field that does not pay "well" - i'll be comfortable, and that's all i am looking for - but i also know i will be paying back those loans forever...

[uncertaintraveler]

your entire post was very interesting, and practical at that, but those conservatives you speak of will either ignore or it will go over some heads...

as for loans, that would be wonderful - i am taking out loans to fund graduate education in a field that does not pay "well" - i'll be comfortable, and that's all i am looking for - but i also know i will be paying back those loans forever...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you. The student-loan idea is what they do in Australia. The government guarantees all student loans and then gets repaid out of your paycheck as an automatic deduction (just like FICA et al). The repayment percentage is progressive and capped at a certain amount (I think 30%, but that might be a little high).

To me, it seems like a win-win. Students can study and work in fields that may not pay well, but that they enjoy. Colleges don't have to worry about tuition funding and can pretty much scrap half their student-loan department (thereby freeing up overhead expenses, and ideally using the money saved on actual educating students), banks won't have to get involved in student-loan programs (yeah, I know they are profit-centers, but why should banks make money off something the government is providing essentially for free anyway?), the whole shady-side middleman loan broker business is wiped out, and the government has a vested interest in increasing employment/job opportunities for its citizens (because without having jobs available for its citizens, it won't get its money back on the student loans).

Also...did anyone see CNN Presents last night, about beating cancer? Apparently, despite the Orphan Drug Act, some company has a very good cure/treatment for a specialized form of cancer, but because it won't ever make enough money to pay back the research and development costs, the company is scrapping the drug and won't make it anymore. Apparently, the last remaining vials of the drug are stored at M.D. Anderson. It got me thinking: in cases like this, why doesn't the government step in, terminate the patent held by the company who is refusing to make more of the drug, and start manufacturing the drug on its own? After all, if the chemical formula has already been created, why can't the government just make it instead of the company? And, as an additional incentive for companies, anytime a company creates a viable drug but then ceases to keep manufacturing it because doing so is no longer profitable, the government (in addition to terminating the original patent), also terminates the patent as to one of the company's top 5 selling drugs. Thus...although the government could step-in and manufacture the drug, there is a great incentive to the company to make both highly profitable and not-so-profitable drugs. Just a thought.

[VelvetJ]

uncertaintraveler, your last two posts were full of great ideas that could actually work. The country could use more like you in positions of power. Ever thought of a career in politics or at least local radio? You could be the answer to our buddy Dan Patrick.

[uncertaintraveler]

uncertaintraveler, your last two posts were full of great ideas that could actually work. The country could use more like you in positions of power. Ever thought of a career in politics or at least local radio? You could be the answer to our buddy Dan Patrick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why thank you. I have thought about a career in politics, but my speaking ability isn't the best and some might say that I have the social skills of a gnat. I'm certainly no Bill Clinton or Karl Rove. If anyone knows of any good political-job openings though, I'd love to hear about them.

[gardenoaksguy]

"About the uninsured: It is far better to be uninsured in this country than to be moderately insured. Being unisured, you can walk into any emergency room or any charity hospital and get treatment."

Kjb434, this is an interesting statement. Here is a fact for you. Texas has the highest number of uninsured and underinsured in the country, amounting to over 25%. We now also have the highest number of uninsured children (translates to adults with health problems in the future). I have worked in health care for years in both state and charitable hospitals. Believe me when I tell you that being uninsured DOES NOT guarantee access to health care. An ER does not replace an on-going relationship with a family physician, and the cost of that type of esposidic care is incredible.

This is who is paying for the uninsured and underinsured...you and I....through higher taxes and increases in our own personal health insurance. One of the reasons that CHRISTUS St. Joseph is on the block (and yes, this is a fact, I used to work for CHRISTUS) is that they can no longer afford to provide the level of charitable care that they have had to carry. This is also contributing to the loss of ER services in the community.

I agree that discussion with ideas and facts is ideal in any forum, but some of these problems do not have simple solutions from either the "liberal" or "conservative" side. To relegate health care to supply side economics without understanding the complexity of the cost/reimbursement structure and reasons for demand is to assume that access to a doctor and hospital is a privilege based upon ability to pay rather than a right based upon everyone's desire and need to live a healthy life. Perhaps you are too young to have parents on Medicare with incomplete coverage (if any at all), or haven't had the experience of dealing with the problems of idigent patients, but as you have often said, don't make broad statements like "it is far better to be" without having the facts. This is not meant to be a criticism of your opinions, just an observation of just how difficult it is to leave "emotions" or generalizations out of a conversation among individuals with passion about their beliefs.