Obama is too inexperienced? I think that is what most voters want.

Posted at January 27, 2008 12:43 PM in response to The Clintons, Atwater, Rove, and the Future

Obama's health care plan is certainly better than George Bush's, yet I do hope for a more radical plan. The problem with our medical industry, as I see it, has at least 3 major elements. 1. The pharmaceutical companies are in it for one reason: money. They need to be nationalized. Yes, I still believe an industry can accomplish great things even when profit is not the driving force. 2. Kick the lawyers completely out of the health care business. They, too, are in it only for the money. Our method of controlling doctors in this country is to sue them. Nonesense. We need boards that can discipline them, when needed, rather than sue them (actually, we sue only their insurance companies.) 3. Kick the insurance companies out of the health care business. What is their real purpose? They are only middlemen. And, of course, they are in it only for the money. Everyone has heard what Willie Sutton said when he was asked why he robbed banks, he said "because that's where the money is." He was saying, in effect, that money corrupts. (That's in the Bible somewhere, isn't it?) Willie was right. Money has corrupted our health care industry. We need to take the money out of the industry, the pursuit of it does more harm than good. This morning, I read Obama's lengthy plan that he has posted on his web site. I sure like what I read. I hope he becomes our next president. However, I am cynical. I am very leary that the powers that be will not let it be.

Posted at January 27, 2008 9:05 AM in response to The Clintons, Atwater, Rove, and the Future

Your phrase about the Libertarian's telling you it is raining is priceless. Libertarians are usually quite bright and capable and they think they will always be able to manage their way through this world. They don't need any help and they don't plan to help anyone else, since anyone else could do just fine if they would just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Someday, this age or the next, they will be in need. Then they will understand their own selfishness.

Posted at January 27, 2008 6:52 AM in response to Burning the Consumer

The conclusion that democracy brings about peace is nonsense. A democracy will be only as good as its people. Democracy does not gurantee a government will be a good government or that the decisions made by that government will be good. Our country derides dictatorships, and certainly history is replete with evil dictators. However, there have been benevolent dictators, and benevolent kings who ran far better governments than any government the voters of the United States have produced.

Posted at January 26, 2008 4:14 AM in response to Stereotyping Muslims

You call yourself the mythbuster. Well, it is certainly a myth that the South is more predudiced against blacks than the North. It just is not true. I have encountered far more predudice in the Yankee cities than the south. The "Jim Crow South", as you called it was invented by people in the north who are predudiced against about everyone.

Posted at January 26, 2008 3:38 AM in response to Stereotyping Muslims

Lets assume the democrats win the presidency and both houses. Will they reverse the recent Bankruptcy Act? Keep pitching, Elizabeth, a lot of people in positions of authority read TPMcafe. Maybe the outrageously unfair Bankruptcy "reform" won't go to the back burner. It was "reformed", lets reform it again, only this time in a way that goes 100 miles in the other direction.

Posted at January 22, 2008 4:18 PM in response to Burning the Consumer

Does your comment about a double malt scotch have anything to do with the double Viagra mentioned by Bernstein in his opening sentence? If so, wouldn't the two counteract each other? Has anyone ever taken two Viagras? Wouldn't that be dangerous? I mean, they already warn that one can cause 4 hours of readiness. It seems that 8 hours is more than anyone would need.

Posted at January 21, 2008 2:34 AM in response to Politics Trumps Economics...And It’s a Good Thing!

Your logic is not reaching outside our current system. Think a little deeper and you would see there are certainly ways to transfer wealth without the stock market going to 600, or any other such problems. No, the money in banks would not be lost. Many societies in history have made massive wealth distributions. It will happen here some day too. Oh, and by the way, your lightly veiled sarcasm is not becoming. Sarcasm is usually used by those who don't really understand a matter.

Posted at January 20, 2008 3:27 PM in response to Politics Trumps Economics...And It’s a Good Thing!

Are you suggesting that both the employee and company portions of FICA be zero for the next six months? I like that idea, but politically, there may be too many on Social Security who would object.
I posted above about the one time 14% tax on the wealthy. This morning I googled it up and found it was Donald Trump, and his suggested rate was 14.25%. Why wouldn't Trump's plan work? He would tax all individuals and trusts with net worth over 10 million. I like Trump's plan and would take it radically farther: Our country is the richest in the world with great natural resources, a powerful infrastructure and a good and ample work force. There is absolutely no real reason for an economic crisis. The problem is really only on paper. We owe each other, and others in the world money - wich is really only paper. Tear the paper up and start over. Wipe out all debt, period. Nobody owes anybody anything. Starting tomorrow, your house, car and credit cards are all paid off. Everybody starts over at zero. Who loses in this equation? The money lenders who will be holding torn up notes. And, incidently, nothing I own would get paid by this idea.

Posted at January 20, 2008 7:35 AM in response to Politics Trumps Economics...And It’s a Good Thing!

Several years ago, one of the well known Republicans, I cannot remember which one, advocated a one time 14% tax on all assets of anyone who is worth more than 10 million dollars. Yes, as I recall anyway, it really was a Republican. In other words, he wanted to confiscate 14% of the wealthy's wealth. He claimed the money obtained would pay off the national debt. Does anyone remember this proposal, and does anyone know whether such a tax/confiscation could work without throwing our economy into an uncontrolled spin?

Posted at January 19, 2008 6:06 PM in response to Politics Trumps Economics...And It’s a Good Thing!