backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by TSS.. on Feb 10 at 11:09 AM

Air Force is updating aircraft such as the F-16 and retiring aircraft such as the A-10

Bean counters in Washington are moving to reduce the overall size of America's Armed Forces in an effort to save money and balance the budget. According to the Air Force, it will increasingly turn to multirole aircraft for more flexibility. Air Force Sec. Michael Donley has said recently, "[The reduced size military] favors retaining multirole capabilities going forward. The tactical air forces are going to get smaller and still be required to address a broad spectrum of threats."
 
One aircraft the Donley pointed out that the Air Force would continue to operate is the Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon. The F-16 is a multirole fighter that fits with the new mantra in the military. At the same time, the Air Force will be getting rid of five squadrons (one-third of the entire fleet) of the A-10 Warthog ground support aircraft according to Defense News.
 
Some fear that the Air Force could run into a situation where they have a fleet of aircraft that are jack-of-all-trades, yet master of none. However, analyst Dan Goure of the Lexington Institute said the Air Force can't afford to maintain specialized aircraft.
 
With significant delays in the current F-35 program, the Air Force will use the F-16 as a stopgap until the F-35 can be fielded. In order to do that, the Air Force will be modernizing roughly 350 F-16 fighter jets with new capabilities and extending the life of their airframes. Modernizing those aircraft are cheaper than buying new versions and Donley specifically said the Air Force would be buying no new F-16s.
 
Donley also reiterated that the Pentagon is completely behind the F-35 program and will be making no changes the number of aircraft it plans to purchase.
 
“I’d like to put this to bed as well as I can today,” he said. “The decisions about the size of the F-35 fleet, we’ve made no changes in that. Those are decisions for the 2020s.”
 
Donley also pointed out that the move to multirole aircraft will not only be in the attack fleet, he pointed to the C-27 like turboprop transport, which will be canceled and existing versions retired. He says that the C-130 is much more versatile aircraft that can handle the same missions and more. The Air Force will also move to common configurations of many aircraft to get more operational flexibility according to Donley.

Source: Defense News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Same old tactic
By FITCamaro on 2/3/2012 11:50:05 AM , Rating: 3
"SLASH THE MILITARY!!! IT COSTS TOO MUCH!!"

Liberals always try to pull budget cuts out of the military because they claim its too big and costs too much. All the while spending every dime of said cuts and more on new and expanded entitlement programs.

Fact of the matter is that if the entire military budget was eliminated, the budget still would be far from balanced. It is entitlement spending that is skyrocketing. Not military.




RE: Same old tactic
By Samus on 2/3/2012 11:54:53 AM , Rating: 5
What every politicion appears to not understand is the US military is the single largest "employer" in the world.

So, do you want to fix our unemployment problems or not? Last I heard, recruiting offices were actually turning away new signups due to budget cuts.

That's ridiculous. This country has never, in its history, turned people away from a military career. A lot of people don't know what to do after high school and the military has always been a great option.


RE: Same old tactic
By FITCamaro on 2/3/2012 11:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
I don't like to look at the military as that. To me its not about how many people it employees. It's about ensuring proper defense, having the proper capability for offense, and continuing to drive innovation forward which results in fewer of our troops dying in combat as well as the benefits that innovation has on the public in the future.

I don't disagree with turning people away in principle. We only need so big a military. If it's because of a misguided attempt to care more about spending, because money is so poorly spent elsewhere, than defense, then yes I'll agree.


RE: Same old tactic
By MrBlastman on 2/3/2012 2:06:57 PM , Rating: 3
Well, this article is kind of mixed.

On one hand, you have them cutting a third of our A-10 fleet which is around 129 airframes.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air...

And on the other, you have them upgrading the F-16. Can we say Block 60 hottness? Maybe they'll even slap on some Israeli/Greek CFT's (conformal fuel tanks).

It is kind of a mixed bag. Those A-10's have a lot of ground crew supporting them, not just the pilots. My best hope is they are relocated. I get what you're saying about cutting manpower and sadly, I think Obama has missed the boat here focusing so much on cutting our military down even smaller when in reality... it is the smallest it has been since the 1940's.

What are the basic roles of Government? Last time I checked there really are only a couple--provide for the rule of law and protect the people. That's about it--that is all Government needs to do at its most basic level. Yet, military spending is not even close to the biggest category of the Federal budget.

Those Block 60 F-16's are nice, though. Have you seen them? The F-16 is an extremely capable fighter. Sure, it isn't quite as fast as an F-15 but it doesn't need to be. It can defend itself in its own right and it can do one thing the A-10 can't do--fly SEAD. An A-10 is a wonderful plane and I truly hope they keep them around for some time as they are invaluable in supporting the men on the ground but... without proper SEAD coverage, A-10's have limited usefulness. Perhaps some of the A-10's being cut are not the modernized "C" model, but instead, the non-retrofitted A model.

If only the Air Force could figure out a way to slap an HTS pod onto the A-10 to allow them to carry HARMs.


RE: Same old tactic
By Amedean on 2/3/2012 4:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
Is it wrong for me to think that the cuts to the military are because the American people do not want to pay as much in taxes. Smaller government seems to be the slogan nowadays.


RE: Same old tactic
By MrBlastman on 2/3/2012 4:49:05 PM , Rating: 5
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

Look there.

I'd rather pay people to be in the military than hand them a welfare check.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Same old tactic
By Amedean on 2/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 7:33:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What propagonda are you talking about in the link?


This;

"The President’s 2012 Budget is a responsible approach that puts the nation on a path to live within our means so we can invest in our future."


I mean..lmao...are you reading this stuff?


RE: Same old tactic
By OCedHrt on 2/3/2012 7:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
And where do you propose cutting?

The entire brown corner? Oops that's smaller than the military budget. SS? Medicare? Medicaid?

Even if that "net interest" was eliminated, I believe the estimate is still a budget shortfall. There simply isn't enough money to go around with the way things are now.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Same old tactic
By Amedean on 2/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 9:34:20 AM , Rating: 3
Deficit? Is that really what you think this is all about?

And the Clinton surplus was a myth. Clinton, like all Presidents, grew the national debt. He spent more than was taken in. There simply was not a surplus and never was.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

The issue here is Obama's clear agenda to move this country far FAR too the left. Obama didn't just rack up your everyday deficit. He's spent more than ALL of those President's combined. We have RECORD deficits. For you to blame this on "old people" and health costs is frankly...I don't now, where did you get that from? Do you even know what our current deficit is? We're not spending TRILLIONS on healthcare, Amedean, I can assure you.

Just ask yourself why, and what did we get in exchange for all this spending. A massive federal government and Carter-level economic indicators, with unsustainable spending.

Obama's budgets are so outlandish not even his own party, even when they had a lock on Congress, would approve of them. I mean, as they say, that's 'nuff said.


RE: Same old tactic
By Amedean on 2/4/2012 9:58:25 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, having a balance budget is ALL about the deficit! Spend more than what is in your budget and you run a deficit.

Your link is another hyperbole pseudo-news outlet. The heading reads "Common Sense American Conservatism", so should I expect any reliable history about the Clinton administration? Its like going to the KKK for accurate data on African American studies.

These are the same type news outlets that gave you false information on how much GM cost the government. When citing credible sources, make sure to consider these factors.


RE: Same old tactic
By Amedean on 2/4/2012 10:05:00 AM , Rating: 1
RELIABLE LINKS

The Clinton surplus is no myth if you believe the Congressional Budget Office. If these people are lying than there is no person to trust in this entire country, both democrats and republicans use the CBO as a standard.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Historic...

This is a REAL source to cite information and if you run the numbers it will clearly project surplus in the budget due to an increase of tax revenues.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 10:57:27 AM , Rating: 3
CBO projection numbers, especially those, don't prove your case because it only looks at "public debt". I doubt you even know what you're looking at anyway. The TREASURY proves the national debt rose under Clinton. You simply cannot have a "surplus" if you're borrowing/spending more money than you are taking in. Why won't you acknowledge this?

"Public debt" is one of those statistics used to prove the Clinton surplus. But it's bunk, and you're buying right into it I see. Because it ignores "intragovernmental" debt. Basically money the Government owes itself. I understand the difference between "public" and "intergovernmental" (or gross) debt. However, the money the government "owes itself" is still debt. Debt is debt!

Clinton borrowed from the Social Security administration and piled up "IOU's", to not count this as debt isn't being honest. When the Social Security administration came looking for its money, that money needed to be there. It is still real debt and to exclude it doesn't make sense. An "I owe you" is the very definition of a debt.

Social Security used its revenue to purchase treasury bonds as it is required to do, but just because it is the government that did the purchasing does not mean it is not real debt. The SS money was already "spoken for" in that it is owed to the entitlees in the general public. You have a lender (Social Security Trust Fund), a borrower (the Treasury), interest due, and consequences on default. That certainly sounds a lot like debt. To claim it "doesn't count" seems to be just an accounting trick.

The fact that this myth won't go away, when it's so ridiculously easy to debunk, is maddening and proof of how powerful media bias is. People hear it, and it's accepted as fact.

Bill Clinton: President 1993-2001
National Debt in 1993 - 4 ,411,488,883,139.38
National Debt in 2001 - 5 ,807,463,412,200.06

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/hist...

Compared to Obama, Clinton was practically a fiscal Conservative lol. But there just wasn't a surplus. I'm sorry but national debt is the sledgehammer statistic on this argument. And it's irrefutable!


RE: Same old tactic
By gamerk2 on 2/5/2012 11:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bill Clinton: President 1993-2001
National Debt in 1993 - 4 ,411,488,883,139.38
National Debt in 2001 - 5 ,807,463,412,200.06


Except you forget one very minor point: The FY2000 included a small surplus. It should also be noted that the Debt-to-GDP situation changed drastically from 1993 to 2001, going from 66.1% down to just over 56.4% [before jumping up to 84% at the end of 2008; thank you Bush].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United...

Note the decrease in Federal Debt by 2.1% in the year 2000.

I also note the debt number itself is meaningless; debt-to-GDP is the only statistic that really matters. The actual monetary value of the debt is really quite pointless to debate, and that number plummeted under Clinton.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2012 11:55:24 AM , Rating: 2
No, I've had enough of people using outlandish accounting tricks to convince us Clinton left Bush with a "surplus". There was no such surplus if the deficit rose 40% at the end of his office.

quote:
I also note the debt number itself is meaningless; debt-to-GDP is the only statistic that really matters


Meaningless? The economy grew less under Clinton while debt went up. How is that meaningless or completely out of his control exactly?

The lengths some of you will go, I swear.


RE: Same old tactic
By Ringold on 2/4/2012 11:08:07 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
RELIABLE LINKS


Which didn't open for some reason.

Regardless. You said it was enough to pay off the debt. Never came remotely close. The policies in place today that have unfunded entitlement liabilities crushing us in coming years were in place then as well. I also like how Clinton gets all the credit, not the Republican Congress that forced a Federal government shutdown to get him to accept a more balanced approach. Clinton was as reckless as Bush or Obama on spending until he locked horns with Gingrich.

And yeah, lets quote the CBO. Just earlier this week they had a paper out warning that real unemployment was higher than Obama likes to admit, and have warned us entitlement spending is a looming disaster. They reckon about a 6% deficit in terms of GDP by 2022. You're out of your depth if you think your party has the resolve to solve this. They're no different then the Greeks that sipped their wine and tried to placate the masses until things finally collapsed.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 10:20:49 AM , Rating: 3
Attack the source instead of the numbers lol. Okay that's cool. Even though you made outlandish claims without giving ANY source.

This isn't rocket science. He used Government treasury numbers. The national debt rose under Clinton. A very reasonable amount, I might add. I'm not bashing the man at all on this. But there simply was no "surplus". And claiming Clinton "almost" paid off trillion of dollars is something you MADE UP. Clinton made NO effort to pay down the national debt, most President's don't.

But the simple fact is, of course only a Conservative website would make an editorial on this. Are you ACTUALLY telling me a mainstream Liberal journalist is going to bother debunking the myth of the Clinton surplus? Come on, don't talk to me about reliability. The vast majority of news sources on this type of thing are flamingly Liberal. You pretty much HAVE to go to a Conservative outlet to find the truth.

Clinton had "projected" surpluses, true, which he then spent. The deficit over Clinton's 8 years rose by 43%. This is an undisputed fact using the treasuries own numbers. If the deficit grows, AND national debt grows, how can you claim they didn't?


RE: Same old tactic
By TSS on 2/4/2012 8:34:27 PM , Rating: 3
Heh what the simple fact is as an outsider i can well understand any confusion on the subject.

Because i wanted to get to the bottom of it i started searching the entire web. I don't really have any political convictions (and even if i did i'm europian it's none of my concirn anyway), so i'm not against reading any paticular website not am i concirned with it's reputation. Even a fool can be right once or twice. I am carefull of manipulation though, but i'm always carefull of that.

My search concluded with the fact that *nobody* understands economics or politics anymore, or history for that matter. Roughly half the sites you come across have a republican view of history, where reagan basically rules as a god, and the other half are democratic praising clinton for his surplus. And both sides are partially right and partially wrong.

The scary thing is however if you pull up the numbers, you'll find that if you'd take the worst half of what the democrats claim, combine it with the worst half of the republicans, you come frightingly close to what the average of the numbers say is the truth. And i do mean average, as even the numbers and statistics are incredibly cherry picked and biased on all sides.

After my quest all i've learned is that reagan increased the deficit incredibly, and clinton did as well. Only reagan did it outright and said it didn't matter where as clinton hid it by moving it all to the social security fund (it's not empty no... it's filled with $2.6 trillion in government IOU's).

I just know you're going to laugh at this, but yknow who i think had the right idea? Jimmy Carter. IMO, what you are experiencing now and will experience in the future is because every president after him tried to delay the pain he knew you'd have to face. It's funny really because in the beginning i thought he was wrong like everybody else did. Simply because wether it's a democrat or republican website, everybody seems to think jimmy carter was a mistake.

Honestly, that should've set off red flags sooner. Guess i was more naive when i started looking.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 10:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just know you're going to laugh at this, but yknow who i think had the right idea? Jimmy Carter. IMO, what you are experiencing now and will experience in the future is because every president after him tried to delay the pain he knew you'd have to face. It's funny really because in the beginning i thought he was wrong like everybody else did. Simply because wether it's a democrat or republican website, everybody seems to think jimmy carter was a mistake.


I know I'm expected to rip into for saying this, but because you're a European, I can totally understand how you could come away with this opinion.

I can only say that what Jimmy Carter was trying to do, doesn't work in an American style free market economy.

There's an economic indicator we have here called the "misery index", and it's immune to partisan party bias. The “misery index” is calculated by adding together the unemployment rate and the annual inflation rate. During Jimmy Carter’s presidency (1977-1981), the “misery index” hit a high of 21.98 in late 1980.

Basically Carter's economic plans were terrible.

But if we thought a misery index of 21.98 was terrible, Obama's is weighing in at 33%!

I know what you think Carter was trying to do, and maybe in a Europe style economy and system of Government, it would make sense. But Carter missed the real cause of America's problems. Government was trying to do too much. Government becomes "incapable of acting" when it attempts to serve a large number of particular needs rather than promoting the general welfare. When the federal government began to involve itself in planning specific aspects of America's culture and economy, it was inevitable there would be destructive and costly consequences.

The situation we have today is even worst. The Federal Government is larger than ever, and has it's fingers in every cookie jar in the country. It's trying to manage and oversee and control everything at once, and it was never designed to be able to do that efficiently. It's just not working because it's unsustainable.

America is currently bastardized. Think about this and tell me if it makes sense to you. We have a Constitution that details the majority of self-governing power would belong to the States. We call this 'states rights'. Now we also have a Federal Government who's only real Constitutional mandate was to provide for the general welfare, self defense, etc etc.

Big problem today though is the federal mandates. A federal mandate is an order or requirement by the federal government that a state, or a local unit of government take some positive action. It doesn't matter whether the order or requirement is a condition of the receipt of federal funding. You will find no general federal mandate authority in the Constitution.

So here we are with a country built on states rights, and minimal central government rule over those states, but with thousands -not hundreds- federal mandates on those "free" states. The huge majority of those unfunded mandates. So who's ruling who now?

Getting an idea of what a mess our Government is? The Constitution, perhaps over idealistically, established that both the Federal Government and States were sovereign. With divided powers and responsibilities. But we cannot be a government "for the people, by the people" with legitimate states rights with tens of thousands of federal mandates buried on top of us.

Economics of scale dictate that this becomes an unsustainable situation. You might have noticed lobbying is a big issue on Daily Tech, with many articles focused on it. But why is lobbying becoming such a big problem, and when did it all happen? The economies of scale of lobbying. Over-centralization of power makes it simpler for spending interests to have influence --- because it is less expensive to influence one federal government than 50 state governments or 20,000 municipal governments.

So how does the average Democrat like Jimmy Carter decide to fix this situation? More mandates.

You can say I'm just being a Conservative shill, and that's fine. I get that a lot around here. But let me be clear, regardless of which party it's coming from, the biggest problem facing out country is an ever-increasing centralized Federal government.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 10:16:48 PM , Rating: 1
Argh, edit:

quote:
The huge majority of those unfunded mandates.


The huge majority are FUNDED . Which is bad because the more mandates that pass, the bigger the Government must be to fund the obligation.


RE: Same old tactic
By JediJeb on 2/6/2012 3:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
This is spot on. It goes along with something I have noticed in world history too. Every major empire has fallen once it brought total control into a central point instead of using local governments to control the vast empire. British colonies were originally ruled by their local governors, but once the central government began to crack down and make the local governments nothing more than tax collection offices in a sense, the colonies began to rebel. Not just those in America, but around the world eventually. The Roman empire, the Babylonian empire, the Persian empire, they all had similar periods of great growth then fast decline mostly caused by the same problems. Someone wanted to pull all the power and rule and focus it into a single point. The same will happen in the United States if the Federal government tries to pull too much power into itself. The United Nations will suffer a similar fate if it continues its direction of trying to be the ruler of the world instead of simply a gathering point to air grievances.


RE: Same old tactic
By TSS on 2/10/2012 11:09:42 AM , Rating: 1
I'm not calling anybody anything, except from the republican and democrat parties in general. Which are idiots. And i've said before i'm all for a 3rd party in america, no matter what it's political stances are. As long as it's not so deep in the pockets of corperate interests.

I'm came across your point as well. Problem is, you're only against big federal government. When you look at where the government has grown the most (i looked this up when wondering where all that extra federal spending was going to) and it's actually local governments that have added the most employees in the last 50 years. Federal government has remained nearly stable.

I understand that the federal government is the main problem in chipping away at the constitution. But this doesn't take away the fact that your local governments are just as bat shit crazy. Some are still doing fine, yes. But don't forget, every state has either a *democratic* or *republican* senator. There might be some good ones yes but their all part of the same failing system right now which is certainly preventing them from comming out.

It's an illusion corperations couldn't buy out local government as well. Hell, it's probably easyer. They're cheaper and there's less competition. Don't wanna take mah bribes? got 50 other states to try!

I'm not saying you shouldn't get rid of the majority of the mandates. But i'm certainly not saying there shouldn't be any either. And what i was talking about was the economic mandates. What jimmy carter was doing back then is basically a much, much smaller version of what obama is doing now. Only he was actually solving the issue with high interest rates.

Maybe you don't grasp how far you've falled. Remember, jimmy carter increased interest rates because inflation and cheap credit where out of control (sound familiar?). Reagan reverted that policy. Jimmy carter's presidency ended on january 20st 1981. If something cost $1000 back in 1981, it would've cost you $2371 back in 2010.

I honestly belive he knew this would happen, and that's why he enacted the policies he did. He knew this because he probably looked at the inflation since JFK died (1963) which ment that something that cost $1000 in 1963 already cost $2000 in 1977, and it would cost $7000 today.

Blown your mind yet? How about this: In a 100 years, something that cost $1000 in 1910 costs $23102 in 2010.

$4 a gallon gas? Hah. in 1910 that would've been $0,17.

Centralized government isn't the problem. Properly run government is the problem because there isn't any. Obama is trying to do what carter did, only he can't raise interest rates because the interest on your national debt would blow up to $2 trillion A YEAR! (at 15% rates).

That and he hasn't nearly got the balls that carter had. Atleast he was willing to make the whole nation take it's damn medicine.


RE: Same old tactic
By ameriman on 2/8/2012 8:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
Congress owns all spending/deficits..
The Republican Congress balanced the budget 4 times in the 1990s... until Clinton let the 911 perps infiltrate, train, be in place and ready to attack before GWB was even elected...

Ever single Dem Congress has had a massive deficit since 1960.. under JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama...
Dems have added $8 trillion, doubling our debt in only 5 years.


RE: Same old tactic
By Aloonatic on 2/4/2012 3:07:24 AM , Rating: 1
If you just want a big, state funded employer, then why not go the health service route?

The NHS is one of the biggest employers in the world. An American version would be a very large employer, no?

Just a thought.

I'm not anti military, by the way. I'm more than aware that the west lives in a comfortable way while other nation's children are born on landfills and fight for their daily dollar because we've gone around the world and taken when we need by force, or threat of it, not because everyone else thinks that we are super and should get to live the way we do while they suffer.

And damn those liberals to hell!!!!

(I hope Americans realise how funny all the "liberals" talk and Obama bashing looks from the outside)


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 9:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(I hope Americans realise how funny all the "liberals" talk and Obama bashing looks from the outside)


Because in other places (Europe) these levels of debt and unemployment and economic ruin are "normal". I hope you realize how little we give a crap about how this "looks" to you, and rather focus on how dire our situation is.

quote:
I'm more than aware that the west lives in a comfortable way while other nation's children are born on landfills and fight for their daily dollar because we've gone around the world and taken when we need by force


It's unbelievable that you just said that. How can you believe we've "taken" everything from everyone and caused those living conditions!? You're either an extremist or a troll.

And you aren't anti-military? How?


RE: Same old tactic
By Ringold on 2/4/2012 11:21:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(I hope Americans realise how funny all the "liberals" talk and Obama bashing looks from the outside)


Like Reclaimer said, we couldn't care any less. Europe is flirting with the collapse of their monetary union and has what can only be described as economic catastrophe in Greece and Spain, with Italy also at risk, and Europe dare looks down their nose at our largely lower unemployment level, higher rate of growth, and lower interest on debt?

Plus, pride is something sourced from within. Only the weak care that much about global opinion. Canada has cared a great deal for decades, and in recent years I think their leadership has realized that its bought them absolutely no hard influence.

quote:
because we've gone around the world and taken when we need by force


What? No. We took nothing from Vietnam or North Korea. Hell, they had nothing TO take. And Iraq? Chinese state-owned oil companies have got their hands on a good bit of oil contracts there. They're hellholes due to their own economic policies and social failures. Same as Africa. Africa and East Asia were remarkably similar at various points from, say, 1940 to 1960. Both had colonial influence. The difference? Africa flirted with socialism, followed by autocracy. East Asia flirted with freer trade, minimalist government and export-lead development and free-market growth. So today, every South Korean and lot of Singaporean and their dogs have iPhones and Galaxy S2's, where the typical Nigerian probably lives in a home with a dirt floor. The research confirming this has been around for decades, and it gets reinforced with modern analysis every year. But don't let fact get in the way of a good jibe at the ol US. Also seems like a tenant of liberal belief; the poor aren't poor because of their own damn faults throughout history, no, it's always the fault of the "rich."

Has the "rich" been holding down Hong Kong, or could it be that some peoples and countries understood hard work, competition and rigor as applied to business and government to be virtues?


RE: Same old tactic
By Aloonatic on 2/4/2012 5:14:49 PM , Rating: 1
Dellluuuuuudeeeeeed

Whatever gets you guys though the day.


RE: Same old tactic
By Amiga500 on 2/3/2012 11:52:38 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It is entitlement spending that is skyrocketing. Not military.


They tried to reorganise that, but the lobbyists killed it.

I believe the US spends far more of its GDP on healthcare than any nation in Europe; yet healthcare is markedly worse in the states. Riddle that one... :-)


RE: Same old tactic
By FITCamaro on 2/3/2012 12:04:46 PM , Rating: 1
That spending is largely not federal though. So I don't care how big a percentage of GDP health care spending is.


RE: Same old tactic
By Amiga500 on 2/3/2012 12:10:38 PM , Rating: 1
That doesn't matter!

If you reorganised the system along a more similar line to Europe, the country overall would spend less on healthcare and the average person (outside maybe the top 0.1% of the wealth spectrum) would have more disposable income.

Is that not the ultimate goal? Disposable income?


RE: Same old tactic
By Keeir on 2/3/2012 12:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
Another misinformed person.

The solutions that work in Europe don't work by default in the United States.

US culture is significantly different than Europe. For example, the US governmental healthcare system spends more per person than most private insurances... (So ordering the system to have more governmental involvement doesn't seem to be the right idea)

I think there are a few underlying problems
1.) Lack of Providers
2.) Lack of Efficieny
3.) Lack of tolerance for mistakes
4.) Inability to make Economic Choices about healthcare

Without addressing these issues, I don't think reorganising the system will help... US government involvement is not really well know for increasing any of those issues.


RE: Same old tactic
By NellyFromMA on 2/3/2012 1:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
If health insurance agencyies were changed drastically, or altogether removed from the equation, there is NO doubt that consolidation could take place and efficiencies would be made.

Don't count on it though. Health insurance comapnies are powerful entities in the United States and you will absolutely not see them go away.


RE: Same old tactic
By Keeir on 2/3/2012 2:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Health insurance comapnies are powerful entities in the United States and you will absolutely not see them go away.


Why would we want them to go away? Right now they are the only player with a vested interest in -reducing- the cost of medical services.

US problems with healthcare stem from:
1. Too few doctors
2. Opaque cost structures of services
3. Buffet-style pricing
4. Expectation of "complete" coverage

If it were the insurance companies, then people would just not purchase health care insurance and be better off... apparently since people are desperate to have health care insurance, this is not the case.

US could do alot to help our healthcare situation thusly
1. One Cost per Service (Providers must charge everyone the same cost regardless of the purchaser.)
2. Price Sheets and Estimates must be provided before contractual obligation to pay
3. Increase medical school student slots by 300%.
4. Outlaw company provided medical insurance (IE, make everyone pay thier own way. This doesn't mean a company could not make available a reduced cost medical plan, just that a person should have the ability to choose to purchase at work or at home or... not at all)


RE: Same old tactic
By Amiga500 on 2/3/2012 1:26:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Another misinformed person.


No, not really.

The US system is failed, badly. Yet, the bowing to the AMA or AAPS in continuing down the road treaded thus far will only serve to exacerbate the situation.

The European solution doesn't work in the USA because the doctors say so - you haven't considered it is those doctors who will be forced to accept more realistic renumeration, thus are dead set against any change.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 1:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
Oh right so I see. The "problem" with our healthcare system is:

1. Doctors getting paid (probably the SMALLEST impact on health costs out of all of them)
2. "Big pharma" spending billions to develop drugs having the audacity to expect profits.
3. Anyone else we can scapegoat that's making money. Not the person who files a health insurance claim for stubbing his big toe.

Did you just get back from a Michael Moore movie marathon or something? You went from a rational person to a flaming liberal tard.


RE: Same old tactic
By Amiga500 on 2/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Same old tactic
By Keeir on 2/3/2012 2:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh.

Amiga, a careful look at that report shows a few things.

#1. "Physican Services" includes all costs related to any doctor's office visit outside a Hospital.

#2. On page 4, "Physican" costs are better detailed. In the two years listed, 2000 and 2001, in Minnesota, compensation for that actual doctors increased at a rate of 3.7% and 4.0%. US inflation for this period was between 2 and 3 percent. Meaning that inflation adjusted increases were between 1-2%. Hardless the skyrocketing 5% or so for total healthcare spending. Add in to this equation that at the same time most doctors were expected to see 2-5% more patients, and the per patient visit compensation given to doctors actual FELL from 2000-2001. GASP!

I agree. Many Doctors in the US are over compensated. The solution? Many more doctors to ensure that Doctors are not 1. Overworked and 2. Paid fairly in comparison.


RE: Same old tactic
By Amiga500 on 2/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Same old tactic
By Keeir on 2/3/2012 5:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm... Amiga, you can't really be that dumb. That report talks about how the bills show up, not where the money goes. If you're too dense to understand that rents must be paid, equipment purchased, consumables used, etc, etc, etc... not sure why we are having this discussion

In comparison to 1995, in 2010, Doctors (with variance for region and profession certainly) recieved less payment (inflation adjusted) per visit/service. Yet versus inflation Healthcare spending has risen significantly.

Is large compensation for Doctors an issue? Yes.
But its a small slice of the overall issues and reflects the difficulty of becoming a doctor in the US (typically requiring 4-5 years undergraduate, 4-5 years of medical school, 3-5 years of residency programs, and passing lengthy certificant exams)

If by European System you mean reform the education system such that Doctors need significantly less education (both undergraduate, graduate, and professional) then I would certainly be behind this for primary care doctors at a minimum. But how do you think that would play in the US culturally? Do you think the average US citizen would be happy with -reducing- the training standards for doctors? This is the type of barrier I am talking about... I doubt the rallying cry of "less qualified physician" is going to get much support by any sector, regardless of the obvious long term advantages of more correctly aligning training with job requirements.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 5:20:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ummm... Amiga, you can't really be that dumb.


He is.


RE: Same old tactic
By Amiga500 on 2/3/2012 6:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
Oh keep quiet; you are way out of your depth as you've already demonstrated multiple times.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 6:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
You lost as soon as you started. There's no rational argument for socialized medicine that doesn't make you look like a ignorant buffoon.

LOL you make some claim that "the doctors" wont "allow" universal healthcare in the U.S, ignorant of the fact that Obamacare was already signed into law, and say I'm out of my debt.

Go watch another Micheal Moore "documentary" for more idiotic talking points. You're all out atm.


RE: Same old tactic
By Ringold on 2/4/2012 11:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh keep quiet; you are way out of your depth as you've already demonstrated multiple times.


I've yet to see anyone explain why biotech/pharma companies would continue to drop billions of dollars on R&D if government took full control of healthcare and started mandating itself lower prices. It appears that, as it stands, the US is paying higher prices so that the European market can free-ride. If the free ride ends, and pharma has no decently profitable prospects, why would they bother?

Maybe the Swiss model would work; at least I thought so when I last looked several years back. It had higher costs, maintained private insurers, but I find it interesting that the only big European pharma companies I can think of happen to be based in Switzerland.

And I like how your response to getting shown wrong is "Well you're dumb."


RE: Same old tactic
By Amiga500 on 2/3/2012 6:24:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That report talks about how the bills show up, not where the money goes. If you're too dense to understand that rents must be paid, equipment purchased, consumables used, etc, etc, etc... not sure why we are having this discussion


Surely you have an inkling of the proportions of each of those?

Or are you one of these folks that have zero common sense and need absolutely everything to be pointed out for them?

The only element I was unsure of was the US spending on drugs, the report stating drug purchases were fractions of the overall spending is enough to ensure that salaries form definitely the biggest single spend and probably also the majority spend in itself.

Your comparison of 1995 to 2010 is quite flawed, as I am sure your are completely aware. A delta change does not mean the biggest spender has changed. Your use of "per visit/service" is a further attempt to muddy the waters.

Labour costs account for typically just over half of a hospital's spending. You can go check that out if you think I'm telling porkies.

In the UK (and in Ireland too), certain doctors are also horribly overpaid. GPs for instance receive grotesquely inflated salaries for what they do and the hours they work. Surgeons less so.

The barriers you speak of are erected entirely by the lobbyists and self-interest groups, in this case the doctors, who obviously don't want their salaries reduced. The same crowds will also obviously be opposed to the increase in university throughput of medical graduands - as supply/demand would result in reduced salaries. The BMA operate a similar self-interest scheme over in the UK too.


RE: Same old tactic
By Keeir on 2/3/2012 8:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
Please provide a link, any link, that shows what percentage direct salaries to Doctors and Nurses form of US healthcare spending. I think you will find that direct wages to Doctors is less than 10% and direct wages to nurses less than 20%.

Your problem is your starting with a base concept and only seeing things that argree with your point of view.

Even as the percentage spent on healthcare has increased dramatically, Physician salaries increased at a much slower rate. At times even less than inflation. Hmmm... that seems to suggest there is a problem with the logic that the reason why healthcare spending has risen so significantly has to do with Doctor pay...

Lets talk some facts. A General Practitioner in the US makes around 173,000 dollars US (BLS of USA Government). I am unsure of a good source for UK data, but most suggest that an average GP makes ~70,000+ British pounds per year or around 110,000 dollars. Of course a GP in the US works around 49 hours per week on average versus 44 for UK. A huge 40% more per hour even given the different work week lengths. But remember that the US physician likely paid 250,000 or more dollars in education which is roughly 20,000 dollars extra cost paid off over 30 years after the 5 year residency (The cost to obtain a public undergradute degree, public medical school degree in 2010 was 200,000+ in tutition, private was more than 350,000 in just tutition). That brings us down to less than 25% higher pay when education costs are factored in...

Hrmm... so switching to a UK system will lower US healthcare spending by roughly 5-10% when all wages to Doctors and Nurses are taken into account but result in relatively significant short term medical shortage or significant line item to award doctors a one time tutition re-imbusement stradgey. (If I was a Doctor would paid 300,000 for my medical degree, I would be furious if medical school became 'free' and I was expected to take a significant pay cut) Not sure its a good solution. The US struggles to find enough doctors as it is with our huge salaries.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 2:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
AHAHA

Gotta love someone who provides a source which absolutely destroys his own argument. When someone that actually comprehends the whole issue reads it.

Amiga...you really don't know anything about our healthcare system. Please just stop.


RE: Same old tactic
By MrBlastman on 2/3/2012 2:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
If the European solution is so great, then explain to me how things would have played out for myself in my own crisis. Almost three years ago I had open heart surgery. During this time, I had the option of selecting a doctor, hospital and time when this would all take place.

I was able to, with America's current system (and my PPO insurance plan):

To pick the absolute best surgeon in my region who happens to be one of the best in the world for the problem being operated on.

To pick when--as it turns out he has a 1.5 month wait to fit me in which wasn't too bad but needed to miss work while waiting given the gravity of the situation.

To get two teeth filled at a near-moments notice and one pulled prior to surgery from another oral surgeon just two weeks before my heart surgery.

I'm curious how all this would have worked in the European system. I'm betting my surgery would have been delayed for months if not more than a year, I wouldn't have had a single choice of who my surgeon would be and... those teeth would have cost me many more months.

If I had to wait that long I wouldn't be writing this.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 4:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
Wow Blast I had no idea. I'm glad you're here with us :)

It's a lost cause. Only an ignoramus would defend a socialized medicine system anyway. I don't know why we bother discussing it with them.


RE: Same old tactic
By Amiga500 on 2/3/2012 6:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the European solution is so great, then explain to me how things would have played out for myself in my own crisis.


Speaking for UK only.

Depending on severity for the heart problem, you'd be on a waiting list for a varying length of time. Could be weeks, could be months.

As for the teeth, assuming you've kept appointments with any single dentist, you'd almost certainly have both done within a week of first calling them. If its absolute hell and you need it sorted quicker, you can go get emergency surgery in the hospital rather than at your regular dentist - although the difference might only be a day or two.


RE: Same old tactic
By MrBlastman on 2/3/2012 9:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
I still wouldn't have been able to get a second or third opinion, though, eh? Or how about choose which surgeon I want out of all of them and if I wanted, get the best of the best?


RE: Same old tactic
By Ringold on 2/4/2012 11:33:16 AM , Rating: 2
Something about European and Canadian citizens going to the US (if they want the absolute best care) and a short list of other countries (like India, for the absolute quickest and cheapest care) leads me to suspect a certain answer to all that.


RE: Same old tactic
By FITCamaro on 2/3/2012 2:01:32 PM , Rating: 3
We have plenty of providers.

The biggest issues are:
1) Lack of competition for coverage between states
2) Trial lawyers suing for millions which drives up liability coverage costs (one of the biggest costs for medical providers)
3) 20-25 million people who live here illegally and don't pay anything but are required to be treated
4) People considering having an iPhone more important than having proper medical insurance.


RE: Same old tactic
By Keeir on 2/3/2012 2:42:22 PM , Rating: 4
No Fit. The US doesn't have plenty of providers.

Here are some "facts".

The US has ~1 medical doctor per 300 Citizens.
The US has ~1 primary care doctor per 1,000 Citizens.

The US has the ability to train at most 18,000 new Doctors per year. Each of these 18,000 doctors need to have a 52 year career just to sustain the current number of doctors or a 55 year career to keep up with population growth. This is clearly not a good sign.

Nursing is not much better position.

The US does not train enough Doctors and Nurses to keep up with the demand for consumption of health care services. This is a long running problem for several decades, and shows no sign of getting any better.

Either the costs of health-care will sky-rocket
Expectation of health-care type will change
Shortages will occurs
or Quality of Healthcare will fall

Or some of each.


RE: Same old tactic
By lagomorpha on 2/3/2012 3:25:57 PM , Rating: 1
Part of that could be alleviated by stopping population growth. Socialized family planning combined with removal of tax exempt status for all religions that oppose family planning would not only solve many economic problems, it would also significantly reduce crime rates.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 4:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Part of that could be alleviated by stopping population growth.


Good luck doing that when the political willpower to close our southern border is virtually non-existent.

Of course if I was a Democrat I wouldn't want that to happen either. That's millions of potential voters I might be losing if that took place.


RE: Same old tactic
By Keeir on 2/3/2012 4:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Part of that could be alleviated by stopping population growth.


No No No No No. This is a brainsick idea.

A shrinking population base inevidently leads to less economic output and negative consumption lines. Both bad bad things. In fact, that is alot of Southern Europes problem. I wouldn't lend money to a business whoose -plan- was to produce less goods and services for sale in the future while maintained the -same- cost structure. Part of producing less is having less children. Yes initially there would be a economic gain as prior children in the system are not replaced freeing up resources, but in a few decades when the significantly smaller sized groups of employees join the workforce in comparison to retirements... that would be..


RE: Same old tactic
By lagomorpha on 2/5/2012 12:13:32 AM , Rating: 3
Hence why I did not say shrinking population, did I? Eventually either the population needs to reach an equilibrium, the question is whether we do it by limiting reproduction or the universe does it by limiting our resources.

At 1% pop growth:

33.31 years until limit of earth to support every person with 1st world diet

229.9 years until limit of earth to feed every person on megre diet

885.033 years until 1 person per square meter of agricultural land (pastures included)

1357 years until 1 person per square foot on earth

3438 years until the earth is a big ball of naked humans held together by gravity

9880 years until entire visible universe made of humans including black holes but excluding dark matter


RE: Same old tactic
By JediJeb on 2/5/2012 8:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1357 years until 1 person per square foot on earth


That is one heck of an increase in 1357 years considering that right now if you take every person on earth and give them something like 9 square feet to stand in, it would only require the area of approximately one county of one state in the US to hold them all. Actually taking the current world population and the area of land mass of the Earth each person could have 236,589 sq ft to call their own.

Doubling of population at a 1% growth rate takes 72 years which means that after 1357 years the population would be 138 billion people. Now the land area of Greenland is 836,330 sq mi and there is 27,878,400 sq ft per sq mile which means there are 23,315,542,272,000 sq ft in Greenland. So somehow 113 billion people is far short of 23 trillion. And that is just compared to Greenland! To put it on another level there are 1,608,806,707,200,000 sq ft in only the major continents of the world ( that is 1.6 quadrillion ) I think at 1% growth rate you are going to take far more than 1357 years to reach one person per sq ft on the earth.

I don't know where people come up with these absurd numbers about population growth and how it is going to doom the Earth is short order. Population growth currently has dropped to 1.1% annually down from 2.1% back in the 1970s.

Even at a sustained 1% annual growth rate the population of the Earth after 3438 years would be 324.7 billion still far short of the 1.6 quadrillion sq ft of open land mass of the Earth and not even covering Greenland if you give them all 1 sq ft each. Matter of fact after 3438 years the entire population of the world placed on Greenland would have a whopping 71.8 sq ft to call their own.

As far as sustaining them with diet, people in the US alone probably throw away enough food to feed the rest of the world each year at at least a subsistence level. Is that a good thing, no, but it does point out the fact that if the food can be distributed evenly world wide, we have the resources to easily feed our population for many many years to come. Just converting the farm-able National Park land in the US back into producing ground would probably feed a doubling of the population. Crying out that we are on the verge of overpopulating the world has been around since at least the 1960s, it was FUD then and it is FUD now. Even the United Nations estimates the world population will reach an equilibrium around 10 billion people just after the year 2200, which will be no where near a catastrophic level. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixb...


RE: Same old tactic
By FITCamaro on 2/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Same old tactic
By MeesterNid on 2/3/2012 12:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, what? Who tried to reorganize it and what lobbyists are you talking about? I'm pretty sure that the main obstacle to entitlement reform is the fact that it's politically expedient to vilify the people trying to reform it.

How is healthcare
quote:
markedly worse in the states
? Based on what?


RE: Same old tactic
By Amiga500 on 2/3/2012 12:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Based on what?


Life expectancy, infant mortality rate... and other usual indicators.

Everyone outside the US is amazed at the general level of ignorance displayed towards other healthcare systems and your indifference to just how bad you are getting f**ked over - but I guess that is because those with vested interests (doctors, big pharma) have largely succeeded in pulling the wool over your eyes with a string of outright lies.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 12:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
Europe massages those numbers. American doesn't.

We do not have "remarkably" worst health in this country as apposed to Europe.

I find it hilarious that you're claiming how much less health care costs in Europe, while many experts agree the unsustainable nature of socialized medicine is a key factor in their current collapse. Europe IS collapsing by the way, did you know that? Even as far back as the 1990's Europe started slashing health care benefits in the face of rising costs.

The Europeans have run into a very simple economic rule. If something is perceived as free, people will consume more of it than they would if they had to pay for it. Think of it this way: if food were free, would you eat hamburger or steak? At the same time, health care is a finite good. There are only so many doctors, so many hospital beds and so much technology. If people overconsume those resources, it drives up the cost of health care.

Universal health care is a great idea. It's just NOT sustainable on the national level. And until you acknowledge that, you will remain clueless.

Stick to airplane opinions Amiga, something you're good at where you actually bother to provide evidence. Randomly spewing Liberal talking points about health care doesn't become you.


RE: Same old tactic
By Keeir on 2/3/2012 1:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Europeans have run into a very simple economic rule. If something is perceived as free, people will consume more of it than they would if they had to pay for it.


Its not just European that have learned this "rule". The very concept of Healthcare Insurance in the United States as it is currently laid out runs into this rule as well. For decades, a large slice of US society has been on an all-you-can-eat buffet style of healthcare purchase. The marginal cost of going and getting treatment for most people in the US is a very small fraction of the treatment recieved cost. It's a stupid way to run a system. But then I hate buffet style resturaunts as well. Crummy food that I end up paying more for than place down the street.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 1:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
I was going to mention that yeah. It's funny that the very things so wrong about our system, are the things fans of socialized healthcare want MORE of.


RE: Same old tactic
By Amiga500 on 2/3/2012 1:31:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Europe massages those numbers. American doesn't.


There is no point even starting this debate with yourself.

Outright stupid comments like that only serve to highlight your xenophobic and fundamentalist attitudes. You are not too different from the rabid mob that would scream 'death to America' at the whim of a imam; only your imam takes the form of fox news and various interest groups.


RE: Same old tactic
By Amiga500 on 2/3/2012 1:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I find it hilarious that you're claiming how much less health care costs in Europe, while many experts agree the unsustainable nature of socialized medicine is a key factor in their current collapse.


Corruption, extremely generous welfare support, selling of IP to the highest bidder and selling of industrial capability are what have ruined Europe.

Can you site one of these "many experts" please?


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 2:04:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Corruption, extremely generous welfare support, selling of IP to the highest bidder and selling of industrial capability are what have ruined Europe.


Wrong! Debt has ruined Europe. Debt. On what planet do you live in where universal healthcare, Euro style, doesn't account for massive debt? This is fundamental stuff! How can you not know this?

I love how you Liberals will defend something that's inherently wrong and isn't sustainable with the old "well it just wasn't tried right" line. You can try as many times and ways as you want, EUROPE HAS! But the conclusion will always be the same.

quote:
Can you site one of these "many experts" please?


What? ALL economists agree at this point, debt is Europe singular issue. Debt is why the Euro failed. Unless you're stupid enough to think there is such thing as "free healthcare", I'll leave you to do your own research and connect the dots. Maybe you'll learn something.

But I am a magnanimous man. So here's a breadcrumb for you.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/01...

"Europe spends more than the rest of the globe combined on social policies (healthcare)."

(Look Yash, the Economist! Nobody can accuse me of using a Conservative source this time)


RE: Same old tactic
By Amiga500 on 2/3/2012 2:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong! Debt has ruined Europe. Debt. On what planet do you live in where universal healthcare, Euro style, doesn't account for massive debt? This is fundamental stuff! How can you not know this?


How do you think that debt is accumulated you clown?

quote:
I love how you Liberals


I'm not overly liberal.

I just happen to have a pretty good education and a functioning brain that allows me to generate an informed opinion. Unlike yourself who just spouts whatever Faux news tells him.

Later on in your post, you cannot even distinguish between social policies and heathcare; to you they are synonymous. You are an idiot who lives in a little bubble. Have you ever even travelled outside of the USA?

I also note that the author of the article did not include the brackets (healthcare) after the sentence you lifted. So, when the evidence does not agree with you - you just manipulate it?

Imbecile.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 2:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah there we go. Nobody can possibly have a different point of view without being brainwashed by "Fox News". That never gets old, let me tell ya.

quote:
I also note that the author of the article did not include the brackets (healthcare) after the sentence you lifted. So, when the evidence does not agree with you - you just manipulate it?


???

Now that hurts. I was paraphrasing because you're so clueless. There's no manipulation here at all. You know what parenthesis are for, right? Did you even READ it? Let's try again.

"In many ways this is an admirable aspect of Europe's economic model, which combines high living standards with high standards of social welfare. The trouble is, such spending is helping to bankrupt governments—not least because those very same caring policies ensure that Europeans live longer, requiring more expenditure on health care and the payment of pensions for more years."

In the context of this article, "social issues" encompass a great many things, INCLUDING health care. Accusing me of manipulating anything or being dishonest is absurd. Try again.

quote:
Later on in your post, you cannot even distinguish between social policies and heathcare; to you they are synonymous.


No. But there is a huge amount of overlap. You only show your ignorance by not understanding this.

quote:
I'm not overly liberal.


Yeah and I'm Tom Cruise.


RE: Same old tactic
By Ramtech on 2/3/2012 2:23:15 PM , Rating: 3
From link that Reclaimer posted

quote:
All is not lost. Northern European states, especially Nordic countries, show it is possible to innovate, raise productivity and maintain generous social welfare at the same time. This is the World Bank's explanation for their success:


RE: Same old tactic
By Iaiken on 2/3/2012 2:33:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"Europe spends more than the rest of the globe combined on social policies (healthcare) ."


That last part was actually inferred by you and was not part of the original article.

The spending that the article looks at includes (in descending order), Pensions, Health Care, Education, Employment Insurance, Business Development, Entrepreneur Programs.

Then you look at where most of the sum total money is being spent relative to the GDP of the nations doing the spending (also in descending order).

Poland (10%)
Denmark (9%)
Estonia (8%)
Italy (6%)
Portugal (6%)
France (5%)
Germany (5%)
UK (4%)
Spain (4%)
Czechoslovakia (3%)
Romania (3%)
Hungary (3%)
The remaining 20 nations combined (34%)

So the real question becomes one of why are countries like Poland proportionately spending so much more when they are producing so much less? Sure countries like Spain, France and Germany spend a lot, but they generate a lot of revenues and are essentially the economic leaders of the EU. Why do these countries stand idly by and watch countries like Italy and Poland bury themselves under debt with no means to finance it?

I won't disagree that there are interesting questions and problems, but what you posted was academically bankrupt.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 2:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That last part was actually inferred by you and was not part of the original article.


Yeah you guys are right. I only provided the link to the ENTIRE article. Clearly I was trying to sneak one in there with the obvious use of parenthesis and providing the original text. Come on, really?

quote:
I won't disagree that there are interesting questions and problems, but what you posted was academically bankrupt.


Strongly disagree. In fact, you're wrong.

This is why there's no talking to you. No matter what source, what opinion, the other person can't possibly be right. Honestly, the Economist now isn't a good source?

Please do me a favor Iaiken and give me a list our sources I can use that you WILL accept. I'll work from there. How about this?

http://www.reforminghealthcare.eu/economist-report...

"In a time of tightening budgets, these rising costs will put unsustainable financial pressures on Western Europe's healthcare systems by 2030."

There's that pesky catchword again, UNSUSTAINABLE.

http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/1434/he...

UNSUSTAINABLE

These are European sources by the way, and NOT Fox News.

I've already proved my case. I never said THE problem with Europe was healthcare. I only stated it was PART of it, which nobody in their right mind disagrees with except you two.

I also note, however, that neither of you have even tried to prove that European style universal healthcare is sustainable on a national scale.

Our system has problems here, no doubt. But blindly claiming a Universal system is a fix-all was pure ignorance on his part. There's just as much evidence out there to prove this would make things WORSE.


RE: Same old tactic
By Iaiken on 2/3/2012 3:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly, the Economist now isn't a good source?


The Economist is a fine source and that is a good article on the challenges facing social spending in Europe. The problem is that YOU were trying to infer something based on YOUR agenda that wasn't present in the article itself. Hence my claim that what you were saying was academically bankrupt.

The EU is most certainly in trouble and there are reasons behind it. It doesn't matter if countries like France and Germany are fine if countries like Italy and Poland are completely irresponsible. These laggards are the problem and other member nations need to work extra hard to offset the problems they cause.

quote:
neither of you have even tried to prove that European style universal healthcare is sustainable on a national scale.


I have pointed you to Norway and Sweden time and time again and you have simply ignored them time and time again. These countries have managed to grow their economies and even expand upon their social programs in ways that have helped make them more competitive in a global market.

As for you trying to weasel your way out of your inference "I didn't say that", that's just downright cowardly. That is exactly what your post said from your first inference to the very end. Bad form.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 3:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
It was present in the article. It's right here.

"In many ways this is an admirable aspect of Europe's economic model, which combines high living standards with high standards of social welfare. The trouble is, such spending is helping to bankrupt governments —not least because those very same caring policies ensure that Europeans live longer, requiring more expenditure on health care and the payment of pensions for more years."

If you didn't read it, it's not my problem. Good grief man, the word BANKRUPT is spelled out in black and white.

quote:
As for you trying to weasel your way out of your inference "I didn't say that", that's just downright cowardly. That is exactly what your post said from your first inference to the very end. Bad form.


That's funny because I thought what I actually said was:

(from my first post here)
"I find it hilarious that you're claiming how much less health care costs in Europe, while many experts agree the unsustainable nature of socialized medicine is a key factor in their current collapse."

Are we having a reading comprehension problem?


RE: Same old tactic
By Ringold on 2/4/2012 11:40:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have pointed you to Norway and Sweden time and time again and you have simply ignored them time and time again.


It's wise to ignore them, as their experience doesn't really mirror the rest of Europe very well. They were and largely still are culturally homogenous, which makes painful reforms easier to bear. They also engaged in reforms during the 90s, during a period where exports to a prospering world helped them along through painful retrenchment. Europe has no such option. It also helps that they swim in oil, and have relatively very small populations.

As I recall, they largely took reforms in stride and still do. Compare that to the banlieus of France that start flipping and torching cars at a whiff of reform, or this Greece debacle, where to my knowledge not a single government official has yet to be laid off. Or Italy, which is seeing massive strikes at MILD reform.. No, can't export the Nordic model easily.


RE: Same old tactic
By FITCamaro on 2/3/2012 2:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah try to go get a CT scan in many European countries and see what happens. Here we can get it in a few hours. There you're put on a list.


RE: Same old tactic
By teflonbilly on 2/3/2012 12:23:40 PM , Rating: 3
From what I have heard, a lot of Europe operates their healthcare in a proactive manner, advocating healthy lifestyles, and pushing kids into sports and other healthy activities.

The problem, that North America has in this is we operate on a reactive basis. WE fix sick people, rather than trying to keep people from becoming sick. It costs far less to maintain a healthy person than it does to fix a sick one.

With all that said, and totally off topic, Looking at the military as an employer is in a way an entitlement system as well. Don't know what to do with your life? Join the military and let the government pay your way for a few years. I am not saying this is bad really but its expensive too. And keeping a large fighting force equipped with the high tech gear we demand they have, and maintaining so many bases around the world is extremely costly. Maybe cutting spending here, and working on a proactive health care system, decreasing tuition cost in post secondary, increasing teacher salaries to entice more teachers to work, decreasing welfare benefits and increasing back to work programs would be a better way to solve this.

Oh and before you ask me how exactly to do that I should tell you that I am a bike mechanic who owns a shop, and not a policy maker or any kind of administrator so coming up with ideas I can do. Figuring out the best way to put them into practice them I can't. As I would guess most of you can't either.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 12:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
From what I have heard, a lot of Europe operates their healthcare in a proactive manner, advocating healthy lifestyles, and pushing kids into sports and other healthy activities.


And we don't? Excuse me? That's FUD.

Read between the lines! That's Europe's stupid idea of a way to cut the unsustainable and rising health care costs of their broken system. If you think you can "prevent people from getting sick" through social policies, I have a bridge for you to buy. And if you don't think kids are pushed into sports and being active here, buddy, you must not have any or aren't paying attention.

Most private health plans here, including mine, cover yearly checkups and tons of preventative things. Hell if you have a headache or ANY symptoms you can walk into a clinic, with no appointment, and get checked out that day. Do you think that's the case in Europe? HA!

In fact because of the insane rash of malpractice suits, doctors are more cautions here than ever. You go in for something, and they test for EVERYTHING possible. Because if they miss something, you can sue their ass.

Most of the time when you get sick, or an illness, there's no way to "prevent" it. Except for extreme cases of neglect, which is a personal character flaw, not a flaw of any health care system.


RE: Same old tactic
By Iaiken on 2/3/2012 1:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you think that's the case in Europe? HA!


Actually, that was the case for me in England, Holland, France and Germany and I am not even from Europe. I didn't have a national health card so they billed me and I put it on my Blue Cross. One of my friends dislocated his arm in Nurburg while being a Jackass and he was seen and treated within 15 minutes of arriving.

Maybe you should travel more so you can back up what you claim instead of just parroting propaganda that you read on the Internet? Very little of what I have seen of the world and even the US seems to match up with the things you like to repeat ad nauseam. Then again, who knows, maybe every single one of my experiences in this life has been the exception to the rules.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 1:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
So let me understand this. Your myopic personal experiences carry more weight than any number of surveys, studies, and statistics. That's brilliant.

You're also the person who argued with me for days that Canada clinics has no wait time issue, when I proved to you that there is an issue from many different sources. You countered with "Well I never have, so you're wrong."

You've wasted enough of my time. You can't be reasoned with, god knows I've tried.


RE: Same old tactic
By Iaiken on 2/3/2012 2:03:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I proved to you that there is an issue from many different sources


I remember that well... The only thing you proved was that there were wait time problems in the province of Alberta, in two of Canada's fastest growing cities Edmonton and Calgary. I countered by showing you that the government was already in the process of responding by building new hospitals in both cities and preparing to staff them.

All you really managed to prove was that you only sees what you want to see and that you only believe things that support your arguments. That's the very definition of unreasonable.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 2:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only thing you proved was that there were wait time problems in the province of Alberta, in two of Canada's fastest growing cities Edmonton and Calgary.


Oh so they don't count? There's, what, 5 million people there give or take? Almost a sixth of Canada's entire population, and you dismiss them outright.

If a sixth of the United States was being denied healthcare or had unacceptable levels of treatment, you would be throwing that right in my face. Hypocrite ass!

The simple fact is if your system was half as efficient and progressive as you claim it to be, those conditions would NOT have existed in the first place. And those hospitals would have been built sooner BEFORE there was a crisis. This perfectly illustrates how poorly something operates when the Government runs it.

quote:
That's the very definition of unreasonable.


You're right, it sure is. This is deflection and divisiveness on a massive scale. You aren't even trying to hide your bias.

quote:
All you really managed to prove was that you only sees what you want to see and that you only believe things that support your arguments.


Says the guy who chooses not to "see" millions of people, because they don't fit into his world view.

Tell me Iaiken, do you think the Holocaust was a hoax as well?


RE: Same old tactic
By Iaiken on 2/3/2012 3:00:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The simple fact is if your system was half as efficient and progressive as you claim it to be, those conditions would NOT have existed in the first place.


Again here you go throwing out the system because it is only 90% perfect. Try this on for size genius, it takes time to build hospitals and staff them. This isn't Sim City where you can just punk one down and it starts working right away. If your city doubles in size over the course of three years you have two choices: restrict people from moving in (yeah right) or race to catch up. Any city in the US would have faced the exact same problem because they would be inundated under a tidal wave of new people until they were able to construct and staff new facilities to handle them.

Of the hospitals that were being built, one of them has since been completed and has helped alleviate some of the congestion. Further, since the last time we talked, a wealth of small private practices have popped up in those cities to help alleviate the strain on the general practitioners. The

Canada has private practices? HELL YES! You set up your clinic and pass your inspections and apply for integration into the public insurance system and you can start accepting patients. The only difference is that these doctors get paid by the government and if you don't have any patients, you don't get paid.

Are we there yet? No, there are still two hospitals that are not yet completed and the government is now looking at building two more because these cities are still growing like crazy.

quote:
And those hospitals would have been built sooner BEFORE there was a crisis.


You seriously make me laugh because apparently the private sector possesses some sort of omniscience that would have allowed them to react before the problem was even apparent. Within a year of the rapid growth they were already looking at it and the process for the new hospitals. It takes about 5 years to build a major city hospital and it only took 3 years for the populations to explode. You seem to have unrealistic expectations...

The people who moved there made a choice, knowing that the system was strained and they went there anyway. If you make such a choice, deal with it.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Same old tactic
By Iaiken on 2/3/2012 3:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're still avoiding the fact that the situation was unacceptable, and that does NOT happen here in America.


Um... I didn't avoid that at all... conveniently for you, there is no such growth of this scale going on in the US. IF such a case happened, the exact same would happen in the private sector. It would take them about a year to identify and assert that the growth would be ongoing. Take them a year to navigate all the laws, permits and ordinances. Then it would take them about 5 years to build and staff the hospital. Unless they have access to some sort of magic wand then I am afraid I am going to have to call BS on your assertion because it is utterly unprovable. Am I getting through to you here or are you just so far off in la-la-land that you can't even hear reason to listen to it?

quote:
How can you excuse that?


I guess I could ask you the same question of why more people than the ENTIRE population of Canada have effectively no access to healthcare in the US? You're still avoiding the fact that the situation is unacceptable.

quote:
Ha! You hear that Canadians? Iaiken extolls the virtues of the Canadian healthcare system, but if you knowingly move into an area where it happens to suck, well that's tough shit!


Nice spin on that one claimer. You should apply for a job at Fox News.

Look, if you move to ANY city or neighbourhood and you don't do your homework then you're a moron. It is just unrealistic to expect that you can double the population of two cities in the same geographical area in a short period of time without there being consequences. The people I really feel for are those Albertans that were already there before the boom as this influx has degraded their services, even if only temporarily.

If the Government of Alberta didn't do anything to help mitigate those consequences while trying to enjoy the new found economic prosperity then I would be right there with you screaming bloody murder. The problem with that is the government was already in the process of taking action long before you stood up to scream your head off. Fruther, the private sector couldn't have moved any quicker and historically they often only move after something breaks or there is a massive public outcry.

You seem to have this unrealistic ideal view of the private sector and it's going to suck to be you when something shatters your little dream world.


RE: Same old tactic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 4:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Um... I didn't avoid that at all... conveniently for you, there is no such growth of this scale going on in the US. IF such a case happened, the exact same would happen in the private sector.


LOL right. Ask the people of Texas and California if they don't have millions of people every year coming in from Mexico. Why aren't those hospitals and clinics seeing Canadian style backlogs? The answer is long and arduous, but I'll sum it up for you ; we're better than you.

quote:
I guess I could ask you the same question of why more people than the ENTIRE population of Canada have effectively no access to healthcare in the US? You're still avoiding the fact that the situation is unacceptable.


First of all, don't pretend that your "entire" population is all that impressive. Secondly, you lie. Nobody in America can be denied healthcare. EVERYONE, even illegals, have access! You can, however, be denied health insurance. Although there are plenty of options for this and even insurance plans where you cannot be denied.

See this is just a social stigma. As a Canadian, you think everything should be free. You believe in a free lunch. We know there is no such thing.

Anyway I think we've established two very important things here:
1. You're still a moron who lies about wait times
2. Canada still sucks


RE: Same old tactic
By Iaiken on 2/3/2012 4:50:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
1. You're still a moron who lies about wait times
2. Canada still sucks


Troll on Claimer, troll on...


RE: Same old tactic
By Amiga500 on 2/3/2012 2:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
+1


RE: Same old tactic
By retrospooty on 2/3/2012 11:59:52 AM , Rating: 2
"Fact of the matter is that if the entire military budget was eliminated, the budget still would be far from balanced."

True... I would really like to see both slashed and the budget balanced.


By Amiga500 on 2/3/2012 11:41:18 AM , Rating: 5
The A-10 is one of the cheapest aircraft in the US inventory to build, maintain and operate.

Yet, they are seeking to retire it and replace it with fancy 'hangar queens' which will have far greater lifecycle costs with reduced capabilities.

It is (yet) another attempt to justify the JSF farce in disguise.

Loren Thompson of the Lexington institute is a paid shill of Lockheed Martin. Please bear that in mind when presenting his opinion in future. :-)




By Ramtech on 2/3/2012 11:53:01 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly

A-10 cannot be substituted by any other aircraft currently in inventory
AH-64 is just too vulnerable and F-16 cannot loiter and support ground troops


By Ramtech on 2/3/2012 11:53:18 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly

A-10 cannot be substituted by any other aircraft currently in inventory
AH-64 is just too vulnerable and F-16 cannot loiter and support ground troops


By FITCamaro on 2/3/2012 11:55:48 AM , Rating: 2
I'm just as big a fan of the A-10 and think the only time it should be retired is when a new version is developed and deployed (stronger, tougher, lighter, more modern)

But the F35 is necessary. Two completely different roles. That the military considers replacing the A-10 with the F35 shows how poor of cuts and compromises they're making.


By Amiga500 on 2/3/2012 11:58:46 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
But the F35 is necessary. Two completely different roles.


Yep. But not in its current guise.

The STOVL solution should have been completely decoupled from the conventional/CATOBAR solution. The compromises imposed have decimated what the JSF could have been.


By Iaiken on 2/3/2012 1:57:35 PM , Rating: 3
A friend of mine was a member of the 335th Wing and was stationed in Bagram as part of the expeditionary force and returned home to Arizona in 2008.

When he was first assigned to the A-10C he was initially furious because he wanted to fly the F-16. It didn't take long for his opinion to do a total 180 and now the guy wears a tattoo of an A-10 with angel wings on a shield. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the symbolism there...

These planes have saved the lives of many US soldiers and it's success as a weapon of war is almost beyond incontestable.


By johnsonx on 2/4/2012 3:08:04 AM , Rating: 2
Seems to me the smart thing to do would be to let the Army have the A-10's, or if that's just too unpalatable (oh noes, we mustn't let the army have any fixed wing aircraft!), then give them to the Marines. Either one is a far more appropriate home for CAS aircraft. Then the Air Force can stick to the air superiority/air defense and strategic/tactial strike missions they love so much.


By corduroygt on 2/5/2012 10:57:45 AM , Rating: 2
It's certainly great and the F-16 or the F-35 is definitely no replacement for it, but I think its role can be taken on by drones in the future...


Funny!
By Raiders12 on 2/3/2012 11:59:28 AM , Rating: 2
On Whitehouse.gov you can use the "Federal Tax Receipt Calculator" to see where your $$$ is spent. Of course the top was DoD, which I dont fault too much, but #2 was "Job and Family Security", real cute right? Turns out that term encompasses EVERY WELFARE program, and its #2 in spending. Hmmmmm what really needs cuts?

***PS : I'm an engineer and I support efficiency, which is where a lot of the cost savings in DoD cuts should go, not necessarily project costs. The DoD wastes $$$ around every corner, I know because I work here.




RE: Funny!
By FITCamaro on 2/3/2012 2:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'll agree there.

Take their push for nothing but FFP contracts now. It results either in unrealistically low bids that either deliver nothing or a highly flawed product that will require and endless series of mods to get right or a massively larger bid because you have to mitigate all your risk in one shot.

And for programs like the F35 its impossible due to the size, scope, and length of the contract.


RE: Funny!
By Keeir on 2/3/2012 4:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... that site is not really the best

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_...

It omits Social Security entirely as well as many health and human services issues. Nor does it show how much more the government made you pay in the future for the current level of services.

Keep in mind that for every dollar you paid in taxes (regardless of type), the government spent 1.6 dollars.


A-10
By thuff on 2/3/2012 3:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
I know it is on the older end of the spectrum, but the A-10 repeatedly proves itself as a valuable platform for ground assault/support.

I know F-15s and F-16 have their specific iterations focused on ground attack, but the A-10 does that role much better in that it can loiter longer, fly slower, turn sharper at lower speeds, and can absorb immense damage while still getting itself and the pilot home.

It just seems silly to larger eliminate an asset like the A-10 when the alternatives our equally as old and cannot do the job as effectively.

That, and the fact that I have used A-10 GAU-8 Avenger casings adorning my office. 8^D




RE: A-10
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 3:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
The A-10 is like using a hammer to crack a walnut. But you know what? Sometimes it's damned good to be a hammer :)

quote:
It just seems silly to larger eliminate an asset like the A-10 when the alternatives our equally as old and cannot do the job as effectively.


Considering how cheap it is, I completely agree. It's true that we're not likely to be fighting massive armored tank divisions anytime soon. But it's so versatile and flexible for so many missions, that this move is mind boggling.

Why not just finally give this thing to the Marines instead of killing it altogether?


lol
By Seagrave on 2/6/2012 6:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
still a bunch of ignorance arguing political sides.. this isnt about who was pres or anything else.. both sides play a constant role in the budget.. the pres is only one part of the total government spending us into debt. think about it. no one man other then those who send us to war can spend without congress and the senate allowing it. look at the balance of powers (senate and congress)for the last 20 years, you might be shocked if you see the truth. both play a role but the republicans had the greatest voting power for the longest time.

stop picking sides, the government is one entity. acting together no matter who votes what way.

the outcry about these planes are the true need for planes when nobody competes with what we have, the fact our second latest fighter has seen no combat, and the fact it has now been projected to go more then 1 trillion over its original maintenance budget. we have been lied to by the contractors, and the government.

also the largest budget cuts occur under repub power. instead of spending 10 trillion on new jets, and downsizing forces to pay for it under their budget. the f35 and even the f22 some would say was a great government bailout of lockheed. f35 trials alone state that it was make or break for lockheed.




Oh and....
By Amiga500 on 2/3/2012 11:49:09 AM , Rating: 1
The canceling of the C-27 program borders on f**king treason never mind incompetence.

The Army needs numerous small airlifts to support operations in Afghanistan (and elsewhere). The Airforce were and are unwilling to commit C-130s to the cause as the load factors are low - so they are awkward as possible when the Army requests airlift capacity. So the Army is forced to use Chinooks on the job, rapidly aging the airframes.

So the Army requested they get the C-27 and use it for in-theatre logistics support.

The airforce oppose it, oppose it, oppose it, see that its going to get the go ahead anyway... then jump in on the program (now renamed JCA as a result) and then proceed to kill it from the inside.

End result is US grunts on the ground are getting little to no airlift support as the airforce are f**king the army over "to keep them off their turf".

I would have airforce generals in jail over it. Not joking.




The sad thing is...
By thurston2 on 2/4/2012 1:05:19 AM , Rating: 1
Disclaimer: I am a liberal socialist, I believe socialism trumps capitalism, which I believe follows the teachings of Jesus.

From the IV Books of Acts

quote:
Sharing in All Things 32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need. 36 And Joses,[d] who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus, 37 having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.


Obama should be the easiest president to beat in all of modern history. The left doesn't like him because he's a moderate-right, much like his most likely opponent Romney. The Right doesn't like him because the Right-Wing media has portrayed him as the negro socialist the left would love, which he is not. Yet the only candidates the right are able to field are bat-shit crazy women, an ultra right-wing frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter. an immoral has-been that was run out of politics during the Clinton administration and a White Mormon Robot Obama, made out of money who only pays %15 taxes and has no understanding of the middle and lower class. I didn't even include the sex fiend, speaking tour, pizza guy that had to quit because of his infidelity. It's so sad that you Righties cant even get your act together enough to beat the NEGRO president who is doing a horrible job. But, their is hope in Ron Paul if the mainstream and especially Right-wing media would stop the never-ending attacks and marginalization of him.




"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki