quote:

Originally posted by Justin La Plante:
Well the idea for HMOs is that they keep you in debt so you can't deviate as a customer.
So they throw a few thousand dollars of co-pay at you to keep you in check.
You either have to work out a debt plan with them or take out a loan on something to sink your earnings more.
That keeps you in line because you will be making and saving less over all so you can never get a better coverage plan.

quote:

Originally posted by Justin La Plante:
Funnier that you should mention Clinton.
Clinton actually took a firm hand with China and the free trade agreements, his administration warned REPEATEDLY about N. Korea and the Taliban (while a certain Texas Governor openly invites them HERE for a friendly visit) and the accusations that he ever got financial support from the Chinese government were just as fruitless as the search for WMDs in Iraq.
It just doesn’t pay to be polarized by tabloid.
These are serious issues with a very serious impact.

Here is a very simple illustration of how administrations have affected our economy.

***
Key=
U.S. president-Party-Term years-Start debt/GDP*--End debt/GDP*-Increase debt ($T)-Increase debt/GDP
***

Nixon/Ford
R 1973-1977 35.7% 35.8% 0.19 +0.1%
Jimmy Carter
D 1977-1981 35.8% 32.6% 0.18 -3.2%
Ronald Reagan
R 1981-1985 32.6% 43.9% 0.65 +11.3%
Ronald Reagan
R 1985-1989 43.9% 53.1% 1.04 +9.2%
George H. W. Bush
R 1989-1993 53.1% 66.2% 1.40 +15.1%
Bill Clinton
D 1993-1997 66.2% 65.6% 1.12 -0.6%
Bill Clinton
D 1997-2001 65.6% 57.4% 0.42 -8.2%
George W. Bush
R 2001-2005 57.4% 64.3% 1.15 +6.9%
George W. Bush
R 2005-2009 projection 64.3% 68.2% projection +3.9% projection

The numbers don’t lie.
During each democratic administration national debt was lowered while during each republican administration (since Nixon) the national debt has only increased while any progress was disrupted entirely.
Imagine if you were sitting at the board room table across from Trump with these kinds of numbers in front of you.
Who is going to get fired?
Until Nixon, Republicans could actually balance a budget.
Funny that Nixon was the first of the “new-Conservatives” to take an administration in that true William F. Buckley spirit and the differences between every GOP cabinet since as apposed to all those before.
The same goes for the Democrats but in their case it all has to do with bad military decisions and the conversion from the “know nothing attitude” to the “people’s party attitude”.

There happen to be millions of people living on and even below minimum wage in this country.
It may not be the standard YOU prefer but they are living and law abiding.
It all goes back to that right of choice and responsibility we have as Americans.
How exactly is someone NOT supposed to resort to crime when there is no work?
Do you actually mean victimless offenders SHOULD all be in prison just because they can’t get jobs?
Without any real health care in this country, it makes being jobless a rather desperate situation.
Especially if you happen to have a family.

I’m not saying that you don’t know but it DOES cost us all A LOT of money to house people in prisons. Depending on the state, it is anywhere from $250 to $600 PER PERSON, per day.
At that rate, we simply can’t afford it for very much longer. I know I’m sick of paying for it when most of these people should be out and working.

While there is plenty of blame to go around for who buys what, you have to factor in that as a country, we rank lower in education then some 3rd world nations.
That kind of social defect translates to a significantly dangerous level of ignorance and apathy.
While we have the freedom to be uneducated, at the very least, we should have leaders in office who can try to aid the problem rather then take advantage of it.
Especially when it is very clear that taking advantage of it will ruin our economy in the long run.
The government should not hand out tax breaks or pass legislation that favors one market over another. Especially a foreign market.
THAT is big government. The exact thing Republicans always cry about being against.
This is supposed to be a country of FREE enterprise, not specialized or special interest enterprise.

At the very least, if you want to hand out economic power with political backing, tax cuts and trade deals then why not do it in the interest of the American made product?

Back to healthcare (I left that out of the last post),
It is a huge issue that we allow people to die in this country of easily curable ailments.
Cuba is a third world ghetto yet their average citizens live three years longer then ours simply because they can have their health regularly policed.
Preventative medicine is another factor of a health economy in the nations beating out our market center as well.
Healthy people work like horses.
When you don’t have that monkey on your back 24/7, it does make life a lot easier.
The last insurance policy I was offered in my last stateside job was a joke.

quote:

The spectacle of Clinton's confused and incoherent China policy should never be repeated. America cannot afford to allow such policy confusion to undermine its leadership in Asia or in other regions. There is an important lesson to learn from Clinton's flip-flop on China policy: There is no substitute for presidential leadership. Being President entails making politically difficult choices to insure that all of America's interests in Asia are protected. On critical issues such as relations with China, the President must constantly navigate among competing demands such as human rights, trade, and potential regional con- flicts. Clinton's failure to decide on a balanced China policy last year was the principal cause of this year's embarrassing policy reversal. Now that he has admitted his failure, the President can begin restoring some of the credibility which he- and the country-have lost over the past year.

-Richard D. Fisher, Jr. Acting Director, Asian Studies Center

quote:

canon_photo
I'm not reading all that.

quote:

Originally posted by canon_photo:
ohhh! bla bla....