tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1850143275044750032024-02-20T09:43:28.566-06:00Patterson Pea PatchPolitics and LifeHempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-50956344566959341972010-10-07T13:18:00.000-05:002010-10-07T13:19:38.162-05:00The Magic of Tort Reform<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;"><div class="post-header" style="background-image: url("http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/white-gold/images/post-divider.png"); padding-bottom: 5px; background-position: 0% 100%;"><div class="post-title" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px;"><h2 style="margin: 0px; font-size: 18px; line-height: 18px; padding: 0px; font-weight: lighter; color: rgb(17, 17, 17);">The odd logic of tort reform</h2></div><div class="post-comment" style="float: right; padding-top: 6px; font-size: 12px;"><img src="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/white-gold/images/comment-icon.png" /> <a href="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-odd-logic-of-tort-reform/#comments" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); text-decoration: none;">3 comments</a></div></div><div class="post-meta" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-size: 12px; margin-top: 10px;"><div class="post-date" style="float: left; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-weight: lighter; margin-right: 15px;"><img src="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/white-gold/images/calendar-icon.png" /> September 8, 2010 at 4:00 am</div><div class="post-admin" style="float: left;"><img src="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/white-gold/images/user-icon.png" /> Aaron Carroll</div></div><div class="post_content" style="line-height: 22px; margin-top: 20px;"><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;">Well, I seem to have<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/health-affairs-covers-malpractice/" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); text-decoration: none;">touched a nerve</a>. I’m getting a lot of email telling me I’m off the mark when it comes to tort reform. Some of this email is coming from physicians who claim to usually agree with me. You’re sure I’m wrong here. You’re sure that tort reform (by which you mean setting caps on damages) really would reduce health care costs and make physicians practice differently.</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;">Unfortunately, most of you are coming at me with anecdotes. So I’m going to lay out for you why I think that tort reform as you prescribe isn’t a guaranteed success. I’m going to use data.</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;">Let’s start with Texas. In 2003, Texas capped non-economic damages on malpractice lawsuits at $250,000. It’s pretty much what they Republicans wanted to do with health care reform as well (see<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan_Updated_11-04-09.pdf" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); text-decoration: none;">their plan</a>). In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Governor Perry and Speaker Gingrich<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110504328.html" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); text-decoration: none;">said</a>:</p><blockquote style="border-left: 3px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Georgia; font-style: italic; margin: 15px; padding: 15px;"><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;">Texas, for example, has adopted approaches to controlling health-care costs while improving choice, advancing quality of care and expanding coverage. Consider the successful 2003 tort reform.</p></blockquote><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;">Well, that’s a fact we can check. Did tort reform have any of these effects? Here’s a handy chart from<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.citizen.org/documents/Texas_Liability_Limits.pdf" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); text-decoration: none;">Public Citizen</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>using data from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care (<a href="http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/data/download.shtm" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); text-decoration: none;">Selected Medicare Reimbursement Measures</a>):</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;"><a rel="attachment wp-att-8759" href="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-odd-logic-of-tort-reform/reimbursements-per-enrollee/" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); text-decoration: none;"><img class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-8759" title="Reimbursements-per-enrollee" src="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Reimbursements-per-enrollee-500x383.jpg" alt="" style="border: 1px solid rgb(189, 189, 189); display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; background-color: rgb(227, 227, 227); padding: 6px;" width="500" height="383" /></a>That dotted line is when tort reform when into effect. Not only were costs for Medicare enrollees not controlled, they went up faster than the national average. In fact, Texas reimbursement rates in 2007 were the second highest in the country. What exactly did Governor Perry and Speaker Gingrich mean by “successful”?</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;">Maybe they were talking about health insurance premiums? Were they controlled after reform? Again, a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.citizen.org/documents/Texas_Liability_Limits.pdf" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); text-decoration: none;">handy chart</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>using data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); text-decoration: none;">Medical Expenditure Panel Survey</a>:</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;"><a rel="attachment wp-att-8760" href="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-odd-logic-of-tort-reform/premiums/" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); text-decoration: none;"><img class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-8760" title="Premiums" src="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Premiums-500x274.jpg" alt="" style="border: 1px solid rgb(189, 189, 189); display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; background-color: rgb(227, 227, 227); padding: 6px;" width="500" height="274" /></a>Health insurance premiums again did not see a dramatic decrease after tort reform.</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;">Oddly enough, Governor Perry and Speaker Gingrich also claimed that Texas-style reforms “increased coverage”. To check that you need only go to the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthins.html" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); text-decoration: none;">US census</a>:</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;"><a rel="attachment wp-att-8763" href="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-odd-logic-of-tort-reform/uninsured-2/" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 204); text-decoration: none;"><img class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-8763" title="Uninsured" src="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Uninsured-500x322.jpg" alt="" style="border: 1px solid rgb(189, 189, 189); display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; background-color: rgb(227, 227, 227); padding: 6px;" width="500" height="322" /></a>Do you see the increase in coverage? I ask, because I can’t. This claim is actually laughable, because Texas as a state has the highest level of uninsurance in the US. Sometimes the Washington Post baffles me. Is there any fact-checking at all?</p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px;">Some people believe – just<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><em>know</em><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>– that reducing malpractice awards will lead to fewer lawsuits which will lead to a reduction in premiums which will lead to a reduction in defensive medicine which will lead to a reduction in health care costs. It’s a matter of faith. It has to be, because there’s just not that much evidence it will happen.</p></div></span></span>HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-41229359422090920992010-03-29T11:28:00.001-05:002010-03-29T11:28:45.546-05:00This is debate?<h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span class="UIStory_Message">Sometimes trying to have a discussion with the honorable opposition reminds me of throwing a piece of your burger on the ground then trying to show the dog where it is.<br /></span></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span class="UIStory_Message">They just smell your finger.</span></h3>HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-30492776184403767072010-03-07T12:13:00.000-06:002010-03-07T12:15:16.552-06:00Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years by Thom Hartmann<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; "><p>This weekend, House Republican leader John Boehner played out the role of Jude Wanniski on NBC's "Meet The Press."</p><p>Odds are you've never heard of Jude, but without him Reagan never would have become a "successful" president, Republicans never would have taken control of the House or Senate, Bill Clinton never would have been impeached, and neither George Bush would have been president.</p><p>When Barry Goldwater went down to ignominious defeat in 1964, most Republicans felt doomed (among them the then-28-year-old Wanniski). Goldwater himself, although uncomfortable with the rising religious right within his own party and the calls for more intrusion in people's bedrooms, was a diehard fan of Herbert Hoover's economic worldview.</p><p>In Hoover's world (and virtually all the Republicans since reconstruction with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt), market fundamentalism was a virtual religion. Economists from Ludwig von Mises to Friedrich Hayek to Milton Friedman had preached that government could only make a mess of things economic, and the world of finance should be left to the Big Boys – the Masters of the Universe, as they sometimes called themselves – who ruled Wall Street and international finance.</p><p>Hoover enthusiastically followed the advice of his Treasury Secretary, multimillionaire Andrew Mellon, who said in 1931: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down... enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people."</p><p>Thus, the Republican mantra was: "Lower taxes, reduce the size of government, and balance the budget."</p><p>The only problem with this ideology from the Hooverite perspective was that the Democrats always seemed like the bestowers of gifts, while the Republicans were seen by the American people as the stingy Scrooges, bent on making the lives of working people harder all the while making richer the very richest. This, Republican strategists since 1930 knew, was no way to win elections.</p><p>Which was why the most successful Republican of the 20th century up to that time, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had been quite happy with a top income tax rate on millionaires of 91 percent. As he wrote to his brother Edgar Eisenhower in a personal letter on November 8, 1954:</p><p>"[T]o attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon 'moderation' in government.</p><p>"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt [you possibly know his background], a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."</p><p>Goldwater, however, rejected the "liberalism" of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and other "moderates" within his own party. Extremism in defense of liberty was no vice, he famously told the 1964 nominating convention, and moderation was no virtue. And it doomed him and his party.</p><p>And so after Goldwater's defeat, the Republicans were again lost in the wilderness just as after Hoover's disastrous presidency. Even four years later when Richard Nixon beat LBJ in 1968, Nixon wasn't willing to embrace the economic conservatism of Goldwater and the economic true believers in the Republican Party. And Jerry Ford wasn't, in their opinions, much better. If Nixon and Ford believed in economic conservatism, they were afraid to practice it for fear of dooming their party to another forty years in the electoral wilderness.</p><p>By 1974, Jude Wanniski had had enough. The Democrats got to play Santa Claus when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks – both programs of the New Deal – as well as when their "big government" projects like roads, bridges, and highways were built giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers. They kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things, which didn't seem to have much effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up, in fact), and that made them seem like a party of Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class. Americans loved it. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections.</p><p>Everybody understood at the time that economies are driven by demand. People with good jobs have money in their pockets, and want to use it to buy things. The job of the business community is to either determine or drive that demand to their particular goods, and when they're successful at meeting the demand then factories get built, more people become employed to make more products, and those newly-employed people have a paycheck that further increases demand.</p><p>Wanniski decided to turn the classical world of economics – which had operated on this simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years – on its head. In 1974 he invented a new phrase – "supply side economics" – and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn't because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money. The more things there were, the faster the economy would grow.</p><p>At the same time, Arthur Laffer was taking that equation a step further. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up!</p><p>Neither concept made any sense – and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies – but together they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness.</p><p>Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to suggest that he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, that those tax cuts would cause them to take their surplus money and build factories or import large quantities of cheap stuff from low-labor countries, and that the more stuff there was supplying the economy the faster it would grow. George Herbert Walker Bush – like most Republicans of the time – was horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting "Voodoo Economics," said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski's supply-side and Laffer's tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that we'd ultimately crash into another Republican Great Depression.</p><p>But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell supply-side economics. In 1976, he rolled out to the hard-right insiders in the Republican Party his "Two Santa Clauses" theory, which would enable the Republicans to take power in America for the next thirty years.</p><p>Democrats, he said, had been able to be "Santa Clauses" by giving people things from the largesse of the federal government. Republicans could do that, too – spending could actually increase. Plus, Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people's taxes! For working people it would only be a small token – a few hundred dollars a year on average – but would be heavily marketed. And for the rich it would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. The rich, in turn, would use that money to import or build more stuff to market, thus increasing supply and stimulating the economy. And that growth in the economy would mean that the people still paying taxes would pay more because they were earning more.</p><p>There was no way, Wanniski said, that the Democrats could ever win again. They'd have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections.</p><p>When Reagan rolled out Supply Side Economics in the early 80s, dramatically cutting taxes while exploding (mostly military) spending, there was a moment when it seemed to Wanniski and Laffer that all was lost. The budget deficit exploded and the country fell into a deep recession – the worst since the Great Depression – and Republicans nationwide held their collective breath. But David Stockman came up with a great new theory about what was going on – they were "starving the beast" of government by running up such huge deficits that Democrats would never, ever in the future be able to talk again about national health care or improving Social Security – and this so pleased Alan Greenspan, the Fed Chairman, that he opened the spigots of the Fed, dropping interest rates and buying government bonds, producing a nice, healthy goose to the economy. Greenspan further counseled Reagan to dramatically increase taxes on people earning under $37,800 a year by increasing the Social Security (FICA/payroll) tax, and then let the government borrow those newfound hundreds of billions of dollars off-the-books to make the deficit look better than it was.</p><p>Reagan, Greenspan, Winniski, and Laffer took the federal budget deficit from under a trillion dollars in 1980 to almost three trillion by 1988, and back then a dollar could buy far more than it buys today. They and George HW Bush ran up more debt in eight years than every president in history, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, combined. Surely this would both starve the beast and force the Democrats to make the politically suicidal move of becoming deficit hawks.</p><p>And that's just how it turned out. Bill Clinton, who had run on an FDR-like platform of a "new covenant" with the American people that would strengthen the institutions of the New Deal, strengthen labor, and institute a national health care system, found himself in a box. A few weeks before his inauguration, Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin sat him down and told him the facts of life: he was going to have to raise taxes and cut the size of government. Clinton took their advice to heart, raised taxes, balanced the budget, and cut numerous programs, declaring an "end to welfare as we know it" and, in his second inaugural address, an "end to the era of big government." He was the anti-Santa Claus, and the result was an explosion of Republican wins across the country as Republican politicians campaigned on a platform of supply-side tax cuts and pork-rich spending increases.</p><p>Looking at the wreckage of the Democratic Party all around Clinton by 1999, Winniski wrote a gloating memo that said, in part: "We of course should be indebted to Art Laffer for all time for his Curve... But as the primary political theoretician of the supply-side camp, I began arguing for the 'Two Santa Claus Theory' in 1974. If the Democrats are going to play Santa Claus by promoting more spending, the Republicans can never beat them by promoting less spending. They have to promise tax cuts..."</p><p>Ed Crane, president of the Libertarian CATO Institute, noted in a memo that year: "When Jack Kemp, Newt Gingich, Vin Weber, Connie Mack and the rest discovered Jude Wanniski and Art Laffer, they thought they'd died and gone to heaven. In supply-side economics they found a philosophy that gave them a free pass out of the debate over the proper role of government. Just cut taxes and grow the economy: government will shrink as a percentage of GDP, even if you don't cut spending. That's why you rarely, if ever, heard Kemp or Gingrich call for spending cuts, much less the elimination of programs and departments."</p><p>George W. Bush embraced the Two Santa Claus Theory with gusto, ramming through huge tax cuts – particularly a cut to a maximum 15 percent income tax rate on people like himself who made their principle income from sitting around the pool waiting for their dividend or capital gains checks to arrive in the mail – and blowing out federal spending. Bush even out-spent Reagan, which nobody had ever thought would again be possible.</p><p>And it all seemed to be going so well, just as it did in the early 1920s when a series of three consecutive Republican presidents cut income taxes on the uber-rich from over 70 percent to under 30 percent. In 1929, pretty much everybody realized that instead of building factories with all that extra money, the rich had been pouring it into the stock market, inflating a bubble that – like an inexorable law of nature – would have to burst. But the people who remembered that lesson were mostly all dead by 2005, when Jude Wanniski died and George Gilder celebrated the Reagan/Bush supply-side-created bubble economies in a Wall Street Journal eulogy:</p><p>"...Jude's charismatic focus on the tax on capital gains redeemed the fiscal policies of four administrations. ... [T]he capital-gains tax has come erratically but inexorably down -- while the market capitalization of U.S. equities has risen from roughly a third of global market cap to close to half. These many trillions in new entrepreneurial wealth are a true warrant of the worth of his impact. Unbound by zero-sum economics, Jude forged the golden gift of a profound and passionate argument that the establishments of the mold must finally give way to the powers of the mind. He audaciously defied all the Buffetteers of the trade gap, the moldy figs of the Phillips Curve, the chic traders in money and principle, even the stultifying pillows of the Nobel Prize."</p><p>In reality, his tax cuts did what they have always done over the past 100 years – they initiated a bubble economy that would let the very rich skim the cream off the top just before the ceiling crashed in on working people.</p><p>The Republicans got what they wanted from Wanniski's work. They held power for thirty years, made themselves trillions of dollars, cut organized labor's representation in the workplace from around 25 percent when Reagan came into office to around 8 of the non-governmental workforce today, and left such a massive deficit that some misguided "conservative" Democrats are again clamoring to shoot Santa with working-class tax hikes and entitlement program cuts.</p><p>And now Boehner, McCain, Brooks, and the whole crowd are again clamoring to be recognized as the ones who will out-Santa Claus the Democrats. You'd think after all the damage they've done that David Gregory would have simply laughed Boehner off the program – much as the American people did to the Republicans in the last election – although Gregory is far too much a gentleman for that. Instead, he merely looked incredulous; it was enough.</p><p>The Two Santa Claus theory isn't dead, as we can see from today's Republican rhetoric. Hopefully, though, reality will continue to sink in with the American people and the massive fraud perpetrated by Wanniski, Reagan, Laffer, Graham, Bush(s), and all their "conservative" enablers will be seen for what it was and is. And the Obama administration can get about the business of repairing the damage and recovering the stolen assets of these cheap hustlers.</p></span>HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-28572739765250283022010-03-02T11:57:00.002-06:002017-12-23T21:58:12.374-06:00The Supply Side Train Ride<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0 , 0 , 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51 , 51 , 51);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Supply siders kept wages stagnant while giving more money to the super rich. Top 1%? No, way too course a comb. o.1%? No. o.o1% Closer, The money seems to have clustered around the top 14,000 tax returns. While our wages have been stagnant, these have gone up 100's of times.</span></span><span class="Apple-converted-space"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br />So I ask you. Is it possible for you to work 200 times harder than you do now? Or be 200 times smarter than you are now?<br />Anyway, the point is the supply siders need shoppers to buy these "supplies".<br />Well, we ran out of money. They gave us credit cards. Auto loans. Then we ran out of credit.<br />Where to get more money now? From our parents. They lived through the good times when there was a healthy middle class. Good wages, Unions. High marginal tax rates. And they put that money into homes. Look at all that equity in these homes these people inherited. I think you know what happened. But what do we do now?</span></span><span class="Apple-converted-space"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br />The money is all gathered at the top. Mmm, look at all that money in Social Security and Medicare. Privatize. But what after that?<br /><br />Some people are squealing about all this money spending and deficit growing. But they have shown they don't really care about that. The problem is who is getting the money. The real problem they have is that it is not going to the 14k who already have most of the money. Not like they won't end up with it anyway. The tax laws and subsidies will get it there. Money does trickle up. They just want a more direct path.<br />Look at Germany. Savings rates are very high. They don't get no money down, low interest loans. So they save up. And when a small business or industry needs some capital, there it is. They borrow from Germans rather than Chinese. Like America used to do.</span></span></span></span>HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-77471363993686150732010-02-10T10:50:00.001-06:002010-02-10T10:52:54.853-06:00Economic Systems for Dummies - Thx to Chris LongSOCIALISM: you have 2 cows, and you give one to your neighbor.<br /><br />COMMUNISM: you have 2 cows. the government takes both and gives you some milk.<br /><br />FASCISM: you have 2 cows. the government takes both and sells you some milk.... See More<br /><br />NAZISM: you have 2 cows. the government takes both and shoots you.<br /><br />TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: you have 2 cows. you sell one and buy a bull. your herd multiplies and the economy grows. you sell them and retire on the income.<br /><br />AMERICAN CORPORATION: you have 2 cows. you sell one and force the other to produce the milk of 4 cows. later you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow dropped dead.<br /><br />FRENCH CORPORATION: you have two cows. you go on strike because you want 3.<br /><br />JAPANESE CORPORATION: you have 2 cows. you re-design them so they are one-tenth the size of a normal cow and produce twenty times the milk.<br /><br />GERMAN CORPORATION: you have 2 cows. you re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month and milk themselves.<br /><br />ITALIAN CORPORATION: you have 2 cows. you don't know where they are. you stop for lunch.<br /><br />RUSSIAN CORPORATION: you have 2 cows. you count them again, 5. you count them again, 43. you count them again, 2. you stop counting and open another bottle of vodka.<br /><br />SWISS CORPORATION: you have 5000 cows. none of them belongs to you. you charge others for storing them.<br /><br />CHINESE CORPORATION: you have 2 cows. you have 300 people milking them. you claim full employment, high bovine activity and you arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.<br /><br />INDIAN CORPORATION: you have 2 cows. you worship them.<br /><br />BRITISH CORPORATION: you have 2 cows. both are mad.<br /><br />AFRICAN CORPORATION: you have 2 cows. you eat one and marry a wife for your son with the other.<br /><br />Author...unknown, and in hiding from all the corporations.HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-64576520673871078192010-01-22T16:35:00.003-06:002010-01-22T16:47:55.057-06:00The Medicare cuts - Medicare Advantage<h2>Congressional Report on Medicare Advantage</h2><div class="info"><span class="date">December 11th, 2009</span> <span class="author"><a href="http://mdcarroll.com/author/admin/" title="Posts by Aaron">Aaron</a></span></div><p>For some reason, it doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of play in the press, but the information is pretty interesting.</p><p>On Wednesday, The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee released a report on Medicare Advantage. Let’s just get right into the findings:</p><blockquote><p><strong>From 2005 through 2008, the average Medicare Advantage insurer spent over 15% of premium revenue on profits, marketing, and other corporate expenses.</strong> Two-thirds of the Medicare Advantage insurers surveyed by the Committee had a medical loss ratio below 85% during at least one of the four years examined. Six of the insurers had medical loss ratios below 75% in one or more years. In comparison, traditional Medicare spends less than 1.5% on administrative expenses and over 98% on health care. In the aggregate, the Medicare Advantage insurers spent $1,450 per beneficiary in 2008 on profits, marketing, and other corporate expenses, nearly ten times as much as traditional Medicare spent on administrative expenses per beneficiary.</p></blockquote><p>Saying that you have a medical loss ratio of 85% means that only about $0.85 of each dollar goes to actual care. Compare that to traditional Medicare, where more than $0.98 of each dollar went to care. Remember that the next time someone tells you how much more efficient private insurance companies are than government run insurance.</p><blockquote><p><strong>Requiring all Medicare Advantage insurers to have a medical loss ratio of 85% would provide billions of dollars in additional medical services to seniors</strong>. The total amount spent on profits, marketing, and other expenses by Medicare Advantage insurers over the last four years was $27 billion. The House health care reform bill requires Medicare Advantage plans to spend at least 85% of their total premium revenues on medical claims. If this threshold had been in effect from 2005 through 2008, the Medicare Advantage insurers would have spent an additional $3 billion on their beneficiaries’ medical care, enough to eliminate all copays for preventive care for all Medicare beneficiaries for ten years.</p></blockquote><p>Some Medicare Advantage were so “inefficient” that merely requiring them to raise their ratio to 85% (still way below traditional Medicare) would raise enough money to eliminate any copays for preventive care for everyone in Medicare for a decade? Imagine if they were all as efficient as government run traditional Medicare.</p><blockquote><p><strong>In 2007 and 2008, Medicare Advantage insurers with medical loss ratios lower than 85% paid their executives over $1.2 billion.</strong> In 2007, a company that had a medical loss ratio of 79% paid an executive over $35 million. The same company paid 16 more executives salaries and bonuses worth $1 million or more. Another company with a medical loss ratio of 79% paid more than $210 million in compensation to 260 executives.</p></blockquote><p>No comment. None needed.</p><p>Remember, the proposed cuts to Medicare are just to Medicare Advantage. Not only has Medicare Advantage been spending much, much more on non-medical costs, they have also been taking about 114% of what we pay per traditional Medicare enrollee just to function. If the government were requiring 114% of what private companies were to provide a service, and then had nearly ten times the overhead to do it, we would all be losing our minds. It’s not good economic sense.</p><p>Read the <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20091209/MedicareAdvantageReport120909.pdf">whole report</a> if you like.</p><p>http://mdcarroll.com/2009/12/11/congressional-report-on-medicare-advantage/</p><p>http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090921/OPINION03/909210301/Kill-subsidy-for-Medicare-Advantage-plans</p><p><br /></p>HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-19651764025179169252010-01-11T09:42:00.002-06:002010-02-08T21:22:34.011-06:00FreedomHealth care is an extension of the FDR welfare state. The idea is to allow people to focus on being creative and productive.<br /><br />Free to start a new business on an even playing field without the fear of failure ruining their life and that of their family. FREEDOM!<br /><br />Freedom to buy a product based on advertising without needing a lawyer and an accountant to research the company and the product.<br /><br />Freedom to rise to the level of your gifts, abilities and work ethic.<br /><br />Predatory Capitalism has eaten it's own tail. How can it be more illegal to steal your car than to steal your life savings?<br /><br />Conservatives and the Republican party must purge the piranhas from their ranks and send them back under the rocks they crawled out from under when Reagan called them into the daylight.HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-12374202093964782912010-01-07T14:51:00.008-06:002010-01-08T13:21:17.091-06:00Iggles LamentIggles Lament - To the tune of Sixteen Tons<br /><br />Some people say a fan is made outta mud<br />A Philly fan's made outta cheese steak and Bud<br />Cheese steak and Bud and bottles and boos<br />A mind that's a-weak and a arm that's strong<br /><br />You need sixteen yards to make a first down.<br />But Jay's in your face and you can't get around.<br />One side is iron and the other is steel,<br />If D Ware don't get you then Spencer will.<br /><br />He was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine<br />He picked up some snow and he walked to the line<br />He threw sixteen balls with something inside<br />And Santa Claus said "I'm gonna tan your hide"<br /><br />They need sixteen yards to to keep up this drive,<br />Gotta get to Romo, better bring the whole hive.<br />But watch for the little guy, don't give him room.<br />One brings the Zoom and the other the Boom.HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-52320634349208735662010-01-07T14:26:00.002-06:002010-01-07T14:32:06.808-06:00Bought & Sold - Wicket Springs<h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span class="UIStory_Message">When you’re confused by the complex issues You buy Beck and sell your intellect and curiosity<br /></span></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span class="UIStory_Message">And being scared by Muslims You buy anything named security and sell your liberty<br /></span></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span class="UIStory_Message">Obsessed about the afterlife You buy God and sell your soul and your life on earth<br /></span></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span class="UIStory_Message">Paranoid about the government You buy more guns and ammo and sell your peace of mind </span><br /></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span class="UIStory_Message">Suffering the Homophobia You buy hate and sell your understanding<br /></span></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span class="UIStory_Message">Disgusted with helping others You buy Ayn Rand and sell Jesus<br /></span></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span class="UIStory_Message">Afraid of dying You buy what ever the medicine man is peddling and sell your health<br /></span></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span class="UIStory_Message">Afraid of living You buy gold and sell out being reasonable</span></h3>HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-48333340482188813582009-12-21T21:25:00.002-06:002009-12-21T21:32:26.294-06:00The Burdens We Bare (Glenn Beck)Against my better judgment I am going to tell you what it is about Glenn Beck that pisses off libs.<br /><br />Glenn beck is remarkably transparent. The aggravating thing is realizing that we have to share this country with so many people who can not see through his BS. Or simply choose not to see through him because they consider him a team mate.<br /><br />It is not that he lies. Most media don't out right lie. They take a kernel of truth and apply gross generalities then obfuscation.<br /><br />If I stub my toe on the the coffee table I am clumsy and by extension all libs are clumsy.<br /><br />Obfuscation is distraction like a shell game. I point out bankruptcies from health care you say Van Jones.<br /><br />If you took part in a peace protest in your teens you are a radical communist for life. The concept of changing your position due to additional knowledge and experience is foreign to people who once they pick a side fight till the death to justify that position regardless of changing times or new facts.<br /><br />The bias is not in the facts. the bias is in which facts you choose, how you present them, the modifiers you use and how much weight you attribute to them.<br /><br />Kermit is green.<br />Kermit the frog is green.<br />Kermit is a socialist, reptilian sock puppet capable of hiding in the bushes beside your front door due to his choice of colors. The very color of the sock he chose reveals his terrorist intent.<br /><br />All frogs are terrorists and hate America.<br /><br />All sock puppets and reptilians are evil socialists. They endanger your freedom.<br />The liberal media is trying to sweep this story under the rug. Why are they trying to hide this?<br /><br />What they really want is control. They want to tell you who you can marry and they are coming for your guns.<br /><br />They want to outlaw Christianity.<br /><br />America rise up and rid our beloved country of sock puppets and reptiles. Chop down all the bushes and trees so they can't sneak up on you.HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-80736730546048490852009-12-11T18:58:00.004-06:002010-01-04T08:04:18.433-06:00The Lessons of 9/11"What would Obama have done if 9/11 had happened on his watch? Probably NOTHING!"<br /><br />Right. Nothing except give a few speeches.<br />Would have saved us three trillion dollars. Thousand of lives. 4 1/2 million women and children refugees from Iraq having to sell themselves in Syria to feed the kids.<br /><br />The CIA and FBI and the entire rest of the world would have found bin Laden and company and they would be rotting in dungeons some where and no one would know their names. Radical Islam would be shunned by everyone in every country as criminals.<br /><br />If bin Laden was actually calling the shots they would have postponed it until a Republican got in office because they already tried to sucker Clinton into making them famous but he did not fall for it.<br /><br />Thx to Bush he is world famous, gets funding and recruits from all over the world, had half the world thinking we are school yard bullies. Our military and economy is stretched to the breaking point.<br /><br />So who won the War on Terror?<br /><br />And the moral of the story is? We have been stabbing our "friends" in the back for many years, so it can't be that. It must be the money. Maybe it is "Don't piss off billionaires."<br /><br />A friend has a brilliant employee he calls the "Persian Centerfold". I am not sure how she feels about that but her advice was get out of the oily sands. If you stop buying their oil they will go back to the lives they lived for centuries.<br /><br />So does this mean that if Reagan had stayed with Carter's energy plan instead of pandering to Big Oil... It is all Reagan's fault! ;pHempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-28229924565012328952009-11-28T14:50:00.001-06:002009-11-28T14:52:33.606-06:00Climate Change, The Big Lie - Carolyn Patterson<div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> <div style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin: 5px 0px 5px 5px; padding-left: 5px; font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div id="ygrp-mlmsg"> <div id="ygrp-msg"><div id="ygrp-text"> <p>.. as some of you may remember or not... I believe in global warming and we've been down this road before talking about Al Gore ... ;) however! even with my Pooh brain .... I can not see the bad side of declaring global warming.<br /><br />If it is a scare tactic ... what or whom does it benefit? The government? the people who sell ice? authors and well hells bells, there have been a billion diet books written and there are still us fat people.... and we know we're going to die ... if we escape those morons in Peru .. we might live a little longer...<br /><br />I digress... ;) ... since the 60s ... I have felt that traveling as I did/have ... the smog ... the aerosol sprays, the asbestos, DDT ... crop dusting in general, farts from cows and males on their ATVs and beers and beans ... TEXAS .... if you drive down in some areas, the smell of oil will knock you over.... the fumes...<br /><br />If you drive up in parts of Arkansas ... the smell of poultry and hog farm waste will knock you over ... rivers and streams and lakes that I used to drink from as a kid are now polluted!!! there are some creeks and streams that have signs posted ... not safe for wading! wading??? much less drink! that is outrageous! ... global warming or not ... outrageous human behavior and greed has caused pollution with years to recover and make clean again ...<br /><br />...incinerators with toxic waste ... where's it going? to Mars? or dissipates in our lovely clean air? right. Even air can become stagnant ... the galaxy aint THAT far away.... ... you ever come upon a rubber tire fire? outlawed! bury them? along with the nuclear waste from hospitals and such? landfills are full of toxic waste. People in the country have burn barrels where they will burn PLASTIC! and whatever ... even old tires and such... while it is against the law? .... who's gonna prosecute their brother in law?<br /><br />....we'll soon be in a closet ... earth will become a closet ... full of stale air and stagnant water and that aint good and that aint from a book or research or focus groups or studies or scientists or what all ... it's from personal observances ... I can't sit in a room with heavy perfume, cigarette smoke or stale beer smells... if it's not good for me... then it can't be good for our little planet, Earth... cute cute orb... all fresh and blue and green ...<br /><br />....manufacturers everywhere with their smoke stacks and such had to have regulations .... clinics who test bacteria and kill them by burning ... smells to high freakin heaven and the nuclear waste and the animal killing for food waste and the wood fires in Colorado causing fires to be regulated in fireplaces .... it's all a bunch of thises and thats.<br /><br />It takes money to fix polluters' pollution but it can be done and has been done in a lot of places. However, with a bazillion types of fumes and such flying off into the wild blue yonder it is shrinking the yonder!<br /><br />Running water while brushing your teeth and flushing the toilet every 10 seconds because you disposed of a nose blowing tissue and driving your car for commute purposes a hundred miles a day ... one person instead of car pooling or taking public transportation. .<br /><br />I could write paragraphs more of raping ... oh, my God... clear cutting the forests and filling in of tidal lands ...strip mining!!!! they stopped it here in the Little Rock area but not before those gorgeous hills that were my view every time I crossed the bridge were gone and replaced with hideous mounds of raped forest and hills! making the area subject to even more flooding ... oh, on and on... it has to stop .. or Mother .... good ol Mother Nature will stop it for us. Kills me to hear and see these mutli billion mansions built on coastal or mountainous land that doesn't want them there.<br /><br />Animals no longer live where they are supposed to ... bees don't do it any more and birds and animals are becoming extinct and so on... pregnant women are advised not to eat fish! fish! for God's sake... fish... mercury poisoning... if the pollution makes us sick and kills us... then what the hell is it doing to our planet? bathing it in massage oil?<br /><br />I think conservation of our resources are necessary as you all obviously agree ... but these are man made intrusions and I believe that Mother Nature will eventually have enough of it and send for Noah and his fireproofed Ark.... and well, we better just get ourselves a ... fireproof environment going ... maybe that's why that idiot whatever was shot to the moon to see if there's water ... have mercy.<br /><br />Human's thirst for money is killing this planet ... from killing Toucans for their bills? good lord! and animals for their furs to chopping down this and that and putting in concrete parking lots and high rise apartment/office buildings ...<br /><br />I can tell you that when I lived in San Francisco in the late 60s ... and went back in the 80s? The numbskulls who built HUGE skyscrapers on FILLED in land!!! changed the climate... yes they did ... I'm on my soapbox... I really do get riled at the beauty of this country being overtaken by f'kng greed! hate it<br /><br />I think I would prefer the greed of someone selling firesuits and ice.... snake oil ....<br /><br />Carolyn !<br /></p></div></div></div></div></div><!-- cg8.c201.mail.mud.yahoo.com compressed/chunked Fri Nov 27 07:35:13 PST 2009 -->HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-12252792953591119822009-11-21T15:58:00.002-06:002010-09-24T11:25:28.360-05:00Taking Our Country Back.There is a way to take back our government which requires no outside help.<br /><br />Send the good guys money.<br />If they don't have to depend on corporate money they can afford to vote in our interests. <br /><br />Actually this is better than voting. They don't have to be your representative. And you have a Dislike button. You can send money to their opponent. Does not even have to be the other party.<br />I don't even think the amount of money makes that much difference.<br />You make a vote in Congress and your primary challenger suddenly gets a few thousand small donations? Somebody gonna be doin some crowin!HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-8476668537944464522009-11-17T12:36:00.002-06:002009-11-17T12:42:28.612-06:00What do Conservative Mean?What do Conservative Mean? A response to the attacks on the Liberal character<br /><br />If a Con is eating a candy bar and sees you coming he will gobble it down so he does not have to share.<br />A Con will keep his gas tank empty so he has an excuse not to take his car.<br />A Con believes if you steal, you should steal from a friend because they won't prosecute.<br />If a Con comes to dinner you hide the jewelry. If the End is good enough they can always justify the means. (Torture)<br />If a Con loses his job he will collect unemployment. IF you need to collect unemployment he will tell you to get a job.<br />A Con will use Medicare and call for government to get out of health care.<br />If a Con had to walk across the desert she would drink all her water before she started for two reasons. 1. It is heavy. 2. She might meet someone else who needs some. (Drill here. Drill now) She will die of thirst and blame it on Libs for being too lazy to bring her some water.<br /><br />A Con believes the first thing someone tells them and then spends the rest of his life defending that belief against all liberal facts. (Facts have a liberal bias)<br />A Con Believes his children should never learn anything his parents do not believe or think that they know. Hence, the attacks on education.<br />A Con is born a sinner and requires threats and occasional violence to behave.<br />A Con believes sending his neighbor's children overseas to dodge bullets is worth reducing the infinitesimal chance that he will have to deal with the threat personally even though he has a display case full of weapons designed to kill people for his own protection.<br />A Con believes cooperation is socialism unless you are cooperating with the competition - then it is called capitalism. <- Thx to Ron Autry on this one.HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-21229748778220472172009-11-17T12:24:00.002-06:002009-11-17T12:30:06.749-06:00A Day in the Life of a True ConservativeA Day in the Life of a True Conservative - Anonymous<br /><br />Joe Conservative wakes up in the morning and goes to the bathroom. He flushes his toilet and brushes his teeth, mindful that each flush & brush costs him about 43 cents to his privatized water provider. His wacky, liberal neighbor keeps badgering the company to disclose how clean and safe their water is, but no one ever finds out. Just to be safe, Joe Conservative boils his drinking water. <p>Joe steps outside and coughs–the pollution is especially bad today, but the smokiest cars are the cheapest ones, so everyone buys ‘em. Joe Conservative checks to make sure he has enough toll money for the 3 different private roads he must drive to work. There is no public transportation, so traffic is backed up and his 10 mile commute takes an hour.</p> <p>On the way, he drops his 12 year old daughter off at the clothing factory she works at. Paying for kids to go to private school until they’re 18 is a luxury, and Joe needs the extra income coming in. Times are hard and there’re no social safety nets.</p> <p>He gets to work 5 minutes late and misses the call for Christian prayer, and is immediately docked by his employer. He is not feeling well today, but has no health insurance, since neither his employer nor his government provide it, and paying for it himself is really expensive, since he has a precondition. He just hopes for the best.</p> <p>Joe’s workday is 12 hours long, because there is no regulation over working hours, and Joe will lose his job if he complains or unionizes. Today is an especially bad day. Joe’s manager demands that he work until midnight, a 16 hour day. Joe does, knowing that he’ll lose his job if he does not.</p> <p>Finally, after midnight, Joe gets to pick up his daughter and go home. His daughter shows him the deep cut she got on the industrial sewing machine today. Joe is outraged and asks why she doesn’t have metal mesh gloves or other protection. She says the company will not provide it and she’ll have to pay for it out of her own pocket. Joe looks at the wound and decides they’ll use an over the counter disinfectant and bandages until it heals. She’ll have a scar, but getting stitches at the emergency room is expensive.</p> <p>His daughter also complains that the manager made suggestive overtures towards her. Joe counsels her to be a “good girl” and not rock the boat, or she’ll get fired and they’ll be out the income.</p> <p>His daughter says she can’t wait until she’s 18 so she can vote for change or go to the Iraq War.</p> <p>They get home and there’s a message from his elderly father who can’t afford to pay his medical or heating bills. Joe can hear him coughing and shivering.</p> <p>Joe turns on the radio and the top story is a proposal in Congress to raise the voting age to 25. A rare liberal opinionator states that it’s an attempt to keep power out of the hands of working class Americans. The conservative host immediately quashes him, calling him “a utopian idealist,” and agreeing that people aren’t mature enough to make good choices until they’re at least 25.</p> <p>Joe chuckles at the wine-swilling, cheese eating liberal egghead and thinks, “Thank God I live in America where I have freedom!”</p>HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-44250224987449762762009-11-17T12:13:00.003-06:002009-11-17T12:35:02.231-06:00A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class RepublicanA Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican by John Gray<br /><br />Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.<br /><br />All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.<br /><br /><br />Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.<br /><br />Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-28161234732753752652009-11-14T09:27:00.006-06:002009-11-19T07:41:27.867-06:00Facts Have a Liberal BIas<div>Facts have a liberal bias,</div>So don't bring them here around me.<br /><div> </div><br /><div>Fox is fair and unbiased,</div>Only truth you can find on TV,<br /><div>Facts have a liberal bias,</div>Fox news is about liberty.<br /><div> </div><br /><div>Just like my girl in Saigon, </div>Rupert is kind and true.<br /><div>My 80 IQ makes it plain to me, </div>But Obama knows not what to do.<br /><div> </div><br /><div>My 80 IQ makes it plain to me, </div>But those Libs are too blind to see.<br /><div>George Soros' lies have closed all their eyes,</div>Next election say your good byes.<br /><div> </div><br /><div>Hot girls have their place </div>with soft boobs in lace,<br /><div>Truth right there in my face,<br />There on my Rupert TV.</div><br /><div> </div><br /><div>I know it 's true cuz Rupert says so, </div>And he'd never lie to me.<br /><div>But facts have a liberal bias,<br />So don't bring them here around me.</div><br /><div> </div><br /><div> </div>HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-37065915147599827942009-11-10T15:26:00.003-06:002009-11-21T15:45:17.960-06:00Don't Call Me RacistOh, God how I hate Obama,<br />From my head down to my knees.<br />But no, it's not his skin color.<br />It's just his policies.<br /><br />No, it's not his skin color,<br />My best friends are some of his kind<br />No, it's not his skin color,<br />It's just his policies.<br /><span class="text_exposed_hide"><span class="text_exposed_link"></span></span><span class="text_exposed_show"><br />Don't ask me why I don't like them,<br />I don't really know what they are.<br />So don't you start callin' me racist,<br />That is just course for your par.<br /><br />So, no, it's not his skin color,<br />It's just his policies.</span>HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-33190277391668467552009-11-07T19:28:00.001-06:002009-11-07T19:28:50.969-06:00Media Bias<h2> <a id="ctl00_cphCenter_ucPosts_rptPosts_ctl01_ucPost_hlTitle" href="http://catmanjoe.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/08/media_bias.thtml">Media Bias</a> </h2> <div class="byline"> Posted by Catman Joe on Saturday, November 08, 2008 9:32:01 AM </div> Part of the perceived (although I admit the media is biased) problem is that things that Cons perceive as very important are ones that liberals do not.<br /><br />When you sound bite Rev Wright. We check the content and come away concerned because Obama dis'ed the Rev. The Rev made many very valid points. Yes, he did exaggerate some for effect, but that is part of his job and we are accustomed to that from hearing the rantings of the honorable opposition.<br /><br />Liberals believe that association with people of differing views is a good thing. We also remember the stupid things we did when young. Ayers was seen as a hero of the revolution, whether you agree with his methods or not.<br /><br />We don't care if Obama is a Muslim or an Arab or where he was born. The anti-Christ thing was very amusing, though.<br /><br />Politico, who purportedly tries to be fair, was very concerned about the allegations of bias and checked their stories. It was true there was an imbalance between positive and negative stories between camps. But the problem was that one camp was doing positive things while the other was doing negative things.<br /><br />The fact that you think right wing radio and Fox News are fair and balanced might be part of the perceived problem.<br /><br />News used to be a cost center in "the public interest" and if you presented one side you had to have an argument for the other side. That was the "fairness doctrine" which you fear so much even though I have yet to find anyone in favor of reinstating that.<br /><br />It used to be illegal to own more than one or two media outlets. Particularly in the same market. Local media used to be truly local and served in the "local" public interest or a periodic revue could take their license to use the public bandwidth. Yes, it does still belong to us.<br /><br />It is a fine thing that you now see the problem with the MSM, which we more accurately refer to as the corporate media whose purpose is profit. It looks like the "free market" is about to thin the herd.<br /><br />America has always had biased media, but both sides used to be represented and and did not try to convince the public that they were "fair and balanced".<br /><br />Obama once said he was in favor of breaking up the media monopolies, then wisely shut up about it. Right on!HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-68538305054731642992009-11-07T19:19:00.001-06:002011-04-11T09:33:36.824-05:00The Fascist Shell Game<h2> </h2><h2><a id="ctl00_cphCenter_ucPosts_rptPosts_ctl02_ucPost_hlTitle" href="http://catmanjoe.blogtownhall.com/2008/08/26/the_fascist_shell_game.thtml">The Fascist Shell Game</a></h2> <h2> </h2> <div class="byline"> Posted by Catman Joe on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:02:44 AM </div> <br /><span style="font-family:Arial,Arial,Helvetica;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><em><strong>Mussolini defines fascism as "the merger of corporate and government power" </strong><br /><br /><a title="How does the current climate compare to past fascist regimes?" href="http://oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm">How does the current climate compare to past fascist regimes?</a><br /></em></span></span><br /><h3>Or maybe what we have is a plutacracy.<br /></h3> <h3>Definition of <em>Plutacracy</em></h3> <div align="left"> <p><hw>Plu*toc"ra*cy</hw> (?), <pos><em>n.</em></pos> [Gr. &?;; &?; wealth + &?; to be strong, to rule, fr.&?; strength: cf. F. <em>plutocratie</em>.] <def>A form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the wealthy classes; government by the rich; also, a controlling or influential class of rich men.</def></p> <table> <tbody> </tbody> </table> </div> <div style="margin-top: 5px;" align="right"><strong><em> - Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (1913)</em></strong></div><br /><span style="font-size:12pt;"> Jefferson was very concerned about this.</span><br /><br />“Stock dealers and banking companies, by the aid of a paper system, are enriching themselves TO THE RUIN OF OUR COUNTRY and swaying the government by their possession of the printing presses, which their wealth commands, and by other means not always honorable to the character of our countrymen.” <span style="font-size:85%;">? Thomas Jefferson, <em> Ford 7:170</em> (1797)<br /><br /><span style="font-size:12pt;">Problem is...if we know this is what they are up to we might decide to resist this arrangement. We can be an awful pain. There are just so damned many of us.<br /><br />So we must be deceived. One of the ways to accomplish this is the shell game. A pea and three walnut shells is all we need for this game. The object is to keep our eyes on the right hand waving the shells around while the left hand scoops up the pea.<br /><br />In this case the right hand and shells are issues that they don't really care about. But if they can find some that split us somewhere near the middle and we can be very emotional about, then they have a good right hand issue. You know the ones they found.<br /><br />Another good right hand distraction is fear. Be afraid. Be very afraid. But they will protect us if you just don't watch that left hand.<br /><br />Now throw in some anger. Look at those guys! It is all their fault. Now they have us insulting each other with so much venom we don't care what they do with that left hand.<br /><br />Another good trick is the expert witness. Nothing better than an economist because nobody really understands economy. Not even the experts. But they can talk smack with so many six bit words that we can't work a dictionary fast enough. Besides that they sprinkle in a bunch of euphemisms and if you do get all the words straight you find out many are ambiguous.<br /><br />Geenspan is a master. Now throw in a great salesman with "child that's grown old" charm like Reagan and we are putty. They tell us that if we give tax cuts to the rich we will have more money. What we look like, fools? Oh no, they will hire us. Give us jobs to make stuff that no one has the money to buy. Oh, well, of course. How silly of us to doubt you.<br /><br />They don't care if you see yourself as liberal or conservative, whether or not you hate gays or love guns, nor what religion you are or whether you believe in God. If you are passionate about it and hate the other side, that will do. It is all gold. Just don't watch the left hand.<br /><br />I know you can't resist trying to figure out which shell that pea is under, just keep your hand on your wallet.<br /></span></span>HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-52809264183676658502009-11-07T19:13:00.001-06:002009-11-07T19:19:31.935-06:00“There’s class warfare, all right”Posted by Catman Joe on Sunday, August 24, 2008 10:50:19 PM<br /><br />“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”<br /><br />Found a nice NY Times article finding this quote. By a conservative who still remembers what conservative means.<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html<br /><br />Mr Buffett did an office survey and found that he pays less tax as a percentage of income than anyone else in his office. And he does not employ fancy accounting or special cuts.<br /><br />There has been a concerted attack on the middle class since Reagan was elected. Greenspan has overseen the war until recently.<br /><br />Some conservative thought sees it as justified by the unrest of the sixties. See what happens when the rabble have too much time on their hands? Everyone could afford college even working minimum wage jobs. Of course the minimum wage was about 8$ in todays dollars. The corporate rate was 52% and some paid up to 91% on income over about $3,000,000.<br /><br />Terrible times, right? The average annual GDP growth rates was 4.4%. Terrible? Not so much. In fact it was wonderful fun. We applied great pressure on government and society.<br /><br />We found out that our dear Uncle Sam would lie to us and because our parents still trusted the government that they lied to us, too. We discovered that our teachers and our textbooks lied to us. Skepticism and critical thinking ran rampant. Who could we trust?<br /><br />So thinking for ourselves we saw what was not right. Very disconcerting to our parents. And our teachers and our government and a conservative named William Buckley who figured that if we were busy scratching out a living we would be less troublesome. He was right. It took him a long time to convince enough people and get some of them in power. Then came Reagan.<br /><br />First thing Reagan did as governor of California was do away with free higher education. Then as President he told us tax cuts for the rich would increase productivity (more jobs) and everyone would be better off. How was he going to pay for it? No prob. The increased productivity would more than make up for it with additional tax revenue. A year later we were up to our ears in debt. Oops, what do we do now?<br /><br />Get Greenspan, he can fix it. And he did. He spun a story about a snake eating a chicken or something and pointed to us trouble makers and said we were the chicken and social security was going bankrupt all because of us. Well, he was a good salesman and so was Reagan. We bought it. Although the system was designed to break even every year with the current workers paying for the current retired, we, those vile boomers were going to pay not only for all the retirees throughout our working lives but for our own as well.<br /><br />The increased Social security rates were brutal. The lowest paid workers paid the same rate as the middle class. But not the rich. And if you wanted to start a lemonade stand you had to pay double. This is regressive taxation at it's finest. Right there with sales tax on food.<br /><br />The good news is all that fresh green disguised the failure of supply side economics. Of course when they took the money they promised they would save it for our retirement, but letting politicians hold your money is unwise.<br /><br />Next, the facts of minimum wages, unemployment, supply and demand, tax cuts for the rich, and the shell game to keep us from noticing that the hand in our back pocket does not belong to a sweet young thing.HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185014327504475003.post-37092810498882706172009-11-07T16:33:00.004-06:002009-11-08T15:27:28.898-06:00Daddy, Did You Get a Job?Here, take this gold band you gave me,<br />Take it and hear my plea.<br />Get what you can then keep it as close,<br />As close as I've kept it to me.<br /><br />Gramma found diapers in the attic,<br />We can use those for now.<br />Not yet time to panic,<br />We will get by somehow.<br /><br />I close that door, turn to it my back<br />And carefully step over that crack,<br />Climb in the truck, look at the gauge,<br />Will that sliver of red get me back?<br /><br />A salesman has got to be confident<br />And up beat and bright eyed to sell.<br />It's hard with this dark cloud around me,<br />And me is what I have to sell.<br /><br />Better leave that ring in this bowl,<br />If I feel it in my pocket<br />while selling me to that man,<br />That black cloud will eat up my soul.<br /><br />The Shiner at the bar tasted good.<br />Getting home on that sliver is tough.<br />Honey, not much for the ring.<br />The beer on my breath calls my bluff.<br /><br />I step through that door,<br />a notice lays on the floor,<br />And hear my little man say,<br />Daddy, did you get a job?<br /><br />It's Momma's birthday today,<br />And at Chucky Cheese I will play.<br />I'll win her a ring for that finger<br />that she has been rubbing all day.<br />Oh, Daddy did you get a job?HempTwisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02771398000517026853noreply@blogger.com0