Michael D. Higgins: President Of Ireland

Submitted by: madest 4 years ago

Higgins takes on an American Tea Partier, Michael Graham on Irish radio.
There are 83 comments:
Male 5,811
@HA: i don`t really need help arguing for universal healthcare, but your example of how your government spends more publicly does a good job of showing how a universal system actually decreases the amount of public spending, thanks!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]i don`t really need help arguing for universal healthcare, but your example of how your government spends more publicly does a good job of showing how a universal system actually decreases the amount of public spending, thanks![/quote]
If you truely believe that, then you`ve drank the Kool-Aid my friend. Showing that our system spends more public money than yours (per capita of course - standardization is key) defeats your argument that our system is "more privatized."

I would expect a scientist to know better.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: i don`t really need help arguing for universal healthcare, but your example of how your government spends more publicly does a good job of showing how a universal system actually decreases the amount of public spending, thanks!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: I think I`ve finally got you figured out. As far as I can tell, you agree that we are headed in the wrong direction. Is that fair?

Yet, for some reason, in every debate we have, you insist of varying that direction by only a fraction of a degree.

The analogy I`ve provided is sound. You cannot judge one system based on another. To further my color analogy, I cannot use pink (a shade of red - arguably) as evidence for my argument that red is awesome. In addition, I do not accept your claim that the US system is "more privatized." Consider the amount of public funding per unit population from both our countries, and it is obvious that ours is more public in nature than even yours.

[quote]I`d like to see you put up some numbers for cost of healthcare before 1960[/quote]
I`ll see what I can find. I am referencing research done during my college years.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
If you really want to compare a completely private system to a completely public one, then it`s a philosophical debate and you can`t use any real-world numbers or examples in your arguments. You have to argue the ideal private system to the ideal public system, that is a fair debate. You can`t require one standard of measure for one and a different one for the other.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]but I assure you that technology changed between 1900 and 1965 as well, as costs were much more stable during that timeframe. [/quote]
Technology changed more between 1950-1980 than the time frame you describe, but that`s neither here nor there. I`d like to see you put up some numbers for cost of healthcare before 1960, as I`ve been looking and have a hard time finding anything. Source your claim.

[quote]Let us consider red to be good, and yellow to be bad. Can we compare orange to red and use that as evidence that yellow is bad? No... They`re still all merely wavelength[/quote]
That`s the best you`ve got? A comparison to colour? The logic is sound, there should be at least *some* improvement if policies of a system you describe are used. There are none.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]That`s because I can`t compare real stats and numbers to leprechauns.[/quote]
See before 1965. This was the "de facto" standard before Medicare and Medicaid. Now I know you will argue that it is old, and technology changes, but I assure you that technology changed between 1900 and 1965 as well, as costs were much more stable during that timeframe.

[quote]then it stands to reason that following it partially should produce partially better results[/quote]
Let us consider red to be good, and yellow to be bad. Can we compare orange to red and use that as evidence that yellow is bad? No... They`re still all merely wavelengths.

[quote]This is not the case. Healthcare costs should always rise with time, because you have a bigger population requiring more services.[/quote]
You`re graph is cost/GDP. This adjusts for population... This point is invalid for the discussion.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]By showing that your model (public) is cheaper per unit than our "more privatized model" you fail to show that your model (public) is cheaper than a private system.[/quote]
That`s because I can`t compare real stats and numbers to leprechauns. If an ideology is really better than others at producing general prosperity or fiscal benefits, then it stands to reason that following it partially should produce partially better results. This is not the case. Healthcare costs should always rise with time, because you have a bigger population requiring more services. The difference is the amount with which the costs increase. If you want to talk about reasonable arguments, suggesting a model which doesn`t exist is a pretty poor argument, because how can either of us know how exactly it will work? Do you have any small-scale examples that we can compare?
0
Reply
Male 75
Most of the arguments angst universal health care center around the fact of can`t afford it don`t use it. EVERYONE WILL USE THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!! whether or not you can afford it. You don`t have a choice. You will get sick, you will get hurt. Why should someone declare bankruptcy because they got sick. Did you ask to get sick. Did you do something on purpose to get a infection?
That`s right you chose to slip on ice. You found the sickest person you could find and share a drink out of the same cup with them. You put cancer up your own ass.
Thats why our health insurance keeps going up.
Thats why meds cost more.
Thats why hospitals keep closing.
ER`s have to treat you. Dr.s are sworn to save lives and they will. But will I pay a $10,000 ER bill for breaking my ankle? If you think I will your out of your damm mind.
Think I walk into a ER with ID. HA! Its free one way or another. Someone else will pay for it one way or another. At least with universal EVERYONE PA
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]When it comes down to the health of a nation`s people, you should be looking for the best care, not the best bang for your buck, although that too seems to be the public system.[/quote]
Now this is a much more reasonable argument. The issue still is this though: we cannot afford it. In life, what happens when you cannot afford something as an individual? Do you get to have it? No, of course not.

Yet here we have a government that cannot afford much right now (consider our debt and budget gaps) yet you still insist on spending. Unfortunately, you cannot spend money you do not have. Therefore, the government would be forced to increase revenue (higher taxes, borrowing, printing, inflation, etc.) to subsidize it. To me, this is nonsensical.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: I`m referring to increased costs (that is afterall what I stated). Your graph demonstrates my point perfectly. In each one of these situations - including the US - a public healthcare option was created and healthcare costs immediately increased.

I appreciate the help and all but I was doing fine on my own =). Thank you though.

Now, to address your need to compare total public healthcare with a "more privatized system" - this is poor reasoning. By showing that your model (public) is cheaper per unit than our "more privatized model" you fail to show that your model (public) is cheaper than a private system. Afterall, as you suggest, there still exists plenty of intervention.

[quote]the fact is that more government intervention leads to 1) better care, and 2) cheaper care[/quote]
This fact has strong evidence in the contrary (see my first paragraph).
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Now, I can already hear you foaming at the mouth about how "government intervention" is the problem (because single-villain ideologies never get old), but the fact is that more government intervention leads to 1) better care, and 2) cheaper care. When it comes down to the health of a nation`s people, you should be looking for the best care, not the best bang for your buck, although that too seems to be the public system.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Every instance of a public health option EVER has led to higher costs.[/quote]
If you`re referring to initial costs, then yes. In Canada, after universal care, costs went up right away, and closed the %GDP gap between Canada and the US. But if you look at the cost over time, ours is dwarfed by your wasteful system. The government monopoly on healthcare allows for better prices on drugs, more of the money goes to actual care, and our administration costs are lower than yours. It`s eerily similar to your argument that Keynesian economics more-or-less works in the short term, but is not great in the long term. The same applies with universal care. This shows the difference in cost as %GDP and you can see that a more privatized system leads to *much* larger costs in the long term.

0
Reply
Male 2,357
@abrxax: [quote]Any who disagrees with universal health care for all US citizens is a rich retard[/quote]
I disagree and I am middle class; by no means am I rich.

There are too many arguments against what you consider "universal health care" that I cannot hope to cover but a fraction of them. That being said, here goes:

1. Healthcare was more affordable BEFORE Medicare/Medicaid. Every instance of a public health option EVER has led to higher costs.
2. Since we are a federal republic, it is the right of the states to decide of public health policy.
3. For every $1 dispersed by the government, $5 goes to bureaucracy. With private charity, that figure drops to $0.33.
4. Government regulation creates base operating points arbitrarily, thus creating artifical cost floors.

[quote]Oh ya and too big to fail is too big to exist.[/quote]
I agree; they would have been unable without government.

0
Reply
Male 75
Oh ya and too big to fail is too big to exist.

They wanted our money and they got it any way they could.
0
Reply
Male 75
Any who disagrees with universal health care for all US citizens is a rich retard. Before I got a job with good health care I used to keep a suture kit in my house. Its a horrible, horrible thing to have to stitch yourself up from a cut feeling it because "I can`t afford to goto a ER" How can anyone justify someone not having access to affordable, available basic health care. I want to know your argument but I really don`t care about it.
0
Reply
Female 298
FKING A!!
0
Reply
Male 15,832
What a loud-mouthed, arrogant little prick! From his holier-than-thou attitude, you would never know his pooty "country" is in the midst of a total f***ing economic collapse.

Yeah, let`s take our economic advice from this Guinness-swilling retard.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@madest: [quote]It was greedy rich people looking for a quick buck.[/quote]

Yes - and without the assistance of Freddy and Fannie, they would not have been successful to the extent of economic collapse. Congratulations on agreeing with me - I know it wasn`t your intention.

See @madest, what you continue to fail to realize is that business is very much like a human being - greedy, selfish, and limited by finance. Much a like a person, business has endless wants, yet limited means. Unfortunately, in this case, the government removed the "limited means" aspect.

Imagine someone giving you a firearm and filling the room with hundreds of copies of me. That person tells you it`s wrong to shoot anybody, but you will not suffer any consequences if you do. You would shoot all of my copies. Understand?
0
Reply
Male 1,745
this is a heavily edited version, listen to full version for the complete-ass-tearing. our politicians seem like idiots compared to foreign ones.
0
Reply
Male 2,384
YEA!!!!
0
Reply
Male 2,988
haha that Irishman tore into his ass
0
Reply
Male 7,378
It wasn`t Freddie and Fannie that destroyed the economy. It was greedy rich people looking for a quick buck. Predatory bankers, Investment banks, Insurance companies, Ratings agencies, The SEC and even House Flippers. Your finger pointing at Freddie and Fannie proves you have no clue as to what you`re talking about.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
I`m inclined to agree with the sentiments presented, especially on the notion that there should be a social floor that no-one should fall through in any responsible society. But then, I`m Irish, so I`m probably biased.

Oh, almost forgot. The other sentiment I agree with is the tea party being a pack of wankers. And that`s nothing to do with being Irish.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@mesovortex: [quote]If anything Obama reversed quite a bit of damage and even though the economy is stagnant, it`s not tanking or on the verge of collapse like it was in 2008.[/quote]
This is incorrect. The damage has not been reversed, merely temporarily mitigated by printing, manipulating interest rates, and borrowing (among others).

I`m sorry, but you cannot spend your way out of a recession. You must back away and allow the market to reset. Eventually, Obama will no longer be able to "hold up" the housing market and it will crash/reset. By prolonging this, it makes the eventual collapse more catastrophic.

What I am saying is that, in the short-term - it`s great policy for individuals. In the long-term, it is terrible policy for the economy (and subsequently the individual).
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@mesovortex: [quote]Since they began to be apparent in 2008 when Bush was in office it`s obvious the causes were up to and including 2008.[/quote]
I believe I`ve stated that I agree with this position.

[quote]The real reasons were the actions by congress in the late 90s to deregulate the banks.[/quote]
The number one cause of the economic crash was the housing market crash. Study the federal practice of buying subprime mortgages and you will see that they caused the crash. The government was foolish to "deregulate" the banks while supporting and anti-free market by backing poor loaning. If the government would have stayed out of it, the banks making these loans would have run out of money and would have stopped.

Instead, the government continued to gobble up (and encourage) this behavior. It is impossible for this situation to occur in a free market system.
0
Reply
Male 458
HumanAction:
" Economic stagnation is the result of Obama`s policies."

Since they began to be apparent in 2008 when Bush was in office it`s obvious the causes were up to and including 2008. The real reasons were the actions by congress in the late 90s to deregulate the banks.

If anything Obama reversed quite a bit of damage and even though the economy is stagnant, it`s not tanking or on the verge of collapse like it was in 2008.
0
Reply
Male 768
WORD!!
0
Reply
Male 427
I really like Michael D. Higgins.
0
Reply
Male 646
The Tea Party - wankers whipping up fear.

I love this guy.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@mesovortex: [quote]That`s akin to saying "Bush, it`s all your fault we have Obama as president"[/quote]
I was running out of characters so I shortened it; I was assuming that you would be clever enough to figure that out - now I know better for next time.

I was suggesting that many liberals I know tend to blame Bush entirely for problems clearly related to Obama`s faults. Economic stagnation is the result of Obama`s policies. The initial decline was a result of the policies of Clinton and Bush.

[quote]Actually, I`m not even sure what your point is.[/quote]
I will try to keep things simple for you henceforth.
0
Reply
Male 458
HumanAction:
"@mesovortex: Many liberals I know blame Bush for Obama..."

Are you sure? That doesn`t sound like any liberals I know. Maybe you`re not hearing what they`re actually saying. In fact, blaming Bush for Obama is not something I think any liberal would do. That`s akin to saying "Bush, it`s all your fault we have Obama as president".

Actually, I`m not even sure what your point is.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@jamie76: [quote]However, the second you suggest that taxes could be used to pay for healthcare the Tea Party and right wingers go crazy...tell me how that works again?[/quote]
First off, I`m not a Tea Partier - they`ve taken on a social element since their creation that I do not agree with. That being said, I think the issue isn`t so much whether or not the taxes can be collected. To me, the issue seems to be where it`s collected and who uses it. The idea of having the states collect and disperse MOST taxation (except those things listed in the Constitution) provides a push-back mechanism against the federal government. It is merely a check and balance.

For instance, RomneyCare is OK because it is done by the state. ObamaCare is not OK because it removes the ability to institute public health policy from the state.

@mesovortex: Many liberals I know blame Bush for Obama...
0
Reply
Male 458
HumanAction:
"It was implied when you took an opposing stance on my joke about liberals blaming Bush for everything wrong with Obama."

I know many liberals. None of them blame the things they don`t like about Obama on Bush.
0
Reply
Male 2,345
Tea Party says taxes are bad.

m`kay...no more roads, schools, defense, police, fire dept., water works, energy, etc.

okay even the Tea Party agrees that we need those things I mentioned above. However, the second you suggest that taxes could be used to pay for healthcare the Tea Party and right wingers go crazy...tell me how that works again?

taxes are good for all those other things but not the single most important thing that we all need, healthcare???

the defense budget is about 700 billion a year...our annual budget is about 2 trillion. you see the problem there right?

we cannot have a rich, prosporse country with a gov that is capable of returning to us needed services for the tax dollars we give them if one program, defense, takes up over 25% of the budget.

BTW the US spends only 3% a year of its budget on education (that is a fact not an estimate).

to learn more about why we are so poor in this country read this web
0
Reply
Female 7,838
Ok- he was bloody annoying- and did not let his opponent speak- so no actual debate happened there. He made some good points though....and I love the idea of a fear-wanker!!!!
Oh- to those of you who think Obama is a socialist- go check a dictionary and do a bit of reading...
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@madest: [quote]Well if uninsured losers didn`t end up at the emergency room looking for help we wouldn`t need national healthcare. Blame your uninsured, inbred, deadbeat, friends not the government.[/quote]
The insight you continue to submit to the conversation continues to stun and amaze. Congratulations to you, sir! Your level of comprehension knows no equal.

@Langer: [quote]the Irish presidency is a non-executive position so not really, it`s more of a PR job and they can refer legislation to the supreme court before signing but most things are handled by the Dail[/quote]
Fair enough - though it misses the point I was going after. The point was that we too commonly excuse or glorify the actions of one person based on the actions of another; I just did it in a rather exaggerative way.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
What I really don`t like about this president is that he wouldn`t let the person he was having a conversation with speak. That`s extremely rude. It wasn`t even a debate. Anyone can look good if they`re the only one talking.

He`s also probably deflecting from the horrible state of his own country, one of the PIIGS that is destroying the Eurozone. When things are bad in your own country, it`s always good to rally your people by making yourself appear to have the moral high ground. Only thing is - he and basically all the Irish parties are perpetuating PIIGS and going to turn Ireland back into a $hithole. Same thing goes for most other countries in the region..
0
Reply
Male 395
[quote]Yet GDP, GNP, and housing prices continue to decline in Ireland. Is this going to be one of those "George Bush caused all of Obama`s problems" things? [/quote]

the Irish presidency is a non-executive position so not really, it`s more of a PR job and they can refer legislation to the supreme court before signing but most things are handled by the Dail

in fact his predecessors did fantastic jobs

aaaanyway....sorry for going off topic, continue raging about Obama seeing as that`s such as rarely discussed subject
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]This universal health care requires you to buy insurance from one of many PRIVATE CORPORATIONs. [/quote] -----------------
Well if uninsured losers didn`t end up at the emergency room looking for help we wouldn`t need national healthcare. Blame your uninsured, inbred, deadbeat, friends not the government.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@FoolsPrussia

They call that an oligarchy and it`s always been taken advantage of by those who`ve been handed it.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@FoolsPrussia: [quote]That is the government requiring you to purchase from the free market[/quote]
Try this one: A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

So how is it that you believe your above statement does NOT satisfy this definition? Seems you`ve only managed to read the Wikipedia edition.

[quote]So we do have socialist health care already in the form of the Veterans Health Administration[/quote]
Yes, it is socialist in nature.
0
Reply
Male 1,136
Silly Leprechauns and their silly little minds.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
`Universal healthcare - `nuff said`

This universal health care requires you to buy insurance from one of many PRIVATE CORPORATIONs. That is the government requiring you to purchase from the free market, with some very basic requirements placed upon the corporations regarding the care they provide their customers. Please read about what socialism is before you try to talk about it.

Socialism: `is an economic system characterised by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises`

So we do have socialist health care already in the form of the Veterans Health Administration. Obamacare is not a socialist program.
0
Reply
Male 1,010
Amazing :-) There are a lot of these fear- wankers, indeed.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@mesovortex: [quote]Huh? Who said I`m blaming Obama for what Bush did or Bush for what Obama did?[/quote]
It was implied when you took an opposing stance on my joke about liberals blaming Bush for everything wrong with Obama. Certainly Bush caused a variety of issues - I won`t argue that, but to ignore the stagnation caused by this administrations policies would be incredibly biased.
0
Reply
Male 458
McGovern1981:
"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."

That was from Regan`s 1983 State of the Union.

His 1982 State of the Union:
"In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a staggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed."
0
Reply
Male 458
HumanAction:
"Here`s the problem with your argument. You are insisting that we play by different rules depending on the person. You say we can blame Buchanan and Bush immediately. However, you insist that we cannot blame Obama until afterwards. The logic is simply wrong. "

Huh? Who said I`m blaming Obama for what Bush did or Bush for what Obama did?

There are things about Obama`s policies I don`t agree with, but I`m still voting for him because he`s a better alternative than Romney and he has done things in the last 4 years that I did agree with and want to continue including the AHA.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
and the other guy flip flops and belives in magical underware soooo ya.....
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@mesovortex: [quote]No. Buchanan`s failure was immediately known in 1860 before Lincoln was president. [/quote]
Here`s the problem with your argument. You are insisting that we play by different rules depending on the person. You say we can blame Buchanan and Bush immediately. However, you insist that we cannot blame Obama until afterwards. The logic is simply wrong.

To be credible, you must asset the same rules across the board. In this case, you`ve failed to do so.
0
Reply
Male 14,330

0
Reply
Male 2,357
@mesovortex: [quote]Government regulation is at its lowest.[/quote]
Good one - EPA.

[quote]We let the banks do whatever they wanted without government interference and look where it got us.[/quote]
Acutally, the government urged the collapse via buying up subprime mortgages through Fannie and Freddy. They also put into place a variety of policies urging lendors to pursue subprime mortgages. This is government intervention at its best.

[quote]We let companies do whatever they wanted and even monopolize on us and look where it got us.[/quote]
See above. You don`t understand economics very well do you?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@FoolsPrussia: [quote]Please explain how Obama has socialist tendencies. Obama has not presided over the large federal spending increase that you guys like to claim. Politifact has busted that assertion: [/quote]
This is a growth rate chart. Here`s an analogy:

Clinton smacks Hillary once a day, Bush smacks Laura twice a day, and Obama smacks Michelle thrice a day. Now, the growth of smacking increased 100% from Clinton to Bush, but only 50% from Bush to Obama. To you, this is apparently fantastic! Success indeed!

[quote]Please explain how Obama has socialist tendencies.[/quote]
Universal healthcare - `nuff said.
0
Reply
Male 546
Why would we care what he thinks?
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Also, THIS.
0
Reply
Male 458
FoolsPrussia:

That and the fact that the right wing and libertarians and tea party have no idea what socialism is, or what communism is, and often equate the two or conflate the two. Hell, even one guy on the right conflated communism with facism in a book. I`m not sure how he could even think he could pull that one off.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
`I`m not sure how you think this undermines the belief that Obama has socialistic tendencies. Do you suppose Stalin and his best friends were poor? Yet, the population on average was during his tenure. See?`

Please explain how Obama has socialist tendencies. Obama has not presided over the large federal spending increase that you guys like to claim. Politifact has busted that assertion:

`Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.`

Source
0
Reply
Male 458
Andrew155:
"No, we really won`t be paying off the Bush tax cuts and the wars - one of which was more or less mandatory in the beginning if you are honest. The cost of the wars is less than a trillion, it`s only above a trillion if you consider money that would`ve been spent anyway on the military. The tax cuts, these few percentage points amount to very little. You act like they`re responsible for a 1 trillion + deficit. In fact, if you taxed every rich person at 100%, you would not close the deficit. "

No I just want the rich to pay a fair tax rate. On the whole, if you want to be honest, taxes will have to increase across the board, and we`ll probably need a VAT to get out of debt. Cutting spending will not be enough.

As far as the Bush tax cuts go, it`s not a little. It`s a very large portion of our current deficit. Look it up.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
inability to manage our finances.
0
Reply
Male 458
HumanAction:
"Even better logic I must say. According to you, we can`t hold any person accountable because we can`t possibly know what the long term effects will be. I assume you now see the error of your ways. "

No. Buchanan`s failure was immediately known in 1860 before Lincoln was president.

You don`t know your history very well.

"The biggest issue right now is the stagnant economy."

Well taxes are at their lowest in history. Government regulation is at its lowest. That doesn`t seem to be working. We let the banks do whatever they wanted without government interference and look where it got us. We let companies do whatever they wanted and even monopolize on us and look where it got us. Yet Norway is economically in the black, and they, to you, would be considered Socialist.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
"If you think the disparity of wealth between the richest and poorest americans isn`t a problem right now, then you truly are in a libertarian`s fantasy land."

I hope you know that people have no incentive to get out of the lower class now. It`s actually harder to be in the lower middle class than the lower class. You don`t get food stamps (the budget of which is 4 times that of NASA now), medicaid, government housing. If your income surpasses the threshold for these, and other, programs - you lose them.

Since the 1960`s, we have spent TRILLIONS (I believe over 15 trillion in total) on the war on poverty. The total poverty rate during which has not improved! Despite all of the money, the poverty rate hasn`t improved.

There are things the government can do, but things like food stamps for all - literally to the fattest Americans - are a joke.

There is no money. It`s not a joke that our country will be doomed to actual poverty due to our ina
0
Reply
Male 2,578
FoolsPrussia - nearly every party in Europe that has taken power since the beginning of the crisis has enacted policies that are equally, if not more, detrimental to the crisis. Hollande lowering the retirement to 35 years old is a good example. So stimulative.

mesovortex - No, we really won`t be paying off the Bush tax cuts and the wars - one of which was more or less mandatory in the beginning if you are honest. The cost of the wars is less than a trillion, it`s only above a trillion if you consider money that would`ve been spent anyway on the military. The tax cuts, these few percentage points amount to very little. You act like they`re responsible for a 1 trillion + deficit. In fact, if you taxed every rich person at 100%, you would not close the deficit.

And bottom line, rich people don`t make poor people poor! Steve Jobs being rich doesn`t make people poor. It makes them richer by having access to technology rich people didn`t have only a few years prior!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@FoolsPrussia: [quote]Thank you for making the very point that undermines conservative attacks of Obama being a socialist.[/quote]
I`m not sure how you think this undermines the belief that Obama has socialistic tendencies. Do you suppose Stalin and his best friends were poor? Yet, the population on average was during his tenure. See?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@mesovortex: [quote]Sometimes presidents do things that last more than a few years. We`ll be paying off the Bush tax cuts and the two foreign wars he wanted for a VERY long time.[/quote]
Even better logic I must say. According to you, we can`t hold any person accountable because we can`t possibly know what the long term effects will be. I assume you now see the error of your ways.

[quote]If you think the disparity of wealth between the richest and poorest americans isn`t a problem right now, then you truly are in a libertarian`s fantasy land.[/quote]
The biggest issue right now is the stagnant economy. Without restoring that the disparity can only continue to grow. It`s very simple economics my friend. The rich save money during economic hardships - they do not become poor. Therefore, economy is the root issue. Thanks for playing though - it`s been a treat.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
`Is it because the number of billionaires in the US has steadily risen since 2009?`

Thank you for making the very point that undermines conservative attacks of Obama being a socialist.
0
Reply
Male 458
"How many tears have you been swimming in so far? I mean, it`s been 4 years already right? Oh... you haven`t gone swimming? Oh I see. Is it because the number of billionaires in the US has steadily risen since 2009?"

If you think the disparity of wealth between the richest and poorest americans isn`t a problem right now, then you truly are in a libertarian`s fantasy land.
0
Reply
Male 458
HumanAction:
"Come to think of it, there would we one nice benefit if Obama won this election - we wouldn`t be able to continue to blame Bush for Obama`s economic failings. Nevermind - the libs would still blame Bush even after 8 years. "

Amazing logic there. I guess we can`t hold Lincoln responsible for the emancipation proclamation since it`s been over 8 years, or Buchanan for ignoring the problems of an emerging civil war since it`s been over 8 years, or even give Roosevelt or Truman credit for WWII since it`s been over 8 years.

Sometimes presidents do things that last more than a few years. We`ll be paying off the Bush tax cuts and the two foreign wars he wanted for a VERY long time.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
His accent makes me want to squish his little cheeks.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Looks like I have a "This has been submitted already" email coming!

Incidently, I love this guy. He`s a hero.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@madest: [quote]The best thing about Obama winning this next election will be swimming in the tears of billionaires.[/quote]
How many tears have you been swimming in so far? I mean, it`s been 4 years already right? Oh... you haven`t gone swimming? Oh I see. Is it because the number of billionaires in the US has steadily risen since 2009?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
The best thing about Obama winning this next election will be swimming in the tears of billionaires.
0
Reply
Male 1,497
That man should be the American President. You would all be better off, hell, we`d be better off.
0
Reply
Male 37,903

Auburnjunky - Medicaid does not cover you just because you are poor. You have to be unable to work to qualify, so an unemployed guy does not get to see a doctor until an illness has progressed to the point that he goes on disability. Preventative public healthcare would be cheeper.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]Elected in 2011, after the banking crisis had already begun.[/quote]
Yet GDP, GNP, and housing prices continue to decline in Ireland. Is this going to be one of those "George Bush caused all of Obama`s problems" things?

Come to think of it, there would we one nice benefit if Obama won this election - we wouldn`t be able to continue to blame Bush for Obama`s economic failings. Nevermind - the libs would still blame Bush even after 8 years.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
"I think that the poorest people should be entitled to basic healthcare."

THEY ARE! It`s called MEDICAID!
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Made it 8 seconds. His voice cracked me up.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
`... says the man with the failing country.`

Elected in 2011, after the banking crisis had already begun.
0
Reply
Male 37,903

I love that leprechaun accent.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
LOL Tea Party lunatic gets his ass handed to him by an angry leprechaun!

0
Reply
Male 7,123
Getting called a wanker by a President is pretty impressive.
0
Reply
Male 645
Erin go Bragh!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
... says the man with the failing country.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Link: Michael D. Higgins: President Of Ireland [Rate Link] - Higgins takes on an American Tea Partier, Michael Graham on Irish radio.
0
Reply