The crowd is really big this time. I think Sen. Brownback is one to watch.

Biden would make the best President, but he probably does not have the cash or media appeal of Clinton.

Hilary would not be my first choise as the democratic candidate however I would vote for a tree stump over a republican. Why? Because I don't agree with the Republican position on Stem Cell Research, Gay Marriage, Abortion, the right to die with dignaty and to top is off they are only now just coming over to the "Get out of Iraq" team. And because Chimpy is a criminal and has brought down his party with him.

My first choise would be Sen. Russ Feingold then Al Gore but neither are running.

I am a single parent who works very hard to support my daughter. My company contributes to health care coverage but I still must pay over three hundred dollars a month for an HMO. Nearly forty percent of my paycheck goes towards taxes - social security, medicare, federal, state, etc.

When Hilary announced "Universal Health Care" I nearly threw up. I already support two welfare recipients, sure let me pay for health care for a few more people. And add a few illegals too. Yeah, I can just see it now. Waiting in line for Medicare style coverage. The middle class gets screwed again.

no thanks!

Strange comments "Sick to my stomach". Under Universal healthcare you would not be paying $300 a month, you WOULD pay much less and have better coverage. Did you know that currently the profit for insurance companies is 30%? They call the other 70% "medical losses" meaning money they pay for your health they consider a loss. The CEO's of the insurance companies all received compensation in the 6 to 12 million dollar range in 2006. They care about profits, not your health.

Just think of the higher productivity when labor & management no longer need to battle over benefits. Or the boost to education when kids no longer need to show up in class with debilitating hearing losses due to their parent's inability to pay for an antibiotic. Or the immense cost savings when the next viral pandemic hits and almost no one is forced to go get on a crowded subway car, coughing and wheezing. Let's face it, the only reason "stomach" is paying $300 a month is because Washington stole that money from her and gave it to the Nation's executives.

GS,
Currently we pay the most for health care in the world, but guess what? The World Health Organization has us ranked 37th between Costa Rica and Slovenia!

http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/hillary_in_08

"They care about profits, not your health."

And that's precisely why it works. Profit, in a free system, is a measure of utility added to the system, or benefit confered. It the organizers of a hospital weren't worried about profit, there would be less reason to worry about efficiency or custom satisfaction. Even in places like Europe and Canada, with their socialized medicine, we hear horror stories about how long it takes for spot to open up in the hospital.

"the only reason "stomach" is paying $300 a month is because Washington stole that money from her and gave it to the Nation's executives."

How did "Washington" steal money and give it to executives? What on earth are you talking about? It's one thing to say that corporations are price gouging, and that since basic health care is a inelastic good there is no check on the system. It's quite another to say that the government is stealing money (from whom?) and giving to executives, and as a result, subscribers are forced to pay high premiums.

Owen, we've discussed these points at length. On the matter of stealing from Stomach and giving to executives, you may have forgotten that recently a lot of middle class tax deductions were either cut or lessened, at the same time that Congress gave BigOil (which was already makign record profits) a $14B tax cut plus other new deductions. That act of corporate welfare did not end up making BigOil more productive nor help lower costs for the consumer. Not by a logn shot. What ended up happening is that BigOil execs across the board received immense year end bonuses, including a total of $4B to the key execs at just Exxon & Mobil. Similar tax hikes and corporate welfare payments have been accumulating since 2001, little by little...and they're killing this Country.

You dont see a correlation between Stomach having to pay MORE and these execs getting MORE?

GS,
I think Owen, like many conservatives, suffers from "Stockholm Syndrome". They are abused to the the point that they actually start to defend their abusers. They will let Wall St. steal their health care and benefits, cut their pay and their workers rights and then they will thank Wall St. for the abuse and say "Please sir, may I have another".

You guys need to go back to school and take a few economics classes. The liberal lemmings on this site have lost all ability to think for themselves.

I wouldn't be lobbing crtiques at liberals, Crazy Libs, until conservatives can prove they can manage the economy better than they have for the past 35 years a GOP president has sat in the Oval Office. According to OMB figures, in the past 30 years of each party's control of the White House, the deficit has risen an average of over 22% each year a GOP administration has controlled the White House versus an average of less than 4% each year a Dem President sat there.

Being a Conservative is NOT the same thing as being fiscally conservative. One is merely an overly egotistical label and proven to be unworthy of most that use it. The other is a distinction that is earned.

Government takes tax revenues and spends them unwisely!!! Never! Have you been listening to talk radio?? The government can only do good with its deserved take of our bread. One of the things that angered me most about the Kerry campaign of 2004 was his talk of raising taxes. I made $15,000 that year, and had to pay 20% in taxes. Teresa mades $5 million, and only paid 12%, then she has the gall to say that I need to pay more taxes. She uses her money to buy lawyers and benefit from legal loopholes, and as a result pays less proportionally than I do, but she still calls for me to pay more. The Republicans who were in office were not fiscally conservative, they followed a fundamentally liberal route - and you certainly won't see me defending that. I want a flat tax, no exemptions (though below poverty line pays nothing), and an end to corporate welfare - farm, business, industry, etc. Incidentally, there is much support in economic literature for deficit spending, and while Republicans may have used it more, it's a fundamentally Liberal idea.

Owne:

On Teresa: I think she was arguing for higher taxes for her income bracket. Aren't you assuming that she is paying the very least allowed under law? And I am interested how that 12% is being calculated as compared to your 20%. Are you speaking of federal taxes only? a combination of state and federal?

On deficts: Wouldn't you agree that there are times when deficit spending has economic advantages? The problems, as you indicate, involve deficits when public funds are used to benefit relatively few that is not in balance with the services or product they provide.

In short, isn't one the current problems with our current deficit spending that the money of the many is funneled to the few and then remains primarily in circulation among the few?

In my view, when money, through a variety of public and private economic development projects/processes/enterprise, improves
middle-income Americans, then money is circulated
more equitably and improves our country's wealth.

From my perspective and understanding, many current local, state, and federal policies have hurt middle-income and working-poor Americans.

As a recent UCLA graduate, I imagine you have personal insights into all the hidden taxes and
the lack of access to high quality public university education. Our state has not invested
in building UCs in proportion to our population growth for your generation and younger. The reduction in state and federal aid intensify the problem.

In 1976, when I graduated from high school, students were admitted to UCLA with 3.3 GPAs. And the current need for 4.0+ is not "grade inflation." As a former teacher who had some of the brightest and best prepared when I taught high school in low-to-middle income areas in Ventura County, I can attest that the best and better students of your generation and younger are brighter in a much more complex and interesting way and have had to preform at a much higher level than we were asked to. We, however, had access to more art, music, serious instruction and hands-on experience in journalism and government, and more hands-on experience for a variety kinds of work.

Last year's college admission process revealed that we have a dramatic increase in better prepared students ready to succeed at the best
public and private universities and colleges.

I hope more of your generation decide to enter
public service. Soon.

ML 1, Owen 0.

Owen, you've already upbraided those Republicans that won't stick to the party line, for the simple reason that by sticking to that line all Republicans are assured of getting achieving end goals. Now you say that you don't believe in the policies of those that have mismanaged the Economy since the 1970s. Are you also saying that you will continue to support these incompetents, who by your own admission have acted like "liberals" (although I defy you to point out where liberals have mismanaged the economy in such fashion)?

If you do, then aren't you acting the role of an extremist by placing the good of the Party above the good of the Nation? And if you're not, doesn't it suggest your basic premise (support the party line at all costs) is wrong?

GS: FDR's horrible mismanagement of the Great Depression, which only ended because of a war of capitalist aggression for control of markets and energy resources (Japanese Theatre), and a war against someone who never attacked us (European Theatre). Carter's absurd stagflation. Mind, it's Congress that so famously controlls the "power of the purse," and the Democrats controlled it for the second half of the 20th-century. It was only because of the conservative House, lead by Gingrich, that we got fiscal restraint in the 90s.

Please point to any section of any of my comments that says "support the party at all costs." Once again, you, above all other people, seem to know what is the "good of the nation." Perhaps we should simply install you at the head of government to dictate to us lowly extremists the true and correct way. Forgive me if I believe that 300 million idiots know what is best, and can work out for themselves a correct strategy, based on the various interests of numerous groups and localities. And here I thought that have parties and solutions compete for votes was the best way of securing the "good of the nation," when all I had to do was submit to you knowledge. You are truly a light unto my path.

ML: She was arguing for higher taxes for the middle-class on up. The problem isn't that she was paying the lowest allowable under the law, it was that she herself was taking advantage of resources not available to the rest of us, all while proclaiming her solidarity with us. Just as when she called Walmart of the worst evils in America, yet she owns a considerable number of shares. Same as when all the rich Democratic Senators said they didn't need the $600 refund check, but took it anyways. I was speaking of federal only.

There are emergency situations when deficit spending may be necessary, but it should not become a norm. The vast majority of public funds are used to benefit relatively few. Moreover, money given to "public and private economic development projects/processes/enterprises" is nearly always directed to friends of people in power. The most equitable way to spread around funds is to allow an unfettered free market in which people vote with their money. We don't need the government to step in and select who gets special benefits and who doesn't. Most of this deficit spending has been put into the military, which was in dire need of funds.

You have more faith in the public education system than I do. While the value of my generation remains to be seen, it can't be much worse than the "Me" Generation that is currently in charge, and from whom we learned most of our bad habits.

I am not sure how democrats can continue to use moral language on Iraq, but not cut funding. Heavy protests from their own base will soon turn on major democrats who want to have it both ways.

Democrats like Biden and Clinton hate the surge, then approve the general who designed the plan.

They think the war is immoral, but won't cut funding.

Sounds more like hedging their bets than leadership and I think Moveon.org democrats will soon see they've been duped by a principle-less party that stands for very little.

Most of the Democrat presidential candidates have voted for the war and now are against the war. Why don't they just admit to the public they wanted to look strong on security when it was popular, so they could run for President someday, but now are against it because the polls tell them that's the only way they have a chance in the primary.

But, on top of being against the war this week, they don't really want to do anything to stop it and invent these morally weak non-binding resolutions to make it sound like they are doing something about Iraq.

And, what happened to Hillarycare? I think she's pro-healthcare industry now.

Do you think Hillary will be a life-long Bear fan or a life-long Colt fan after this weekend?

Owen:

You have unfettered faith in the "free" market.
That assumes that those who enter the market are all playing on an even playing field. That is not the case. Those who have more capital have more power, too often, the power to manipulate the market.

You are on point on Teresa. That example seems to speak against an unfettered free market.

I am not an absolutist when it comes to public and private; I do not think it as a PVP. They are complementary. And as human enterprises, subject to imperfections. That is why we need to respect the dynamic nature of that relationship.

Rather than a "free" market vs. total government ownership, a mixed market and republican form of government, both responsive to the multitude of changes, anticipated and unpredicted, allow us, those who wish to work to be informed and to think through the information, to make the best decision
possible at the time of the decision, working toward the short- and long-term implications and consequences and providing enough safety nets for the unexpected and unintended consequences.

All this, of course, taking into account the pull and push of selfish and altruistic human impulses.

Let's also consider other historical examples that speak to the limits of the "free" market, namely, Teddy's work to check on the
unfettered accumulation of wealth.

Here's a bit from Ben Stein's Op piece:

"For centuries, the idea has held that the stockholders own the company . . . But what has happened is that -- as in a corrupt, failed third-world state -- the trustees in too many cases are captives of the CEO and his colleagues; they owe both their places on the board and their emoluments to the chief executive, and they exercise no meaningful restraint at all on managers. The directors are instead a sort of praetorian guard, protecting management from its real bosses, the stockholders, as management sucks the blood out of the company.
"I am by no means saying that this is the standard or the usual way business done in this country. Most managements are still hard-working, I believe. But far too many are simply in the catbird seat to take what is not decently theirs from people who cannot afford to be taken."

The Wall Street Journal has written several articles on this phenom.

Finally, my "faith" in public schools is a faith in our form of government. I am concerned that if we continue to starve that -- which we are all stewards of -- we will be feeding, instead, the
beast of a dangerously polarized society.

The income gap, the insecurity of retirement and future health, the fragmentation of education, and neighborhoods as citadels -- all of those need to be addressed by the private and public sectors working well together, not one at the expense of the other.

Your thoughts?

ML 2 Owen 0.

Actually, the free market doesn't require that all people are equal, but simply that they be free from physical intimidation and that contracts be enforced. It's beauty is simplicity. While those with more capital have more power in the system, government has absolute power. While business can only intice, government can compel through physical violence. Indeed, there has never been a monopoly that existed without government support.

The conversation that we are having is certainly not going to be settled here, as it has been raging for over two centuries. At the end of the day, our society is simply too complicated for even the most well-intentioned of people to control it, and is best regulated by the millions of actions of individual consumers who vote with their money. Will there be mistakes, of course, but they're correctable by the marketplace. Even in the best of cases, government is inefficient, but in the worst its criminal. A company is accountable to its stockholders and consumers, if those groups abdicate responsibility, its their own fault. Government, however, is accountable only every few years, and its absolute power over the awarding of contracts and information makes it highly unlikely that any consequences will ever come for mismanagement - in fact, quite the opposite.

I don't really understand the link between public education and democracy as you have posited it. As for polarization, in my experience having attended over a dozen schools from K-9, the schools mostly reflect their cultural location.

While I agree that there are some cases where government can help by stepping in, it almost never relinquishes control once gained, and often uses it as a base to move into other areas. For example, why on earth do we need a federal Department of Education? We became the world's strongest superpower without it. Furthermore, it would seem that our education is much worse now, after it was created, than 50 years ago, when education was still mostly a local matter.

Owen:

You know so much about what is "good" for capitalism, do you own a business?

What interactions have you personally had with the Department of Education to make you feel the way you do? Or are you just reading the 1996 Republican platform to us?

Oh, and 50 years ago, the federal government desegregated American schools. Are you implying that education is much worse because the federal government started getting involved in local education through desegregation?

Bam Bam 1 Owen 0.

Owen:

In the "free" market, who protects citizens from physical intimidation? Is that the only kind of intimidation from which citizen's should be protected? Who enforces "contracts"? While you may not value equality, you seem to value fairness. These absolute notions of business enticing versus government compelling through violence does not take into account the variety and quality of businesses and governments. Through an informed, empowered, and engaged electorate, better governments and better business practices are possible.

Beauty? Simplicity? How about unreal? Your notions are as oversimplistic as Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto and where we are in the 21st century.

Re: "a monopoly": Please look up U.S. History and "laissez faire." Wikipedia is a good place to start.

I am disappointed that the connection between public education and government needs to be made. Are you familiar with the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, John Dewey, William James?

We have a rich history that, I believe, remains relevant.

Perhaps George Lucas had my generation in mind in Star Wars III when a disheartened Obi Wan admits to Aniken turned Darth Vader: "I have failed you, my apprentice."

Owen:

Do you or do you not think schools were better off prior to federal desegregation as you implied in your previous post?

Stomach here again. Not musch time to chat, but I have to respond. I fully expect to pay MORE for healthcare after "universal" is in place. Why? Because I do not want to end up in line with all the other medicaid recipients. It will of course become a pay for quality care system. Basic ecomonomics folks. Anytime something is free there will be a long line for it. And the quality will go down. I will then be forced to pay for care out of my own pocket without the benefit of insurance. I will gladly take my HMO at a subsidized $300 a month over a government run program any day!!!!

If you want to screw something up just put the government in charge of it!

Bam Bam: Do you mean to say that only business owners have a say? I think the unions might disagree with you on that point. Does my work as an independent contractor count? I have had interaction with several Departments of Education. I certainly never linked the decline of education with desegregation, what is going on in your mind that you did? As any reasonable person, I think that governmentally mandated segregation is abhorent. Now a question for you, several minority groups have decided that voluntary segregation is better for them. They would create racially homogenous schools. Do you think that is acceptable? If segregation is not ok when whites want it, what about when minorities want it? Should they get public money for this?

ML: The governments role is precisely to ensure physical security and enforce contracts, anything beyond this is questionable. If only slogans could effect change. Perhaps my ideas are oversimplistic, but I'm not arrogant enough to presume that I can, through my keen understanding of society, shape it and change it into a superior specimen. I played monopoly lots as a kid, but if I can't even pronounce this "laissez faire," how am I supposed to understand it? What makes the 21st century so different? "There is nothing new under the sun" - The Birds.

While familiar with those names, I must have somehow missed their overriding concern with education policy. Though, frankly, I am concerned with the frantic desire of some that the government retain absolute control over the education and indoctrination of our youth. It certainly wasn't that way during the beginning stages of this country. We forget that it was Conservative Republicans and fundamentalist Christians who fought hard for the right to homeschool, the right of parents to educate their own children. In my experience, the average homeschooled kid is much better educated than his public school counterpart. Granted, in Simi they're also usually Mormon, which is an indicator of the importance of the value placed by a culture on education.

Fortunately, we can end on a high note of agreement. Your generation has indeed failed us, teaching us through self-esteem programs that "I" am the most important person in the world, and that feeling good is more important than accepting responsibilty for actions.

Owen:
There is so much to cover.

The only item for this entry:

The original source for The Bird's quote is
Ecclesiastes 3:1.

Christ is God's alternative view.

Owen:

You said schools were better off 50 years ago implying they've gotten worse since then. You may not know this about America, but 50 years ago African American students had to go to different schools than white kids in the south.

There was state and local controlled segregation in most southern states. During the late 50's and 60's (50 years ago) there was a civil rights movement in America. Just wanted to make sure you were aware.

When you say "Furthermore, it would seem that our education is much worse now, after it was created, than 50 years ago, when education was still mostly a local matter."

This says to readers that federal intervention in locally controlled schools 50 years ago has made them worse. If not this federal intervention in desegregation, what 1950's federal education meddling are you talking about?

Are you retracting that statement above completely?

Owen, you keep telling everyone about how the economy should run and the benefits of capitalism with academic jargon, so I wondered if you had any practical experience in the economy such as owning a business???

I often notice that capitalism advocates who sit in Congress or the legislature and in public never have run their own business or they worked in a silly corporate government relations department and glad-handed politicians and have the nerve to call that practical private sector experience.

Doesn't it seem somewhat strange when you hear people who live off government funds spout out to people in the private sector about the benefits of capitalism?

This blog was originally about Hillary Clinton. Here is something I was wondering. Why is it, in general, that democratic women are so much better looking and more attractive than republican women, according to a recent poll? I also read in Esquire that a new sex poll was released. In it they said democratic men prefer doggie style, while republican men prefer women on top. A pyschologist said it is likely that democratic men are more in control as their preference shows. The speculation is that republican men prefer the woman on top because many of them have repressed homosexual feelings. I was just wondering what other people though of these findings?

I have no idea what you're on about, but according to the studies I've read, Republicans have better sex lives.

Owen,
Actually, the latest studies show republicans report the highest rates of being un-satisfied with their sex lives. Many republican men also report feelings of repressed homosexuality like that preacher in Colorado who was seeing the male prostitute.

Please link to some of these studies, after all, I showed you mine.

Yeah, I love the tidbit that democrats are more likely to fake an orgasm. I wonder if that only applies to democrat women or if it also applies to democrat men. And for republican men who fake their orgasms, is it only when their sleeping with democrat women?

You are no longer allowed to have orgasmic pleasure in Simi Valley, the City Council banned it right after they banned peddlers.