mattp

I give him a bit more credit than that, GGK. Yes, he is often caustic for no reason (but so are you) and, yes, he often turns tail and runs when faced with facts and coherent argument. However, Fairweather does keep trying to make his points and once in a while he comes up with something I find interesting. Nutty as it may seem I'd really like to see him try to defend his point above or maybe address one of mine.

Fairweather, count David Stockman, Reagan’s budget czar, as one who says trickle down doesn’t work. And Bush I called it “voodoo economics.” Just out of curiosity, I ran a couple of searches just now. Try searching "trickle down economics success" and "trickle down economics failure." You don't get much saying it works, but you do get these articles: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/24/business/supply.php McCain sticks to supply-side economics despite evidence it doesn't work http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/06/busting-the-myt.html Myth: Trickle-Down Economics Work http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/13/72111/695 The Complete Failure of Supply-Side Economics http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html In the Real World of Work and Wages, Trickle-Down Theories Don’t Hold Up I”m not going to do anymore of your homework for you, but I'd be happy to see if you find some credible arguments that trickle down economics DOES work.

Hey Fairweather: I in no way suggested I had read the book and I didn't listen to the Dave Ross show this morning. Also, that book is three years old. Now: rather than continue with the caustic retorts and speculation about my personal listening habits or income, can you address the substance of this discussion? Unlike you, I've posted a great deal of substance here. I'm sure there is something there you could comment on and, if you put your mind to it, I bet you could even find something wrong with one of my sources or arguments.

This was entirely rhetorical--and you know it. Obama's suggestion was a simpleton's answer addressed to simpletons. Finding more oil to decrease dependence of foreign supply is a good idea. So is nuclear. .... Fairweather, are you trolling or do you not pay attention to the news or think about your posts at all? Clearly, McCain is for MORE and LONGER involvement in Iraq than is Obama. He has been consistent about that since day one. Just as clearly, all the experts agree that oil is bought and sold on an international market so that if we are able to produce a little bit more oil domestically ten years from now it will go into the world market and fail to produce a large gain for American consumers. There have been a lot of them quoted in the news lately, and they've been pretty consistent on this point though a few have said that there might be some psychological beneficial affect on the present market -- an affect I have not heard anybody to suggest will be either large or lasting. By contrast, conservation measures that will reduce market demand and will cause a drop in prices RIGHT NOW that not only help consumers today but, if maintained, will help reduce our long-term problems. Drop what you are doing and run outside right now to check your tire pressure, OK? The earth will thank you for it. And Trickle Down Economics? Are you for real? Why is it that the economy suffered and the Federal deficit went up after both the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts? Why is it that, by all measures, the gap between rich and poor in this country has grown tremendously over the last 25 years? Now back to healthcare: try answering any of my arguments in the other thread.

Actually, I am 100% certain the election WILL be rigged. Despite your nutty denials and blanket dismissal, we know that the last two were. Will manipulation of the vote change the outcome? I don't know.

And you argued that if I get a tax deduction for spending money on healtcare I didn't really spend the money. Now how about you explain why you thought rats at Walter Reed was an example of what would happen if we had universal healthcare. It looks to me as if you may be gobbling up special interest scare tactics, thrown out as bait to get folks such as yourself to vote against their interest. With any proposed move toward universal healthcare you could probably keep your present insurance and I bet it would cost you no more. Here's a book for you: what's the matter with Kansas?

I call bullshit. You have statistics and a link? Bring the facts, jack. Bill, subsidies come in many forms. For example, you may not consider it a direct subsidy but it was oil companies and tire companies who wanted the old Interurban that ran from Tacoma to Everett taken out so they could sell more gas and tires. That kind of influence continues, don't you think? Hell, the entire Iraq war was for oil, but even if you don't believe Greenspan on this point we recently won the long term oil contract for US oil companies. just a month ago Do you think taxpayers spend a few pennies working toward securing these contracts? Even lawmakers from both sides of the aisle recognize that we have subsidized oil companies, though I believe the 2007 energy bill eventually passed without that part of the legislation that would have ended certain tax breaks. Republicans fight to maintain subsidies For some more background, consider this: And ask yourself: do you think there is tax money that will be spent on encouraging domestic exploration and development? Of course. --- My point was, however, that canyondweller was nutty to suggest that the government should get the hell out of the way of the oil companies so they could bring us cheaper gasoline. Do you disagree? If anything, our government should take a much more active role in regulating them and steering our energy future toward better long-term solutions.

I don't 100% follow that, Bill, but it seems to boil down to the fact that you feel a guy who has been a senator forever is better qualified than one who is relatively new. Do I have that right? If so, I think this qualification cuts both ways. McCain may be better connected and may know better how the game is played, but that is not necessarily a good thing. If elected, Obama could end up relatively powerless kind of like Jimmy Carter was but on the other hand McCain is way more likely to just continue running the same machine and I don't like how things have been going.

My point is, Eric, you've called the article reported above "baseless" but have apparently failed to undertake any effort to determine whether it was baseless or not. It may have lacked depth, detail or citations, but it would only be "baseless" if it was not grounded in fact. Your post and follow up reminds me of Fairwaeather and KK spewing hogwash about "socialized medicine" in the healthcare thread, and then calling names/checking out of the discussion when I assert that they've misused the term. Is the article noted above "baseless" or not? (It may be; I didn't make the claim.) ... By the way: any presidential candidate who wants to focus on how to get out of Iraq is better than one who wants to stay there for 100 years. Properly inflating your tires is a lot better idea than drilling the coastline. Working toward universal healthcare coverage is a pretty good idea too. Trickle down economics has been proven a failure. Whether either of them can actually deliver on their promises, at least Obama is talking about how to make Americans other than the super rich better off and more secure.

Perhaps, ericb, but most of what was set forth above is verifiable. Run some fact checks: what can you find out about his grades at the Naval Academy? Did he crash 3 planes? What was his navy career? Did campaign finance reform succeed? What happened to his big tobacco bill? etc.

What does canyondweller say about this? Is it really only people who choose to spend their money unwisely or who have chosen not to work who have trouble paying for needed medical care? 2005 Article

Heres an editorial from NYT that makes some of the points I've been asserting here: 2007 Editorial Existing government run healthcare is very good and even the President seeks care at military facilities. Republican fearmongering over "socialized medicine" is complete baloney. Too bad so many right-leaning Americans, and it seems some of our astute friends here at cc.com, swallow a bunch of special interest generated sloganeering about socialized medicine without question.

Fairweather: you sound like KK again. We are not necessarily talking about having the government run all the hospitals and in fact I think few national politicians are considering that at all. In addition, it is anti-tax, anti-big-government and anti-welfare arguments that your favorite politicians use against providing funding for "social services" while proclaiming how patriotic they are in "supporting the troops." Walter Reed would be a better place if it was better funded. Bottom line. And your point about liability? Aren't you one of those who complains about frivolous lawsuits and supports tort reform? The insurance companies who pay the claims want REGULATIONS to protect their bottom line. I can't find the statistic right now, but yesterday I found an alarming number about the actual incidence of malpractice. How should this be addressed -- do you want more government regulation or are you in favor of maintaining personal responsibility through a civil liability system? And "socialized medicine?" Right now we lack a functioning private insurance system and the government ends up picking up much of the tab anyway - and we are not just talking about the uninsured. The indigent rely on Medicaid, the elderly Medicare, and the emergency rooms too are funded with government handouts. And where the government is involved, things mostly go pretty well as far as I can tell. Even though funding is not what it probably should be, the services provided by the Veterans' Administration are in fact pretty good. Walter Reed was a spectacular story because it was, well, spectacular. My older clients who use veterans services are grateful for everything they can get and I never hear them complaining that the quality of treatment is poor. They could use more services, though. In short: the private insurance industry has proven not up to the task of insuring Americans and government involvement in healthlcare has mostly been a big plus.

canyondweller, the truth is that we subsidize oil companies hugely and our government is run by and for oil companies way more than it should be already. And as to opening up domestic drilling, it is obvious that is just another give away to special interests and not the least bit in yours and my interest unless you own oil company stock. I understand you hate taxes and abhor welfare but such rhetoric really doesn't say anything in this discussion. What are you saying about infant mortality? Say what? By any standard we have the most expensive and pound for pound the least beneficial healthcare system in the world, and you don't want to consider improving it because that would be welfare? You insist "Don't say the "system" doesn't work; because it does for the majority of people invested in it" but the truth is it doesn't work for infants, working poor, even middle class folks who are self employed and have significant health problems, older people on a fixed income who do not health insurance subsidized for them because they worked for "evil big government." The system works very well for the people invested in it - especially the insurance companies and others alligned against healthcare reform. Who do you think is donating money to defeate any national dialog on the issue?

Spoken like a true conservative. The oil economy is working, too. So is our President. And I bet you hate taxes. My wife and I pay $8,000 a year for health insurance that doesn't cover dental or extended care, and we spent well over a thousand dollars for deductibles and uncovered services in the last year. Neither of us has been to the hospital for years, and the doctor's I've seen for recent back problems have ordered expensive tests that offered little chance of affecting their recommendations, they've been hostile to the idea of working with other practitioners or disciplines, and they've generally done little for me. Over the years, those who have been the most helpful - such as our chiropractors, acupuncturists and massage therapists - have frequently not wanted to deal with insurance because the insurance companies screw them over. When I was suffering severe muscle spasm's last year, I went to a clinic near my office and the doctor there wouldn't give me a simple prescription for a muscle relaxer. She must have thought I was a drug addict or something. Flexiril? C'mon. In the last year, my father in law was killed by malpractice at at a Seattle hospital. Our system "works" but it doesn't even come close to working well for me.

Spoken like a true conservative. The oil economy is working, too. So is our President. And I bet you hate taxes. My wife and I pay $8,000 a year for health insurance that doesn't cover dental or extended care, and we spent well over a thousand dollars for deductibles and uncovered services in the last year. Neither of us has been to the hospital for years, and the doctor's I've seen for recent back problems have ordered expensive tests that offered little chance of affecting their recommendations, they've been hostile to the idea of working with other practitioners or disciplines, and they've generally done little for me. Over the years, those who have been the most helpful - such as our chiropractors, acupuncturists and massage therapists - have frequently not wanted to deal with insurance because the insurance companies screw them over. When I was suffering severe muscle spasm's last year, I went to a clinic near my office and the doctor there wouldn't give me a simple prescription for a muscle relaxer. She must have thought I was a drug addict or something. Flexiril? C'mon. In the last year, my father in law was killed by malpractice at at a Seattle hospital. Our system "works" but it doesn't even come close to working well for me.

Silent Running is a great multi-pitch slab climb at 5.9. Pitch ratings are very reasonable (dare I say 'soft'?). Completely bolt protected though. Bring gear for the first and last pitches of Silent Running. The combination of 'Tlll Broad Daylight to The Kone, swithcing to the latter shortly after their shared belay is a good 5.9- route with bolted anchors. It is mostly bolt-protected, though.

I'm hurt, KK. I just asked you to explain what was the basis for your angry retorts and blanket statements and you call me names and tell me to piss off. Is this your idea of critical thinking?

Not a bad idea, but more "socialism."

now this is a load of shit. Yup. More thoughtless sloganeering. With the exception of a few high risk specialties such as OB, the cost of medical malpractice insurance is a tiny amount of the cost of running a medical practice and in fact even including these specialties, medical malpractice claims are a tiny amount of overall healthcare costs. Arguments about "frivolous lawsuits" are industry based hype, largely driven by insurance companies' greed. And the cost of medical malpractice insurance? It has been shown more closely related to what is happening in the bond market than to the rate of actual claims.

fits you well Damn. You really got me there. Your rhetorical skills are awesome, dude!

Weak. Maybe you should piss off.

Just to be clear: what is "socialized health care?" Who has recently proposed it for the U.S.? Answer that and then maybe I'll piss off.

This is a perfect example of thoughtless sloganeering. We're not talking about adopting "socialized healthcare" in the U.S. Maybe we should, but we are not. Not long ago, the French system was mentioned as a potential model but I don't remember anybody saying they want to adopt the system they have in Sweden.

Yes but that'd be "socialism."