Well, looks like we'll get it stuffed down our throats. Congress no longer represents the people.

Washington (CNN) - For the second straight day, a new national poll indicates that a solid majority of Americans oppose the health care bill that Democrats are pushing through the Senate.

According to a Quinnipiac University survey released Tuesday morning, 53 percent of the public disapproves of the proposed changes, with 36 percent supporting the bill.

That follows a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday that indicated 42 percent favor the Senate Democrats' legislation, with 56 percent opposed.

Both surveys were conducted last week through Sunday, as Senate Democrats were negotiating a final health care bill, but before a crucial party-line vote early Monday morning to end debate, a huge hurdle to eventual passage of the legislation that the Democrats successfully were able to jump.

I wouldn't assume this bill will pass, here's my take on it.

The vote is so tight if they mess with any portion of it they will loose somebodys vote. The Dem's are so wound up over the details they WILL want to change or tinker with some point. Thus they will loose the needed votes, the bill is DOA is my guess.

...which is to bad, it would have been great for America and apple pie and hot dogs for all.

Bernie, I don't put a lot of stock in polls, but they can be interesting indicator. In THIS poll it appears that 56% oppose the changes. Those changes include leaving out the Gov Ins Plan. The "people" could be saying they want even MORE than the bill allows for because a lot of folks want to keep the Gov option. Folks like me, we are legion and should NOT be underestimated in our power and influence. :)

You asked earlier, what social programs would you throw out. Simple, ALL that have no strings attached. From time to time people do need help. When they do, The Government can help in COORDINATION with charities and churches. But HELP, not lifetime, no strings attached, SUPPORT, like we have now. A RESCUE program not a way of life. Help in a limited way and for a limited time. Today we have millions that receive free health care [odd isn't it] They receive food, clothing and shelter, and money and in exchange they have to contribute NOTHING. In fact its one of the insane liberal laws that says we cannot require the leeches to put forth an effort in their own behalf. It supposedly 'demeans' them. What is truly demeaning is supporting a grown adult for life. At the very least their support should have the requirement that they get educated as a MUST. Not just attend schooling but achieve minimum standards. Demanding, but much more likely for them to learn to support themselves, WITH PRIDE, than any Gov. unlimited, lifetime support program. And WORK, those "jobs Americans won't do," can be done by those sucking on the Gov. teat.
Social Security could be set up to reflect the actual return on the money invested. All it takes is computor power and we have that. Each year each worker would get a report on how much they , personally, have contributed and how much its grown. Then they'd KNOW, they will need more to live on. The original idea was for SS to be a help, not the total retirement. The reports could be biannual or even quarterly, increasing the pressure for all to provide better for themselves. The reports could extrapolate to retirement time and show the income expected according to the mortality tables.
Big Government providing, weakens everything about us personally and our society, and our way of life.

Can the US self destruct? GM was once the worlds largest company.
More auto related, in the 50's, one shock absorber company enjoyed well above 90% of the total shock business in the US. By the 70's one of those little companies that was sharing the little market the big company left, had grown to the point that their profit exceeded the total sales volume of the "former" large company.
As it happens to companies, it can happen to nations that ignore reality.

Ernie,
America got where it is because the majority of the country wanted to make their lives better. They worked harder, smarter, and competed with he guy next to him to be a more marketable employee, or to run a more efficient business. We see it in cars, and it works with people and companies also; competition improves the breed.

Steve

No argument from me on competition improving the breed!

But not all can compete. Not all can be trained. Not all have the mental capacity to go to school. Some folks will require lifetime assistance and there's nothing you can do about it. The KEY is eliminating the free riders using and abusing the system. A good place to start though is have them ALL sign up for work or school and go through the elimination process.

WOW!!!
The Liberals just called. They DEMAND you burn your Liberal membership card immediately if not sooner!:D:eek::D

"ism"
 

...

I watched the video, The American Form of Government. Some of it is actually true, but I believe much of it is seriously misleading to the unwary. Nice presentation, anyway.

I recently ran across this "ISM" video from 1948.

That year must have been about the time that Ike warned us about a large Capitalist group having gained the power to destroy us from within. The ISM video is a popular propoganda cartoon around the time of McCarthyism, ironically another ISM. The Eisenhower prediction is pretty much what recently brought the USA to its knees, runaway Capitalism. Like runaway Labor, only worse. Don't be swayed by high dollar propoganda from handwringing Capitalists hoarding the wealth that all of us contributed to. We are a long way from full Socialism. Balance is the key.

Jamo,

If a man were to visit the battlefield and ask said generic Veteran what he is fighting for, he is likely to pull out pictures of his family. Perhaps a cocky few would say "Old Glory", but they would soon admit that the flag doesn't mean much without family.

So should we provide "...want for nuthin" for the people the Vet is willing to die for? His wife, daughter, son? How about his sister and brother, his parents? And where would be the limit, 1st cousins only, no 2nd cousins?

Jeepers, that's about all of us that ever had a family member serve. And that is the problem.

Wes

...

..............

Nobody was twisting the banks arm to make sub-prime loans, they couldn't hand them out fast enough! :) They weren't going to keep those loans, so they didn't really care. The loan officers were making money of setting them up, so they didn't care. The stock market would snap them up in a heartbeat, bundle them and sell them for a profit. AIG would insure them and everyone was happy! Keep the money flowing!

This was a systematic failure across the board. While one could make a case for the Gov insisting the banks make some sub-prime loans (a PERCENTAGE of their portfoilo), the banks were MORE THAN WILLING to play the game. When the Gov said 15%, the banks were like, "No problem, how about 50%?" The Gov was like, "OK". Freakin' cluster screw up all the way around.

Ernie,

That is so true, but what about Obama now telling the banks to loosen up on their loan policies. That sounds just like what we went through. The Govt. should stop meddling in every business and do their own job. If they had enforced the laws, Wall street would never have gotten so out of control. The SEC even admits they looked the other way to allow some questionable practices. And look what it got us.

Ron :p

Ex,
We The People (with the help of different presidents) forced the subprime loans on the banks...read the stories behind the "Community Reinvestment Acts". This is what caused the nightmare we're in today. Quite frankly, Obama seems determined to re-start the mess again. Cheap loans for everyone, home purchase increase, prices for home increase, people hedge-bet property values, banks sit back and cash out until they've got a portfolio filled with overpriced real estate...then the bubble bursts.

Ron,
You're 100% correct, Clinton was the biggest offender...but some blame has to be passed along to Bush for allowing it to continue. Then again, he'd been taken out back and shot if he tried to curb the record growth We The People were seeing, too bad it was all a sham.

Agreed. What I couldn't understand was when houses around here that were built for $80K were suddenly selling for $200K, one right up the street from me is an example, and the people that bought it were on welfare. I am far from an economic expert but even I could see that the phony inflated price bubble was going to burst one of these days. And if they start loaning huge amounts to people who are obviously not going to be able to pay it back, then we are going to go through this mes again. One of the real estate people a few years ago that were looking for places to sell tried to get me to sell mine for $230K an it isn't worth half of that. I told her so and she said that it was worth any amount they could get and she could sell it in two days for that amount. And I wasn't even interested in selling. They were going around to everyone trying to get places to list. Then the bubble burst and most of the real estate places here had to lay off nearly all of their people.

Ron

Well THAT could be debated as it relates to the "nightmare" were in today! There is no one single cause, but the sup prime loan factor plays only a small part. Factor in Bush's THREE tax cuts while in office. One of which ranks #3 as the LARGEST tax cut EVER! Cost projections were a TRILLION dollars lost over a 10 year span starting in 2003. 2003? That's when the GOP was in full command! Were starting to see the impact of that massive cut in taxes.

Banks couldn't make loans fast enough, they didn't need any "pressure" from anyone to do it. They were MORE THAN GLAD to start handing out money as fast as they could. Wall St was buying the up the loans like a kid in a candy store. This was a systematic wide failure involving a large number of factors.

The problem with banks being able to make loans NOW largely fall's on the FDIC. Banks are failing like crazy, the regulations are so tight there is a mountain of paper work to wade through to get a loan right now. Only the VERY BEST qualified are even considered. The pressure to make "sub prime" loans again pales in comparison to the problem of making ANY loans to ANYBODY right now. It's a dual problem. Obama cannot just tell the FDIC to lighten up, it aint that easy. The banks can't lower their standards because the FDIC is on their butt. Something gotta give, sub prime loans are the least of worries at this point.

Well if tax cuts are the problem, why not just raise taxes to 100% and confiscate all the wealth from private citizens and give it to the highly productive Federal Government to use on our behalf?

Well if it were that easy, lets do it! :)

The reasons for the economic failure are numerous, sub prime loans certainly played a significant roll. It's also significantly more complicated than that.

There's your definition of socialism.
And with over 50% of my income paid to fees and taxes, I would say we're on the side of socialism more than free market.

Sorry but you are 'mixing your metaphors' so to speak. The CRA is a major factor in causing todays ECONOMY. Sub-prime loans are a follow along result of repealing banking laws to make the CRA work. The Govt., meaning Congress guaranteed worthless loans and guaranteed that banks would profit from making bad loans., so the banks went wild. Congress gave them a license to steal, and so they stole!

Bush's tax cuts did not cause the bad economy, tax cuts bolster economies. GWB's tax cuts increased the national debt and were bad for that reason. They did not contribute to the bubble bursting that had been built by many Congresses over decades. All of the factors of the ticking time bomb which was our artificial economy were in place before Bush came to office.

Complain all you wish about his poor handling of the national debt, and complain all you want that he did not pursue his complaints that Freddie-Mac and Fannie-Mae were heading for trouble [a matter of record, that pesky history that liberal abhor] Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, and Presidents before them all signed bills that contributed to today. GWB would have too, but it was all in place before him.
He should rightly be vilified for the debt growth.

But Obum looks to exceed Bushes 8 year 5 Trillion debt growth by next year. How is it that that's OK. IF Bush's tax cuts cuts and overspending CAUSED the bad economy [a FALSE charge] how could increased taxes and MUCH more reckless spending by Obutt, be expected to fix it?
The view through liberal colored glasses must be unreal! As in REALITY cannot be seen through them.

How many tax proposals have been run up the flag pole in the last 2 years by the Dems?

1. Value Added Tax (VAT)
2. Taxing your medical paid by your employer.
3. Cap and Trade
4. ?

Just a start!

"Reckless spending" by Obama? Bush was the one who started TARP, mostly to cover his magnificent failures.

Reality is, Bush was in charge. It's pathetic to see grown men crying over how he was so miss understood and it wasn't his fault, blah blah blah, big tears... Man up here, take some responsibility, Bush screwed up, the Repub's paid the price, end of story.

Ralphy, you think we should cut taxes again, like Bush did? If so, how the heck we gonna pay for the two wars we got going? Not to mention the biggest economic disaster since the great depression?

So this guy goes in the neighbors house, trashes it, get's off scott free. The neighbor goes into debt cleaning up the mess, goes bankrupt. Everyone stands around talking about how the HOME OWNER screwed his finances and went broke as a result. Yeah, there's some logic for ya. :)

You gotta love the stupid voters when Obama speaks of going after the rich and the corporations. These fools salivate over this. Not even realizing it's only them the masses who will pay. Duh.......