Page 38 of 71 FirstFirst ... 28333435363738394041424348 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 760 of 1405
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #741  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    And by "population" you mean the population of the United States as in it's citizens?

    Seriously not trying to be coy, I'm just missing what you're stating.
    Yes, as in its citizens. Let me just cut to the chase. The health care package offers subsidies to low-income Americans. If tens of millions of illegal residents are given a "path to citizenship" they will overwhelmingly fall into this low-income, subsidized class. That means there are tens of millions, or at least 10 million, more people on the roll. Have these new citizens been accounted for by the CBO? If not, their projections are likely to look worse than they already do.

    This seems to be very clear to me so maybe I'm missing something. What do you think?
  2. #742  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Yes, as in its citizens. Let me just cut to the chase. The health care package offers subsidies to low-income Americans. If tens of millions of illegal residents are given a "path to citizenship" they will overwhelmingly fall into this low-income, subsidized class. That means there are tens of millions, or at least 10 million, more people on the roll. Have these new citizens been accounted for by the CBO? If not, their projections are likely to look worse than they already do.

    This seems to be very clear to me so maybe I'm missing something. What do you think?
    Ah, I see. Well that will be a good argument against amnesty. I will join you in that after healthcare is passed and if as you say the topic comes up next.

    I'm a little concerned with these continued unemployment extensions (oh thank you) and not only the extension of the first time buyers credit but extending it to buyers who have been in their homes over 5 years. That's a bunch of fiscally conservative Senators voting 100% to pass.
  3. #743  
    Pelosi Breaks Pledge to Put Final Health Care Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Vote
    The Weekly Standard
    Gee what a surprise, most ethical eva as she said!
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #744  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Ah, I see. Well that will be a good argument against amnesty. I will join you in that after healthcare is passed and if as you say the topic comes up next.
    That's the problem, it may be a good argument against amnesty but by that time it will be too late. After they ram through health care reform there's little that will stop them.

    And by the way, the topic has already come up:

    Obama to Push Immigration Bill as One Priority
  5. #745  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    That's the problem, it may be a good argument against amnesty but by that time it will be too late. After they ram through health care reform there's little that will stop them.

    And by the way, the topic has already come up:

    Obama to Push Immigration Bill as One Priority
    I truly fail to see how the American people accepting an improvement in their health care will result in a wide open path to amnesty, particularly given your point that it will add to the health care costs.

  6. #746  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I truly fail to see how the American people accepting an improvement in their health care will result in a wide open path to amnesty, particularly given your point that it will add to the health care costs.

    The only way they are linked is as another excuse to avoid providing care to millions who need it. The arguments are totally and completely separate, except to those paranoid flakes who see a domino effect in everything progressive.
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #747  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    The only way they are linked is as another excuse to avoid providing care to millions who need it. The arguments are totally and completely separate, except to those paranoid flakes who see a domino effect in everything progressive.
    You really don't understand the goals and history of Progressivism.

    KAM
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #748  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Your article sensationalized death panels. You just lauded the article.
    I emphasized the parts of the article that I wished to. No need to try and paint me with the brush you believe is unfavorable, because you disagree with me on other elements.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    As far as I am concerned, cost is NOT the reason to reform health care. Providing health care to those who don't have it and can't get it is the reason to reform health care. It's just that the best way to pay for that is to control costs, which are excessive.
    Well, no disrespect to you, but what you think isn't driving this. The so-called Reformers are claiming that this is a good plan because it controls costs, and it is not likely to do that.
    Costs are excessive, and these Plans will not help that, and are likely to make it worse. That's one (major) reason why I oppose them. You are (by your own admission) ignoring those (vital) economic issues, and as a result are likely cutting the feet out from under what you say you want, by supporting these ridiculous plans that don't have a prayer of economic viability.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Is there a chance that "health care" will be worse? If you define it as the health of the country, not a chance.
    That's another thing--these supposed "health of a country" ratings. REALLY? You can just sum that up into a nice tight statistical bundle that is definitive?

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    That's why we are behind every other developed country in overall health care, no matter how you want to define it ("responsiveness" sounds good, but not if the overall care is inadequate...which it is). Is there a chance that people with elective procedures might have to wait a bit longer?
    It isn't just for elective procedures. Those on your side have totally whitewashed the problems that exist in nationalized healthcare systems. I haven't said they are total disasters, but you seem to deny there are any problems at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Maybe...if we were talking about a single payor system. But we're not. There is no single payor system bill before congress.
    That's not how progressives work--they go step by step. These same politicians have advocated a single payor system, and have OPENLY STATED that this is a step towards that.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    If the insurance companies are willing to compete, there will never be a single payor system. There isn't in Germany, Italy and many other countries with national health care. There are private insurance companies, and even though there are financial challenges in those countries because of health care problems, that doesn't mean there isn't a way to have coverage for all and still maintain private insurers. My guess is that they will NOT be able to compete, and if that's the case, so be it.
    This bill is designed to destroy insurance competition. Let's not pretend that there is going to be a level playing field or that government will follow the same rules they demand of private industry. That's now how it works, and anyone claiming it does is very foolish or lying. Government doesn't play fair. The whole system is designed to funnel people into the Government option. It's a back-door into Single payor.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    There is no firm evidence that providing care to everyone in the country causes a worsening of care for the population. And for those of you that favor direct payment, I am sure you can get anything you want, as long as you are willing to pay for it, regardless of any national plan.
    Well, that would be the boobie prize now wouldn't it? I'm not sure if you understand this or not--I am not rich. I cannot afford to pay untold amounts in tax to support others, and then pay for my family as well. There is something you need to understand--this plan will make it harder for me to take care of my own family, which is already a challenge. I don't have money laying around to just go off and pay for direct payment services AFTER I've already been robbed of my ability to do so with these plans.

    You've been talking about the responsibility we have for "society." What about my responsibility to my family? Why should I tolerate a government that directly degrades my ability to take care of my own family? I'm not poor, and this is a near-impossible prospect for me. The end result is more and more dependency, and at some point, there aren't enough people left to drain tax money from.

    KAM
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #749  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I truly fail to see how the American people accepting an improvement in their health care will result in a wide open path to amnesty, particularly given your point that it will add to the health care costs.

    I truly fail to see an improvement in their health care on the near horizon, so the rest of this is moot.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #750  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post


    Well, no disrespect to you, but what you think isn't driving this. The so-called Reformers are claiming that this is a good plan because it controls costs, and it is not likely to do that.
    Costs are excessive, and these Plans will not help that, and are likely to make it worse. That's one (major) reason why I oppose them. You are (by your own admission) ignoring those (vital) economic issues, and as a result are likely cutting the feet out from under what you say you want, by supporting these ridiculous plans that don't have a prayer of economic viability.



    That's another thing--these supposed "health of a country" ratings. REALLY? You can just sum that up into a nice tight statistical bundle that is definitive?



    It isn't just for elective procedures. Those on your side have totally whitewashed the problems that exist in nationalized healthcare systems. I haven't said they are total disasters, but you seem to deny there are any problems at all.



    That's not how progressives work--they go step by step. These same politicians have advocated a single payor system, and have OPENLY STATED that this is a step towards that.



    This bill is designed to destroy insurance competition. Let's not pretend that there is going to be a level playing field or that government will follow the same rules they demand of private industry. That's now how it works, and anyone claiming it does is very foolish or lying. Government doesn't play fair. The whole system is designed to funnel people into the Government option. It's a back-door into Single payor.



    Well, that would be the boobie prize now wouldn't it? I'm not sure if you understand this or not--I am not rich. I cannot afford to pay untold amounts in tax to support others, and then pay for my family as well. There is something you need to understand--this plan will make it harder for me to take care of my own family, which is already a challenge. I don't have money laying around to just go off and pay for direct payment services AFTER I've already been robbed of my ability to do so with these plans.

    You've been talking about the responsibility we have for "society." What about my responsibility to my family? Why should I tolerate a government that directly degrades my ability to take care of my own family? I'm not poor, and this is a near-impossible prospect for me. The end result is more and more dependency, and at some point, there aren't enough people left to drain tax money from.

    KAM




    The CBO isn't ignoring costs. They are quite clear that the House bill will pay for itself, and will cover many more uninsured than the Senate bill. One would assume you would vigorously support the republican bill. The CBO says it will definitely decrease the cost of premiums for people like you. Of course, there is a down side. IT DOESN'T PROVIDE INSURANCE TO PEOPLE THAT NEED IT. AT ALL. Free ticket to the insurance companies....which seems to be what the republicans want. It is an abdication of responsibility. Thankfully it is also transparently absurd.

    Now the bad news. The proposal would reduce the rolls of the uninsured by about 3 million in 2019, leaving about 52 million people without medical coverage, the CBO said. Also, the CBO said that premiums for some people, mostly the less healthy, would go up, feeding into Democratic criticisms that the Republican plan would allow insurers to “cherry pick” and enroll healthier, less costly people.
    Sure...cost is important. We can and will afford it. Other countries can, and so can we.

    Whitewashed problems? You have first hand comments by Canadians on this board that disagree with the "major problems" that are trumpeted by obstructionists. I am not denying there are problems; I just think they pale by comparison to the advantages of having everyone able to get care when they get sick. What you just can't seem to grasp is the simple fact that we are NOT talking about providing for the poor here. The poor are already covered. The uninsured are working people, people who work every day supporting the economy. They have families they can't support either, and they have to decide between food and health insurance.....something you don't have to worry about. Let me repeat: THE UNINSURED ARE WORKING PEOPLE. They work in service industries, in small companies that can't afford insurance, in gas stations and florist shops. Do you actually just not care about them at all? They are the ones that are left behind.

    As I said....try to avoid paranoid delusions about progressives having a "master plan". You may be able to sleep better.
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #751  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    The CBO isn't ignoring costs. They are quite clear that the House bill will pay for itself, and will cover many more uninsured than the Senate bill. One would assume you would vigorously support the republican bill. The CBO says it will definitely decrease the cost of premiums for people like you. Of course, there is a down side. IT DOESN'T PROVIDE INSURANCE TO PEOPLE THAT NEED IT. AT ALL. Free ticket to the insurance companies....which seems to be what the republicans want. It is an abdication of responsibility. Thankfully it is also transparently absurd.
    Where are you getting this? The CBO is predicting the cost (last I heard, before this bloats up even more) that is significantly higher than what Pelosi's gang claims it is, and doesn't "pay for itself." It is paid for with massive taxes and fees paid for by the public.

    And no--the Republican bill doesn't do what I've advocated, except I think the Tort Reform portion. Government isn't likely to fix problems, but continue making the problems they create worse--that goes for all of them.

    One other thing--I'm not knocing the CBO, but they only score what they are given and let's not fantasize that Pelosi is being honest and forthright with their claims, nor taking into account what is likely to happen. They give the CBO the most rosy picture possible, and that NEVER ends up being the case. Government run systems run multiple times higher in cost with regularity.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Sure...cost is important. We can and will afford it. Other countries can, and so can we.
    What makes you believe the totally untrue notion that we have the same financial situations as other nations? We do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Whitewashed problems? You have first hand comments by Canadians on this board that disagree with the "major problems" that are trumpeted by obstructionists. I am not denying there are problems; I just think they pale by comparison to the advantages of having everyone able to get care when they get sick. What you just can't seem to grasp is the simple fact that we are NOT talking about providing for the poor here. The poor are already covered. The uninsured are working people, people who work every day supporting the economy. They have families they can't support either, and they have to decide between food and health insurance.....something you don't have to worry about. Let me repeat: THE UNINSURED ARE WORKING PEOPLE. They work in service industries, in small companies that can't afford insurance, in gas stations and florist shops. Do you actually just not care about them at all? They are the ones that are left behind.
    What about the Brits and Canadians that says their healthcare is a disaster? Should we just ignore them and listen to the ones who say it is great?

    Why are you assuming that I would suddenly favor this, because it is going to "working families" and not the poor?

    I do care about all of these people, but what you fail to accept (and I keep telling you anyway) is that I do not buy into what the government is selling. They ARE NOT going to do what they promise. They can't do it if they wanted to, because these "reform" plans are economic fantasy.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    As I said....try to avoid paranoid delusions about progressives having a "master plan". You may be able to sleep better.
    Delusions...oh you must be talking about factual history that demonstrates exactly how these people go about doing things. I've got a pretty good idea of how these progressives and other forms of big-government statism work, and fail to do what they promise while spreading economic ruin. One need not engage in any sort of conspiracy or delusion--all they need to do is look at history. Not even that--just look at our situation today.

    You are advocating expanding a program (Medicare) that is totally economically unsustainable--even as it is today--covering a fraction of the people. You are suffering under the fantasy that we literally can greatly expand that system, spend less money, and have it "pay for itself." That's plain and simple nonsense.

    Again, I'm making every attempt to be kind here...but you are the one suffering from delusions, ignoring repeated examples of this kind of government program which are ALL ECONOMICALLY NON-VIABLE and which are being ignored to the detriment of our Nation's future. Do you not get it? Already without these burdens we are insolvent with liabilities that outstrip our ability to pay--thanks to things like social security, medicare, medicaid--all of which are unsustainable fantasies.

    ALL of these plans have massive costs and those costs have consequences. And this is assuming that the costs are what they say they are (and rarely if ever are).

    KAM
  12. #752  
    Sorry. All I see is alarmism. Germany is not in economic ruin. Neither is France or Italy. Our finances are stronger than either of those countries internationally, wouldn't you say? What I don't understand is why you don't concentrate on how to make Medicare sustainable (which almost everyone agrees can be done, even AARP) instead of forecasting doom for the nation if this bill is passed. That is exactly yesterday's message from the teabagging morons on the republican side of the house. Behner actually said this bill is the greatest challenge to freedom in this century. This is the spokesman for the republicans. Our nation's future will be just fine with universal health care. We survived wasting billions and trillions of dollars in Iraq for no reason whatsoever. I think we can afford to provide care to everyone who needs it. I think we can avoid people going bankrupt when they get sick. May be too simplistic, but from my perspective (and my perspective about health care is based on many years of observation and training) I am confident we can do it, and we will be better off for it. And paranoia and fearmongering do not help the country one bit. Every time someone with credibility supports reform (read AMA, who opposed Medicare vigorously in 1964), they are dismissed as self-serving. Bunk. Believe me, this will not help most doctors at all. They care about the good of the country as well. Just my opinion.
    Last edited by davidra; 11/06/2009 at 09:57 AM.
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #753  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Sorry. All I see is alarmism. Germany is not in economic ruin. Neither is France or Italy. Our finances are stronger than either of those countries internationally, wouldn't you say?
    You know what Alarms are for right. They are to alert people to danger. We are in DEEP economic danger already, and poised to make these problems (that aren't being addressed) even worse. It is alarmism to point to someone throwing gasoline on what is already a blaze, and noting that is not helping?

    Traditionally, I would say so, but I'm not sure about currently. Germany, France and Italy don't have the same responsibilities in the world that we do either.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    What I don't understand is why you don't concentrate on how to make Medicare sustainable (which almost everyone agrees can be done, even AARP) instead of forecasting doom for the nation if this bill is passed.
    Excellent question...why isn't that done RIGHT NOW? Why is the CURRENT medicare system not being made sustainable? The unfunded liability is some astronomical number--trillions and trillions as I recall. That's BEFORE massively expanding it.

    I'm not forecasting doom if the bill is passed--that doom is already on its way. These "reform" plans will only make it harder to correct the problems we already have.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    That is exactly yesterday's message from the teabagging mornons on the republican side of the house. Behner actually said this bill is the greatest challenge to freedom in this century. This is the spokesman for the republicans. Our nation's future will be just fine with universal health care.
    Actually it won't, even if it doesn't pass, we've got massive economic problems ahead.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    We survived wasting billions and trillions of dollars in Iraq for no reason whatsoever.I think we can afford to provide care to everyone who needs it. I think we can avoid people going bankrupt when they get sick.
    Even with the high costs of the war on terror, that does not compare to the costs of these other entitlement programs. The so-called stimulus package alone is near the cost of the entire Iraq war.

    If I recall correctly the cost of Medicare and Medicaid is about 300 billion each.

    Also--despite the massive expense of the war in Iraq (and subsequent spending), that is not a permanent expenditure, and doesn't begin to compare to the CONTINUING costs for entitlement programs.


    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    May be too simplistic, but from my perspective (and my perspective about health care is based on many years of observation and training) I am confident we can do it, and we will be better off for it.
    We would be better off if we had plans that actually reduced the cost (not shifted the costs around) of medical care. That's the only thing that will work, and the Democrats and President Obama are so busy cutting deals with everyone they can think of, that is not going to happen. It wouldn't happen even if they didn't. Simply stated--even in the rosiest scenarios the ASSUMED savings don't match up to the new costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And paranoia and fearmongering do not help the country one bit. Every time someone with credibility (read AMA, who opposed Medicare vigorously in 1964), they are dismissed. Bunk. They care about the good of the country as well. Just my opinion.
    I grow tired of the constant drumbeat about "fearmongering," when those claiming that aren't even in the world of reality in regards to the economics of this.

    I'll state the core of this problem very plainly. Even without massive expansion, these entitlement programs are not sustainable--they are massive problems that these politician cowards keep pushing off toward the future. Even if they do nothing, we are headed towards really big problems. All of this "reform" isn't Reform--its just expansion of a system that is ALREADY economically non-viable. As much as I support efforts to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse, that won't be nearly enough to pay for the additional costs--not even close.

    That's why I vigorously oppose this--because it doesn't solve the problems. The Problems aren't even being properly identified, because the people you are trusting to fix them are the same clowns who created and enabled these problems in the first place.

    The solution strategy (general) that CAN work is to deal with the costs, which in turn make healthcare affordable. You "reform" anything by piling massive amounts of new burdens and inefficiencies that come with it onto a system that is already broken and hope it works out. It will not.

    KAM
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #754  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Sorry. All I see is alarmism. Germany is not in economic ruin. Neither is France or Italy. Our finances are stronger than either of those countries internationally, wouldn't you say?
    Who cares! What goes on financially or otherwise in Germany or France means nothing when I'm standing Here. Surely you're not suggesting that simply because they aren't "in ruin", socialized medicine must be the reason?
    What I don't understand is why you don't concentrate on how to make Medicare sustainable (which almost everyone agrees can be done, even AARP) instead of forecasting doom for the nation if this bill is passed.
    So you make it sustainable by slashing it's budget, and therefore services? And the AARP is a Democratic shill of the highest order who makes over a BILLION a year "extending" medicare benifits to its members. That's so funny, propping them up! Oh, don't forget to mention that the wealthy trial lawyers support the plan, as well.
    That is exactly yesterday's message from the teabagging morons on the republican side of the house. Behner actually said this bill is the greatest challenge to freedom in this century.
    Socialism IS a challenge to freedom. Forcing people to buy anything against their will is a challenge to freedom. He's right. I don't see anything else coming close to threatening us more, at the moment. Border security is up there, but still secondary.
    This is the spokesman for the republicans.
    And he's correct.
    Our nation's future will be just fine with universal health care. We survived wasting billions and trillions of dollars in Iraq for no reason whatsoever.
    So two wrongs make a right this time... gotcha. Lets waste trillions not fixing healthcare, what do you say?
    I think we can afford to provide care to everyone who needs it. I think we can avoid people going bankrupt when they get sick.
    I agree! And we do! Hospital's cannot turn you away based on your ability to pay. It's the costs that are out of control.
    May be too simplistic, but from my perspective (and my perspective about health care is based on many years of observation and training) I am confident we can do it, and we will be better off for it.
    We can do it. Better off is the debate.
    And paranoia and fearmongering do not help the country one bit.
    Oh good lord, like the left hasn't been using paranoia and fearmongering? Follow your own advice!
    Every time someone with credibility supports reform (read AMA, who opposed Medicare vigorously in 1964), they are dismissed as self-serving.
    False! It's the kind (and cost) of this type of change that's being opposed. The Republican's have consistently agreed that reform is needed. The Democrats are running around throwing money at symptoms, not the root causes. You, as a medical professional, should understand that more than anyone.
    Bunk. Believe me, this will not help most doctors at all. They care about the good of the country as well. Just my opinion.
    That's why many of these doctors say they'll be taking early retirement if this bill passes?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. #755  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    [...] Germany, France and Italy don't have the same responsibilities in the world that we do either. [...]
    Why not? Personally, I think this issue is far too often overlooked. We spend more on 'defense' than the rest of the world combined according to all the numbers I've been able to find. How sustainable would their socialized medicine programs be if they didn't have the US throwing money and force around the globe, and had to focus on their own defense? Yes, I realize that isolationism is not something we want, but effective imperialism hasn't been working for us lately either.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #756  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Why not? Personally, I think this issue is far too often overlooked. We spend more on 'defense' than the rest of the world combined according to all the numbers I've been able to find. How sustainable would their socialized medicine programs be if they didn't have the US throwing money and force around the globe, and had to focus on their own defense? Yes, I realize that isolationism is not something we want, but effective imperialism hasn't been working for us lately either.
    I'm not stating why this is, only noting the reality of the situation.

    While it gets pretty far outside of this particular topic, it does have relevance. You are asking a Relevant question. How many nations are able to do the things they do, because we do what we do? How many social-democracies are able to exist because the US directly or indirectly supports them, allowing them to NOT deal with any global issues?

    The point is--the mindset that says "well, we can just be like they are" doesn't work, when someone else isn't there to carry the water for them.

    Could Italy afford to spend what they do on Healthcare (or anything else) if they had the position of defending the globe against various hostile forces that the USA does? Would they even if they had a FRACTION of our responsibilities?

    All these people so eager to talk about how "inferior" our healthcare system is (and I am not buying that conclusion--I'd still take our medical care against anyone else's), when the entire world has benefited from the US taxpayer.

    This week marks the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, and while our currently leadership apparently doesn't deem this very important, it is monumentally so. Today is the anniversary of the United States leadership in saving the rest of the world from communist tyranny. Almost not a peep is heard about that however.

    These fantasy paradises of Socialism and universal healthcare would be under the Soviet Boot heel if not for us, and the TRILLIONS we spend for their benefit. Oh I'm sure I'll be called a rabid nationalist for mention these facts.

    KAM
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #757  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Why not? Personally, I think this issue is far too often overlooked. We spend more on 'defense' than the rest of the world combined according to all the numbers I've been able to find. How sustainable would their socialized medicine programs be if they didn't have the US throwing money and force around the globe, and had to focus on their own defense? Yes, I realize that isolationism is not something we want, but effective imperialism hasn't been working for us lately either.
    Imperialism is not the opposite of isolationism, as you imply. And our foriegn policy does not equate to "effective imperialism". Per wikipedia:
    Imperialism, defined by the dictionary of human geography, is “the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination.”
    I was with you through most of your post, until that last statement.

    For decades, France, Germany, and many other european countries have used us for protection and leverage. We project power not only for our own protection and interests, but also because we're contractually compelled by treaties. I get a bit tired of the Imperialism argument. We do far more good through food, clothing, and medical donations, rescue and disaster assistance, and technology transfers, than any other country - possibly more than all other countries combined.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. #758  
    I get a bit tired of the Imperialism argument. We do far more good through food, clothing, and medical donations, rescue and disaster assistance, and technology transfers, than any other country - possibly more than all other countries combined.
    agreed
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #759  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Imperialism is not the opposite of isolationism, as you imply. And our foriegn policy does not equate to "effective imperialism". Per wikipedia:

    I was with you through most of your post, until that last statement.

    For decades, France, Germany, and many other european countries have used us for protection and leverage. We project power not only for our own protection and interests, but also because we're contractually compelled by treaties. I get a bit tired of the Imperialism argument. We do far more good through food, clothing, and medical donations, rescue and disaster assistance, and technology transfers, than any other country - possibly more than all other countries combined.
    I would also agree--we aren't imperialists. While I'm not sure Toby was intending to liken the 20th/21st Century USA to Classical Imperialism, I will disagree with the notion. In fact, the United States (since the Spanish American war) has fought wars of liberation, at great expense to ourselves in human life and economically. I do not know of any Nation that has ever done this to the degree we as a nation have.

    Of course, a large number of people--including our own citizens criticize the United States, attempting to create some false moral equivalence between us and others, but they are wrong. This isn't to say the USA is angelic and hasn't made mistakes, because we have, but no one can match out efforts and results. We've literally liberated millions upon millions of people from Fascism, and Communism, and are fighting today against another would-be tyrannical force.

    Off topic I guess.

    KAM
  20. #760  
    and are fighting today against another would-be tyrannical force.
    Yeah I would easily say radical Islam is the biggest threat to the world today, it is a cancer that must be stopped

Posting Permissions