First there was the Death Star menacing humanity. Now, there is “the Death Panel.” Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called President Barack Obama’s health plan “downright evil” on her Facebook page and warned American of Obama’s “death panel” that will hold the power of life or death over average Americans. Indeed, the Obama Death Panel appears to have their sights on little Trig. Presumably, the chair will be Palpatine (aka Darth Sidious), the Dark Lord of the Sith.
Palin states in her first statement after quitting her job as governor that “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care . . .Such a system is downright evil.”
The following footage from one of the patient reviews of the Death Panel has been located:
The real news here is the disclosure that Palin’s page has 700,000 readers, making it the most popular comics page in the world.
For the full story, click here.
Slarti:
I believe, if I am not mistaken, war bonds were sold to finance the war. People had a vested interest in stopping Hitler and Tojo and financed that endeavor.
And further more it was production of those tanks and planes and ships that got things moving again (the info I have seen pegs 1943 as the year the depression finally ended, a full 2 years after Pearl Harbor). Not the make work jobs of the CCC. Although I will admit that the dam projects probably did help.
I think the flaw in your assertion that dropping tanks into the ocean would have had the same effect is that people would not have bought bonds to pay for that and so eventually we would run out of money and waste raw materials. As it was we wasted enough but those tanks and planes and ships (at least a certain portion) became toasters and automobiles. And in their production jobs were created.
The current stimulus, by most accounts, is not having the desired effect, not because of lack of money but because production and not spending is how you get out of a depression. At some point people will need new cars and new ovens and new roofs and new carpet and we will come out of it. But spending on roads is not going to do it. And how are you going to sustain that spending? Eventually it will run out. If people aren’t working there are no tax revenues (currently down) and no tax revenues means no stimulus, unless of course you print money and then you end up with high inflation and the Chinese holding your future.
We shall see the outcome and I hope for all our sakes you are right. My being right would be a hollow victory. But I prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
slart writes: The only way you can get out of a recession is by government spending to create demand. I don’t know what you mean by ‘false demand’ – the government buying something generates the exact same amount of economic activity as the same thing being bought in the private sector.
you are absolutely right and this is how I know: my squeeze, who has been unemployed for abut 10 months is going back to work at a pretty decent job, once that was created in part by gov’t spending. I can’t go into details, my natural reticence and need for some anonymity prevents me from giving details. yet, we are the lucky ones whose lives will soon be restored because spending money to make demand works.
me? I’m grateful. IS can say what he wants. He’s wrong and will always be wrong about this.
Mike S:
The point I was making is that for every “fact” you put forth there is a countervailing “fact” that some other entity puts forth. The only way we can clearly see the net result of spending by medicare is to take into account all of the costs associated with the program. Your assertion does not do that and is just a “factoid” all alone in the world with no context.
And as far as being lazy, I figured you would look up the origination of the report. I figured you probably needed something to do since you are retired.
Your 3% is probably from a government report, maybe not, but the point is, the information is probably just as jaded as the article I gave you.
I have no employees only partners, I find the level and quantity of work rises significantly when profits are shared by all. Granted I do own 52% of the business but the other 48% of the profits are equally distributed among the partners and in my view the receptionist and secretaries are important so they get equal shares as well. In fact one of my receptionists was able to secure a large contract (for us anyway) by being on top of her game.
Guess where I got that idea?
Thanks for the warning about my repeating myself, but I just figure I have to.
Ah hubris, I know it well and learned that hard lesson in my twenties. I see you have yet to learn the true meaning.
IS,
Now watch as I take your post to Gyges apart.
“Resource allocation by central planning has always lead to rationing of goods and services.”
I believe the Soviet Union and North Korea are good examples of this.”
Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Spain, France, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, all give great examples that this doesn’t necessarily lead to rationing and despite what your leading Healthcare Lobbyist has to say all have better health insurance and life expectancy than the US.
“actually rationing of health care is the only possible outcome from a nationalized plan.”
England is certainly an example of this.”
Simply not true regarding England and they would never give up their National Health Insurance.
“Monopolies are only able to survive by government force.” Think Utility Companies for this one.”
You mean like Enron, or perhaps LILCO on Long Isalnd a private utility company that went bankrupt due to bad planning forcing the taxpayers to assume their debt and replace them with a public company. Think MS, think Conagra, I could go on but what’s the point. That the monopoly corrupts government to its’ benefit is true, but you haven’t the wit to realize that they only come into being by lack of regulation and you guys are the anti-regulatory types. Think Smoot-Hawley, opps sorry you don’t think.
“The majority of people do not get severely ill during their lives.” here is some info from an older study done in England:”
Don’t your even get the delicious irony of you making this point. The idea isn’t that so many get sick, the idea is to have care for those who do. Your side would rather see them just die if the can’t afford the freight. Death panels indeed.
“Liberal ideas never work in reality and that is a fact. ” It certainly appears to me that that is so. The programs either make more people poor or are facing bankruptcy.”
The highest rate of growth in this country was between 1933 and 1968 coinciding with its’ highest income tax rates. Fact.
““Facts” in the political realm are not facts.”
That is you IS a true loyalist to his own pocketbook and nothing else.
You are truly a hollow man, lacking empathy and depth, but waving your bankbook in triumph. By the way the only way you got A’s was to cheat based on your performance here.
“Now all of you will tell me this is some partisan organization that is in the pocket of the insurance companies and maybe it is, I did not look into their motivation.”
IS,
Besides being a very lazy researcher, you obviously have no ability to think beyond your own precious notions and you are so used to arguing with fools, or impressing your employees with your knowledge (who knows what they really think)that you are like a sitting duck for this website. Not only is this “some partisan” organization it is the leading lobbyist for the Health Insurance industry. See below from their own website:
“Who We Are
The Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI) is a research and advocacy association of insurance carriers active in the individual, small group, HSA and senior markets. CAHI’s membership includes insurance companies, small businesses, providers, nonprofit associations, actuaries, insurance brokers and individuals. Since 1992, CAHI has been an active advocate for market-oriented solutions to the problems in America’s health care system.”
Beyond that you are so lazy you didn’t even bother to read the report that you linked which, deceivingly, gave the Medicare admin at 5% and the industry’s, also deceivingly, at 16%. That is three times what the cost for Medicare is, even if you accept their “cooked” figures.
I realize though that you just don’t care. You don’t care enough to make cogent arguments and you don’t care whether millions of people have no insurance and you don’t care if the Health Insurance Industry keeps raising costs way above the rise in cost of living and you don’t care if people die for lack of coverage and you don’t care that 70% of bankrupticies now come because of health care. You don’t care about a damn thing but your own comfort, your families comfort and your friends comfort. You do care about making money. In fact it seems that is your totem and that is your God. Just a selfish guy, who took classes for grades, got himself a good deal and screw everyone else.
Well I can’t give you a heart where none exists, nor can I make you a better person, but I can tell you for a fact that you’ve got the debating skills of a twit and a steel trap mind closed shut against any beliefs other than your own. Do you know what a tautology is my
mathematics man, your mind is a taustology, so it is impossible for you to see any concept you haven’t already thought of or much more likely parroted. You may, or may not have a high IQ, but you have no clue how to use your mind and in your hubris will come your eventual undoing. I don’t wish any harm on you either physically, financially or in any other way, that’s not the point, it is that someone as smugly
self invested as you are usually gets kicked in the ass by life for it.
That is a concept that goes back to the Greeks, but Plato didn’t invent it. Truly you must be considered quite the guy around your Country club, as you cast your “pearls of wisdom” among the swine.
IS,
I’m limiting this response to one item because it is a pet peeve of mine – rest assured that I could take apart the rest of your post if I wished.
You said:
“You cannot spend your way out of a depression/recession. and you cannot get out of a recession/depression by creating false demand for goods and services through government money which is what a stimulus is.” I think that was proved back in 1933 when it took WWII to get us out even though large sums of money was spent on “stimulus”.
This is certainly in the running for one of your most ignorant statements. The only way you can get out of a recession is by government spending to create demand. I don’t know what you mean by ‘false demand’ – the government buying something generates the exact same amount of economic activity as the same thing being bought in the private sector. Furthermore, most government spending has a multiplier effect – every government dollar spent on food stamps, for instance, generates $1.70 worth of economic activity (in case you’re wondering, tax cuts come in near the bottom at $1.03). As far as the great depression goes, unemployment decreased every year of FDR’s administration except for the year he was convinced to cut back on spending to lower the deficit. Finally, you clearly don’t understand HOW WWII got us out of the great depression – BY SPENDING UNPRECEDENTED AMOUNTS OF MONEY! As far as the economy was concerned we could be making tanks and dropping them in the ocean and it would still have ended the great depression. Government spending on the military is still government spending and a massive spending program of any sort was all that was needed to stimulate the economy. Go back to all of your economics professors and demand a refund because they clearly didn’t teach you how to understand economics.
Accusations not with standing, other than FORMER ones as a claims executive for high-risk comprehensive general liability policy holders many years ago, I have no ” ties with the ‘Insurance Industry'”.
Obviously, most doctors get paid by health insurance companies and are always annoyed when not, automatically, permitted to care for patients the way we would, if some schmuck from one insurance company or another were not blocking the way.
I invite anyone to back and read what I actually did state. I also invite you to go back and look at what several others have stated with respect, or more aptly put, lack thereof, toward doctors, in general, and lobbed in my direction. I can assure there are many more of those…
My personal and professional position on a public option, stated earlier and again here on this thread, is that ‘Medicare works’ and in agreement an with reference to Dr. David Scheiner, Obama’s former physician, who interviewed on Bill Maher’s Real Time a couple of weeks ago, specifically. Go look at it.
I absolutely support meaningful health care reforms, including but not limited to single payer, because I have witnessed first-hand and more often than most people may realize, what happens when people who could have been kept afloat and/or in the work force longer and secure in their homes have essentially, instead, gone over a cliff when they and/or someone in their family becomes ill and are no longer able to choose to pay for health care, privately, which only exacerbates an already precarious situation.
Entire families go without basic care and usually end up more ill than they likely would have in the first instance and, ultimately, generating much greater costs because of it, in the second.
We are all paying for that predictable consequence one way or another and without regard to whether anybody prefers it that way.
I have been saying for at least the last fifteen or twenty years that everyone, all actors, will be required to take on a share of the solution starting with medical schools, hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, governments, AND constituents. In other words, we consumers – all of us.
The one group who should not be required (forced) to give up on receiving needed care, in a medical office, are those who have become or will become patients in the future, in my considerable experience and opinion.
Gyges:
“In case you’re wondering, this is why I’m done with you for the time being. Opinions are only facts if you’re saying them, otherwise they’re opinion? There are no facts in politics, except for what you believe.
All quotes are from you.”
Pretty good ones to if I might add.
“Resource allocation by central planning has always lead to rationing of goods and services.”
I believe the Soviet Union and North Korea are good examples of this.
“actually rationing of health care is the only possible outcome from a nationalized plan.”
England is certainly an example of this.
“Monopolies are only able to survive by government force.” Think Utility Companies for this one.
“The majority of people do not get severely ill during their lives.” here is some info from an older study done in England:
“Moreover, the evolution of a critical illness such as cancer had been analysed over a 13 year period that is from 1980-1992. The report provided figures for both men and women. According to Cancer statistics registrations (Office for National Statistics, 1980-1990); ONS Monitor (1991, 1992), during the year 1980, around 400 out 100,000 men may have been victims of a critical illness such as malignant neoplasms. During the same year, about 380 out of 100,000 women may have also suffered from the same critical illness. This cancer rate continued an ascent as in the year 1988, a peak may have been suddenly reached. Therefore, nearly 490 over 100,000 men may have contracted malignant neoplasms while 470 out of 100,000 women may have suffered from the critical illness at the same time.
“Furthermore, as per Cancer statistics registrations (Office for National Statistics, 1980-1990); ONS Monitor (1991, 1992), another critical illness that prevailed mostly among men may have been lung cancer. Statistics showed around 110 out of 100,000 men suffering from this critical illness during the year 1992. Besides, another critical illness named as prostatic cancer may have made around 39 over 100,000 men patients in the year 1980. Additionally, the value then may have gradually increased to 60 out of 100,000 men in the year 1992. Then appeared a critical illness such as colon cancer. But the disease may not have made many victims. Thus in the year 1992, around 25 out of 100,000 women may have contracted this critical illness while 38 out of 100,000 men may have had the same fate.”
I trust you agree that a few hundred out of 100,000 means that most people do not become critically ill in their life. And I think we can safely say that these figures have probably not increased significantly in the ensuing years and may have even gotten better due to better information about nutrition. I think we can also extrapolate this data to the US as I doubt there are substantial differences in environment. From the info I have seen it is in later years that most of the health care is used.
“You cannot spend your way out of a depression/recession. and you cannot get out of a recession/depression by creating false demand for goods and services through government money which is what a stimulus is.” I think that was proved back in 1933 when it took WWII to get us out even though large sums of money was spent on “stimulus”.
“Liberal ideas never work in reality and that is a fact. ” It certainly appears to me that that is so. The programs either make more people poor or are facing bankruptcy.
““Facts” in the political realm are not facts.”
well maybe you did do a “gotcha” on that one, good show old sport.
I must say Gyges, jolly good show you really “showed” me.
IS,
In case you’re wondering, this is why I’m done with you for the time being. Opinions are only facts if you’re saying them, otherwise they’re opinion? There are no facts in politics, except for what you believe.
All quotes are from you.
“Resource allocation by central planning has always lead to rationing of goods and services.”
“actually rationing of health care is the only possible outcome from a nationalized plan.”
“Monopolies are only able to survive by government force.”
“The majority of people do not get severely ill during their lives.”
“You cannot spend your way out of a depression/recession. and you cannot get out of a recession/depression by creating false demand for goods and services through government money which is what a stimulus is.”
“Liberal ideas never work in reality and that is a fact. ”
““Facts” in the political realm are not facts.”
Slarti:
“Facts” in the political realm are not facts. Mike Spindell just threw out a “fact” that Medicare has a 3% admin cost and insurance companies have a 30% admin cost. I got on line and found, with little effort, a report that said that that is not true. Here is the link:
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf
Now all of you will tell me this is some partisan organization that is in the pocket of the insurance companies and maybe it is, I did not look into their motivation. But the left’s motivation may not be all goodness light and they have an axe to grind as well.
And I have given my reasons why I think the way I do and I am told that all I am doing is parroting or I am not going deep enough or I haven’t presented enough “facts” to support my opinion. I dont see any better from your side, you (not you personally) parrot left progressive partisans who do have a dog in the fight.
I gave Mike Appleton a link to an article by the professor that wrote the Myth of the Robber Barons. It is basically what I have been saying all along. I am sure everyone will disagree with that as well. Even though the man has done extensive research on the subject.
So I again come back to my main contention that “facts” are not facts and that most of what is on this blog is someones opinion from the left side of aisle.
A fact is that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second or that the modulus of steel is 29,000,000 psi but political “facts” are all someones theories as Mike Appleton pointed out.
Some theories work and some don’t. Progressives have been in almost complete control of the intellectual table for over 60 years, and thank whomever they were not able to implement most of their ideas. In my opinion most of them are wrong and belong on the cutting room floor.
I am sure you believe the same about my ideas of free market capitalism. But please don’t tell me you have the “facts” on your side.
Mike S and GWLSM,
Mike said: “no one was ever as good as Edward R. Murrow”. I think that the problem is an institutional one not an individual one – I believe that there are still people with the character of Mr. Murrow, but that not even he would be able to just deliver the news as it is in today’s media environment. I agree with you about the quality of news analysis on TV – it would be interesting to see a ‘pundit scorecard’ that listed all of the predictions and conclusions of an analyst and how well they panned out. This month in the media has been especially bad – with congress on recess there isn’t anything of substance to report on the health care bill itself, but lacking some new big story for the media to over-report they have to fill up their time with something and heath care is at the top of the stack. It seems like every day we hear people from the media ranting about how health care reform is dead or that it has come back to life. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with this media health care zombie for a while. And just to be perfectly clear, I do not support the extension of health care benefits to zombies.;-)
IS,
You said: “I don’t mind at all if you call me names. For the little comment about government and monopolies there was quite a honking of all the geese.” You said something that was extremely naive and ignorant and several people quickly explained why what you said was so totally and completely wrong – this wasn’t because we were dazzled with your brilliant arguments, but because we are aware that if misinformation is allowed to stand unchallenged it gains credibility.
You said: “And actually I don’t see any decent rejoinder other than it is a myth or it is a fairy tail or people are mean and cruel or I am stupid or a racist, or I am a retard and have no morals or I am a dirty a** licker, etc, etc.” People have repeatedly given substantive arguments as to why statements of yours were untrue, if you don’t recognized this, it speaks to your ability to ignore anything that contradicts your beliefs. As to the rest of this, I don’t believe that I have done any of it (I apologize if I have), so I wont comment.
You said:
“You only have opinions as well, every “fact” that you throw out there I have an opposing “fact” from one of my “experts” to refute your “fact”.
The “facts” in reality tell me my “facts” are better than your “facts”.”
You seem to misunderstand the definition of the term ‘fact’. We are entitled to our own opinions and arguments, but a ‘fact’ is something that is objectively true. I would say that for the most part, the facts that myself and others have presented attacking your assertions are much more relevant to our arguments than the few facts that you state are to your arguments.
Arrgh! Mike S. beat me to the punch again! I guess I’ll keep going as I’m having fun…
You said: “Just look around, the federal government screws up about everything they touch and that is my argument pure and simple. That you choose to evade that fact is your problem.” You make a statement unsupported by any facts (and easy to refute) and then imply that your statement is fact. I don’t think that I’m the one with the problem…
You said: “We have regulations and they don’t work to well from what I can see. That mortgage fiasco is a case in point and so is Bernie Madoff’s scheme, regulators ignored complaints for years. This type of stuff goes on and on and your solution-lets have more of what doesn’t work.” We had regulations that protected us, but they’ve been systematically weakened since Reagan was president and President Bush never me a regulation that he wanted to enforce. Add that to the fact that most of the regulations were enacted in the Roosevelt administration when no one had ever thought of a ‘credit default swap’ and it’s high time to revisit financial regulation.
You said: “And unless you have a doctorate in a subject our level of education is similar, although coming from the hard sciences I am willing to bet mine was quite a bit harder. Call me a math/science snob if you wish but we used to take econ, poli-sci and geography and philosophy to boost our grade point as they were guaranteed A’s for us.” I have a Ph.D. (and, to be clear, I don’t think that it adds any weight to my arguments unless they directly pertain to my field). I never thought of my education being hard – generally, I took classes because I wanted to learn something, not to get a grade (and if I wanted to raise my GPA math and science courses would have been my best bet anyway…).
You said: “In my business I have to be moral and deal with reality on a daily basis, I cannot manipulate nature to fit my wants, needs and desires. I do not have that luxury as nature is an iron fisted mistress and you ignore her at your own and others peril. You however ignore reality on a daily basis as evidenced by most of your posts.” I leave it for everyone to decide for themselves who they think is ignoring reality.
You said: “Your assertions are laughable and based on your stereotypes of what people on the right are like based on the bs you received in your liberal arts courses (in fact most of the liberal arts classes I took had professors that actually were rather dimwitted). To them and you I am some hayseed bible thumper from Bumpass, Arkansas with a barefoot wife and stupid children sporting mullets and live in a trailer park.” I really don’t think about (or care, for that matter) who you are – but I will say that mullets should be avoided by anyone who doesn’t play professional hockey.
You said to Gyges: “did it ever occur to you that I wanted to know what your actual opinion was on a subject and not what someone else’s “facts”? I deal in facts all day long and was hoping for some theoretical what if, all I found was ad hominem attacks and factoids presented as analysis.” What part of Mike S ripping your theories from AR did you not understand? Besides, a theoretical discussion that doesn’t include analysis of relevant facts is pretty pointless, in my opinion.
Mike S,
Maybe you missed the point about personal attacks that I am taking exception too. You don’t like bigtory neither do I. Those attacks at the present were directed at you. You are more than capable to defend yourself.
Maybe you can distinguish the two. I can’t. It is still wrong. Do you liked to be told your son did not die and that I am playing you? It is just as personal. If she or anyone else attacks me personally I like you intend to defend myself. Thank you.
“The debate here is important and we must not let continuous bickering detract from the message that we are all strong supporters of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights et al., and the rule of law. The ‘Trinity of our Republic’—as I term the three pillars of our representative democratic Republic—represents the antithesis of the Holy Trinity and nary the twain shall meet.”
FFLEO,
I feel the same about you and of course totally agree with your statement above.
“I deal in facts all day long and was hoping for some theoretical what if,”
IS,
Is this the kind of theoretical what if you were looking for?
“Just look around, the federal government screws up about everything they touch and that is my argument pure and simple. That you choose to evade that fact is your problem.”
IS,
Indignation is a great cover for a paucity of ideas.
“The “facts” in reality tell me my “facts” are better than your “facts”.”
You supply no facts just assertions like: “Monopolies are only able to survive by government force.” Now if, as you allege, you were trained in the hard sciences than it is a certainty that your monopoly statement is not a fact and in fact I did refute it with examples that you chose to ignore. So did Slarti and Mike A and you refuse to give arguments to refute them or the examples they gave. For someone with a scientific education you seem never to have heard of proof and in its’ place you substitute rote opinion, without anything to support it.
“Your assertions are laughable and based on your stereotypes of what people on the right are like based on the bs you received in your liberal arts courses”
Do I really need to go back over all your posts to point out each stereotype of those you disagree with that you use, or will you just concede the point?
“And unless you have a doctorate in a subject our level of education is similar”
I have an MS from an Ivy League School, having won a full scholarship and also did five years of post Masters training at a State licensed institute. I’ve also been the Agency Chief Contracting Officer for a multi-billion dollar NYC Agency and was in that capacity personally responsible for Managing more than a billion dollars worth of contracts. Besides that I was the Budget Director for another large NYC sub-Agency and the Director of Operations (all budget, contracts, administration, etc.). My undergraduate degree, also on full tuition scholarship won competitively, was in Business and not in liberal arts. I was also a member for many years in the 80’s of The Society of American Baseball Research, the cutting edge in Baseball statistical analysis.
My bono fides are at least equal to yours in economics and math. The difference is I actually give thought to the issues, while all you have shown so far is the ability to respond with rote concepts and the lack of ability to actually refute points made against you.
“Just look around, the federal government screws up about everything they touch and that is my argument pure and simple. That you choose to evade that fact is your problem.”
That you don’t understand that the above is an assertion, requiring actual proof, points out the problem despite your “hard” science background. My answer in brief is that Medicare/Medicaid have Admin expenses (I assume you know what those are)of around 3%, while private insurers have admin expenses of on average 30%. If you are a businessman, as you profess to be, you would know that 30% for Admin expenses is ridiculous. Government 1, private sector 0.
Gyges:
I am saying “facts” not hard actual proven facts, thus the quotes. Most “facts” I have seen are someone’s supposition that seems to take on a life of its own. Hyack has a good article on how opinions end up as “facts”.
For example, recently it was stated as fact that right wing protestors were organized. This came from some source in CT. where a guy with a 5,000 dollar budget for his organization had sent out a flier to get people to go to the town hall meetings. It ended up getting quoted on the networks as “fact” that opposition was organized. I dont think a guy with a $5,000 dollar budget is a national organizer. Granted there probably are bigger fish in the mix from both sides.
Anyway I know you know what I meant.
Mike S writes: GWLSM,
Wouldn’t you agree that a big part of this problem is that the news media breathlessly reports each of these nonsensical pronouncements as if they have equal weight in truth? If I remember it correctly Medicare was passed by 51 votes. Those that do news analysis on TV, even on Keith and Rachel who I watch, mostly have no idea of what they’re talking about. I’m of course not talking about JT, Taibbi or Scahill, but the usual suspects from Newsweek and the Washington Establishment. Then too the newswriters for the Networks and Cable news, forget FOX, lack the perception to properly give depth or truth to a story. Walter Cronkite is missed because he delivered the news as it was and did not try to hype it for its’ entertainment value. Frankly, while he was good, no one was ever as good as Edward R. Murrow.
political theater, whether from the left or right, is a self-perpetuating beast. it must feed constantly. this has implications for how much information is passed on each cycle and for how long each tidbit remains alive. the american attention span is usually a pretty shirt one…. and depends on how long the cycle goes. think OJ. once the news beast moves on, so do we.
Mike Appleton:
Shared values? I think that is her point, there are many different values held by people and the best way to keep it all together is to have a free society with limited government that will protect those diverse values.
As far as monopolies are concernded I direct you to this book: The Myth of the Robber Barrons by Folsom.
here is an article he wrote about these issues:
http://fee.org/nff/the-myth-of-the-robber-barons/
IS,
I find it odd that in the same post you can say that you deal in reality every day, but the people you’re arguing with don’t and then complain that one of them uses actual hard data to back up his opinion.