The Marketplace "Regulated" Itself....

Only a Progressive super genius like yourself would post links about government officials corrupt activities inside the private sector as proof that capitalism was to blame and not government. :rolleyes:

Watch out for Shaman people, he has foot-in-mouth disease.

Actually, it's not an illness for Shaman. It's a way of life. He's the only one thus far to try and prove there was a 79 oil embargo. No one else is that stupid.
 
Werbung:
Yeah....I'm sure Daddy Bush had no idea what hu$tle$ his boy$ were runnin'.

He was only The President.


You're still FAILING to show that political corruption is the fault of capitalism. Soviet Russia had massive levels of political corruption, anti-capitalist totalitarian regimes around the world are notorious for their corruption.

Like most Progressives, you blame the tool in the hands of a criminal rather than the criminal himself for his actions.

Clearly you are an intellectual powerhouse... Popeye, TopGun and the other Progressives must be proud to have you as their leader here on the forum.
 
Yeah.....right.....it's (merely) an illusion, huh?
Just ask John Boner.............. :rolleyes:

Did you eat paint chips as child?

oenearthlogo.gif


What a totally non-biased source you have there... If Lobbyists are so bad, you must really hate Bidens son, he's a lobbyist. Some of Obama's best friends and associates are lobbyists as well, they are from organizations such as ACORN and the Unions... perhaps you've heard of them.

Tell you what... Since you think Capitalism is so bad, why don't you demand the nationalization of all business and commerce in America?

Surely all corruption, political and economic, will disappear if you just destroyed capitalism.

Oh and Shaman:
picture.php

Don't forget to wipe your chin​
 
Did you eat paint chips as child?

oenearthlogo.gif


What a totally non-biased source you have there... If Lobbyists are so bad, you must really hate Bidens son, he's a lobbyist. Some of Obama's best friends and associates are lobbyists as well, they are from organizations such as ACORN and the Unions... perhaps you've heard of them.

Tell you what... Since you think Capitalism is so bad, why don't you demand the nationalization of all business and commerce in America?

Surely all corruption, political and economic, will disappear if you just destroyed capitalism.

Oh and Shaman:
picture.php

Don't forget to wipe your chin​

Not to derail and already derailed thread ...... but....

why exactly is it a bad thing to have government college loans directly handed out by the government ?!?!? What is truely the importance of having a middle man ?
 
Tell you what... Since you think Capitalism is so bad, why don't you demand the nationalization of all business and commerce in America?
I've got zero-problems with Capitalism....unless you're talkin'-about BUSHCO-style "capitalism".​

March 01, 2006

"But nowhere is the corruption more glaring than in the Medicare Part D disaster passed in the dark of night in November of 2003 after a 3-hour vote—the longest recorded vote in the history of the United States. The bill created a Medicare drug benefit that relied on private companies. Republicans claimed privatization would give beneficiaries more choices and that competition among private plans would keep program costs down. :rolleyes:

Last week, the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the Institute for America’s Future released a joint report detailing the exact costs of Republican corruption in the Part D disaster. The report calculates that the actual cost to the American public is about $80 billion per year, or $800 billion over the next 10 years—as most federal budgets are calculated.*

For those of you who aren’t Bill Gates and have a hard time putting $80 billion a year into perspective, that’s enough money for a tenfold increase in the annual appropriation for Head Start programs.

This $80 billion price-tag is based on two specific provisions where Republicans sold out seniors for their industry contributors. First, they created a confusing web of competing and inefficient private plans run by private insurers—who receive huge subsidies from the federal government—that beneficiaries must choose from, rather than a simple stand-alone benefit run by Medicare. The low overhead costs of a single administrating agency could save $4.8 billion annually.

Second, they made it illegal for the federal government to negotiate the price of drugs with manufacturers, despite the fact every other industrialized nation negotiates these prices. When the government does negotiate lower prices for bulk drug purchases, as does the Veterans Administration, it saves more than 40 percent compared to the market cost. Applied to Medicare, this would save about $560 billion over the first eight years of the program. The cost of the disastrous Medicare plan is even greater when the subsidies given to insurance companies are factored in."​
 
Not to derail and already derailed thread ...... but....

why exactly is it a bad thing to have government college loans directly handed out by the government ?!?!? What is truely the importance of having a middle man ?
Too-often (it seems like), "conservatives" have viewed that as an "entitlement"-concept....where everyone might participate :eek: .....rather-than the long-term-inve$tment, in this Country, it would actually be.

After all....where're the short-term-profits??!!! (....if the government participates; much like present-day health-care.)

Quit-often, such scenerios remind me of the origins of The Drug War...in the late-'60s/early-'70s.

Back then.....it was no-big-deal if drug-use flourished in the inner-cities....pretty-much a replication of that good ol' '50s-style Keep 'Em Barefoot & Pregnant concept. BUT, when White college-kids started participating...and, "mixing" with those-people....drug-use (particularly Pot-smokin') was all-of-a-sudden a Plague-on-society!!!!!

Another analogy would be the (real) Roots of Racism: exclusion!!! (i.e. The less they get, the more I get.)

How're the right-kids gonna help maintain our present-form-of-Capitalism, if they're (also) expected to compete with those-people??!!!
 
Here's the Bottom-Line, folks!

"During last year's campaign, Obama proposed offering a government-sponsored plan as a low-cost alternative for Americans who are having trouble purchasing insurance in the private market. Proponents say it would reduce costs because it would not need to make a profit or pay large executive salaries.

Many Republicans and industry executives say that any program modeled after Medicare -- with its power to set prices -- would have an unfair advantage over private-sector competitors and eventually force some companies out of business."​

Gee......fewer HMOs......whatta tragedy.

:rolleyes:
 
I've got zero-problems with Capitalism....unless you're talkin'-about BUSHCO-style "capitalism".​

Once again, Bush's expansion of the Welfare state was not capitalism... that's Socialism. Conservatives were totally against the expansion of Medicare and its only because Bush's fellow progressives on the Left joined him that he got that passed. Yes, much to your chagrin it was bi-partisan legislation that Bush signed creating medicare part D.

Clearly its not the corruption angle that bothers you... You don't seem to mind any of the corruption that takes place in the Democrat party and there certainly are not a shortage of examples (Di-Fi, Rengal, Frank, Pelosi, Dodd, and on and on).
 
Once again, Bush's expansion of the Welfare state was not capitalism... that's Socialism. Conservatives were totally against the expansion of Medicare and its only because Bush's fellow progressives on the Left joined him that he got that passed. Yes, much to your chagrin it was bi-partisan legislation that Bush signed creating medicare part D.

Clearly its not the corruption angle that bothers you... You don't seem to mind any of the corruption that takes place in the Democrat party and there certainly are not a shortage of examples (Di-Fi, Rengal, Frank, Pelosi, Dodd, and on and on).

Yeah where was the outrage over the massive democrat corruption of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paying off senators to ignore their cooking the books right before they went bankrupt?
 
Werbung:
Just to throw out there, HMO's were government mandated.
Mandated??

I think the term you were struggling-for is certified....and, all-of-this was a result of earlier-efforts....when they were considered prepaid health plans....you know, like in socialist-countries....like Canada.

:rolleyes:

June 8, 2004

"Privatization results in a large net loss to society in terms of higher costs and lower quality, but some stand to gain. Privatization creates vast opportunities for powerful firms, and also redistributes income among health workers. Pay scales are relatively flat in government and not-for-profit health institutions; pay differences between the CEO and a housekeeper are perhaps 20:1. In US corporations, a ratio of 180:1 is average. In effect, privatization takes money from the pockets of low-wage, mostly female health workers and gives it to investors and highly paid managers.

Behind false claims of efficiency lies a much uglier truth. Investor-owned care embodies a new value system that severs the community roots and Samaritan traditions of hospitals, makes physicians and nurses into instruments of investors, and views patients as commodities. Investor ownership marks the triumph of greed.http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/12/1814"​
 
Back
Top