so if the plan you propose is essentially to continue the tax cuts eventually our country will go bankrupt. That will lead to hyperinflation and we all know what that means. A bankrupt government is not a good government. We are not in an economic position to continue proceeding the way we are with tax cuts. in addition you forget that to pay for everything we are giving out much higher interest rates than people would get on taxed money. It is not as simple as saying that the rates are equal. Not to mention if one of the half dozen countries who "own" our debt we would have no ability to pay them back. This is the same situation that occured in the Weimar Republic in Germany and that didn't end too well...
Ah but in this case the government is largely underfunded. If we take the amount of money that is paid for overhead in big HMOs we would be saving enough money to put just 1/2 of it to help stabilize and fix the entire medical system. It would free the doctors' hands and enable them to treat patients without waiting to hear from a big company thousands of miles away...Medicare has an approximate overhead of 3% while HMOs spend over 50% on overheads (perhaps as much as 80%). So if we put half that money into the fixing the system and give the other half back...we end up with a better medical system.
The Iraqi public has in large parts rejected Al Qaida but they have also rejected us. We are functioning in the same sort of position as Al Qaida there, an unwanted, interfering, dangerous force. We have the inability to fix their country as shown by lack of electricity, plumbing and other conveniences they once had and our occupation is estimated to have killed as many people in "combat situations" as Saddam did in 30 years (now I don't like Saddam obviously but don't argue that we have killed no civilians as we have). While we bankrupt our country we continue to simply help Al-Qaida and fail to help Iraq. We either need a new strategy or we need a withdrawal. If we are bankrupt what use are we then?
Agreed except for many people in this country lack the ability to get a high paying job in this economic climate and the minimum wage is several dollars lower than the poverty line so I don't see how you are suppossed to save in that situation...
[quote[It will not make a huge difference no, but it would be a symbolic gesture to at least show that the government was not just blowing hot air. With oil prices what they are, and with drilling methods being able to not alter the environment, I do not see the harm in drilling some oil and providing some jobs in the process. We can pursue alternative forms of energy and drill domestically at the same time.
A symbolic gesture that we want to continue the way that we have been going and increase the profits of oil companies? what kind of message is that...The way to reduce oil prices is by not using oil. We have reached a stage that several companies have developed alternatives but instead of having government money help pay for that you are proposing that instead the government pay for more oil drilling and more oil profits...?
According to conservative groups Barack Obama has an 11% rating...meaning he sides with Republicans about 11% of the time. Sound familiar? However this 11% is far different than McCain's 11% as McCain has sided with an obviously failed president most of the time while Obama has sided against that failed president most of the time...
