WendyCal would be Bill but even he knew something about...something.
Its evident from the original post that WC doesn't understand much of much.
For the record the younger Jackson has renounced his father in the coldest fashion one man could. The linking of the two men against all possible reason suggests that we're to conjure a negitive connectiong between, amoungst all things, a father and son.
After we're done questioning a mans morals because he associates with his father, then we're supposed to make the jump to Obama? i'd start arguing this but it would be an invasion of family privacy.
Speaking of which, we have politicians who continuously suggest that we havn't been able to come to a conclusion on issues. Take for example our current commander-in-cheif for example. He still can't figure out how old the earth is.
I'd imagine theres an easy toggle between not being able to determine whats correct between scripture and science and the ideas about how social theory works on something like abortion.
You don't think theres a common ground between two issues? I've started to question why I'll respond at all.
And I have to say in a small bit of meta here, I was going to write something on the voodoo puppet show that is "trickle-down economics" and "free market forces" but for the sake of actually showing you that you're just screaming out-dated platitiudes that have no bearing on the nations current situation, I decided to go read what your wrote again and find a third argument. Lucky me you're a regular old GOPper and your Reaganomics is like your Visa card.
Lets say for the hell of an argument that small business actually do suffer when we "overtax" them.
Our theory therefore is to not tax them so they can proliferate their businesses and subsequently create more jobs...right?
Alright so using some basic logic here, the argument is that businesses can't create more jobs because the government taxes them.
So once this tax cut measure goes through, wheres the money coming from that allows them to build new sites?
You see, when corporations aren't taxed, generally the middle class is. So all those people who were going to buy from the business have no surplus to do so.
So in reality, there won't be any new businesses anywhere because your market is non-existant.
Taxes don't kill businesses. A lack of market does. Its called Supply and Demand and I thought you champions of the free market would know something about economics, or business or soemthing.
And you brought up Healthcare. Heres another thing about free market forces that you Republicans seem to forget. Supply and demand must be related completly. That is to say, as soon as we cannot control one or the other, the idea falls apart.
For a non-related issue (first) take agriculture. You can't control the crop demand. You either grow X amount of corn or you don't. If in the middle of the growth season the demand for corn spikes, you can't create more corn overnight.
In this case, who cares? You don't get corn, no big deal. But lets say in the middle of the growth season corn sales drop to almost nothing. These aren't planks of wood, or hand guns, or childrens toys. The corns done. Its over. If there isn't government regulation as there was prior to 1996 (a republican led deregulation effort) and had been since FDR pushed it through with the New Deal, then the corn rots. The farmers money that was used to grow that corn has been wasted and he goes out of business.
So much for free market forces helping small businesses.
But back to health care, we cannot anticipate fully the need for, say Heart attacks. In advance we either do have doctors with the education and training to treat heart failure, or we don't.
With market forces, we have enough doctors for an anticipated average, but of course enviornmental and geographic variables factor into that average and occasionally our cardiac failures supercede our ability to treat and address them.
Either we keep enough medical doctors in practice to treat spikes or we don't. We can't fire them during low points or when the average returns we end up watching far too many patients go untreated. The idea that Obama would like to prevent our freedoms is what we call ideological propoganda to further a certain part of any given populaces agenda. The freedom is not hindered because you don't get your run of any doctor in the country, as I'll remind you, you don't get that choice now. Your freedom is hindered when you break your arm and have to smoke yourself stupid so that you can deal with the pain until it heals incorrectly. Your health is risked when you drag a fetus out from the uterus with medical equiptment that was keeping my Oxford button down off the floor yesterday. Family is violated when the unloved spawn that was forced to be born overruns the already apathetic parenthood that bore his creation and becomes the jobless vagrant that you'd take a stand against as a freeloader who is the only one who gets "free" anything.
Obama isn't a bad choice, he's the only choice. We could vote for a gimmick-riding turn-coat who just 8 years earlier held anathma opinions on just about everything and currently employs the same tactics he found reprehensible, presumably because he stood on the losing end of them. Don't read me wrong. I'm not suggesting Obama is the lesser of two evils, I actually find him the right man for the times and the job. So before you cynical wants-to-be-jaded nay-saying vultures decend on the idea that "who cares lets go get drunk" I couldn't agree with you less.
As for the foolishness about Chicago...we'll the idea that you misrepresented the roles of state and federal sentators says enough for me. Don't play in the shark tank if you're a drunk guppy.
|