Rep. Barney Frank Lays The Smackdown

[mikey_the_redneck]

Vulcan.....

You might like this one. Or anyone for that matter.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXjC...eature=related

It's a short 10 minute video of U.S. employees/troops talking about the practices and spending habits of Haliburton and KBR in Iraq. Kind of disturbing, but I stumbled onto it just today......

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

It's 2 in the damn morning here, and I have to be awake for work in less than 5 hours, so I'm going to make this quick.

I don't want to derail the thread (which is actually having some interesting conversation about an interesting topic) by going into detail--but I will say, for the record, that I'm about the farthest thing from a feminist. It isn't about just female rights, it's about equal rights. I don't care if you're male, female, black, white, old, young, gay or straight--if all American people are supposed to be equal, they should be treated equally. Period, end of story.

That legislature ensures that at least men and women are on an even playing field. Change for the positive. That was all I was saying, and I really have no desire to get into a feminism/anti-feminism debate, because I genuinely don't care about it. It was an example, and nothing more.

I'd added a lot more here, but on second thought, it's a can of worms that I just have no desire to open, so we'll just pretend that was never here.

Ok fair enough. I just feel it is unnecessary legislation. Why do we need this legislation? Women are fully covered by existing legislation that needs to be enforced..and is NOW fully enforced. This inequality is no longer institutionalized against women.

This is like the NHL adding in the neutral zone interference penalty. What happened to the plain old hooking?

And next time please argue my point. As if equality was the argument fulcrum.

[badnarik]

Equal pay for equal work is fine, but I never understood why an employer wouldn't just hire all women if the employer could pay less for equal work.

This suggests that employers prefer having male employees more than having higher productivity.

Back on topic Barney Frank seems like a cartoon character.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Here's how it is. When I refer to your posts, I quote you. When you refer to my posts, you often don't quote, you just make up crap.

Completely untrue.

[Bunk]

The American right and what the Republican Party has become is quite scary.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The American right and what the Republican Party has become is quite scary.

Is that something that your professor told you or did you come up with that all by yourself?

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The American right and what the Republican Party has become is quite scary.

Radical far right types are scary.

So are radical far left types.

Both parties have idiots, same as every fanbase has idiots, same as every race has idiots, etc.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Is that something that your professor told you or did you come up with that all by yourself?

I don't understand why you had to be rude to me in response to my opinion.

I'm more or less a pragmatic centrist so I don't usually believe in extreme opinions no matter what the political ideology, but the US right seem to have a particularly hateful and ignorant bent.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I don't understand why you had to be rude to me in response to my opinion.

I'm more or less a pragmatic centrist so I don't usually believe in extreme opinions no matter what the political ideology, but the US right seem to have a particularly hateful and ignorant bent.

Why do you find the right worse than the left? (talking about only radicals here)

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Why do you find the right worse than the left? (talking about only radicals here)

The far-left in the US is still on the fringes -- the Democratic Party has, in an overall sense, a center-left (or even center-right by the standards of other Western democracies) platform.

On the other hand, the extreme far-right seems to be the core of the Republican Party these days. That's why the far-right is worse than the extreme-left -- one actually has some power and influence, whereas the other does not. On another political forum I visit, almost all of the rational fiscal conservatives have given up on the Republican Party because it's been taken over by the wing-nuts. There will almost certainly be a major schism in the party soon between the fiscal conservatives and religious conservatives.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I don't understand why you had to be rude to me in response to my opinion.

I'm more or less a pragmatic centrist so I don't usually believe in extreme opinions no matter what the political ideology, but the US right seem to have a particularly hateful and ignorant bent.

I was mocking the fact that you didn't say anything other than a one line piece of rhetoric that is recycled every day by people that have no idea what they're talking about.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The far-left in the US is still on the fringes -- the Democratic Party has, in an overall sense, a center-left (or even center-right by the standards of other Western democracies) platform.

On the other hand, the extreme far-right seems to be the core of the Republican Party these days. That's why the far-right is worse than the extreme-left -- one actually has some power and influence, whereas the other does not. On another political forum I visit, almost all of the rational fiscal conservatives have given up on the Republican Party because it's been taken over by the wing-nuts. There will almost certainly be a major schism in the party soon between the fiscal conservatives and religious conservatives.

^Here's a good example of someone that has a thought-out opinion.

Sorry, Bunk. I'm being a bit of a dick today.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The far-left in the US is still on the fringes -- the Democratic Party has, in an overall sense, a center-left (or even center-right by the standards of other Western democracies) platform.

On the other hand, the extreme far-right seems to be the core of the Republican Party these days. That's why the far-right is worse than the extreme-left -- one actually has some power and influence, whereas the other does not. On another political forum I visit, almost all of the rational fiscal conservatives have given up on the Republican Party because it's been taken over by the wing-nuts. There will almost certainly be a major schism in the party soon between the fiscal conservatives and religious conservatives.

I'm waiting to see which side the GOP leadership falls on. Certainly the media wants to make us believe it is the wing nut side. I am not yet convinced.

I agree with your view of the party though. It's been hijacked.

Either way, Sarah Palin isn't the future of the party as most believe. I'm curious to see who runs in 2012.

[Calgaryborn]

Obama just raised the projected 10 year deficit to 9.1 trillion. That's a number most economists have been predicting for months. Until now the administration has been denying it would be so high.

This figure does not include any costs associated with providing a government program that would include insurance coverage for the 45 million uninsured Americans and illegals. Yes I know some Democrats are saying they are not proposing covering illegals but, 12 million of that 45 million uninsured are illegals so until they revised their figures(for the uninsured) one should include them. Perhaps the plan is to give them citizenship and then cover them right after. In any cased most insured Americans don't believe that you can cover 45 million more people without 1 or 2 things happening: Taxes being raised and/or services being reduced. Nothing in Obama's proposal would change that reality. Seniors are worried about a decline in services that they worked their lives believing they would receive. The working class fears losing even more of their earnings to pay for the government inclusive system. Most already anticipate tax increases to pay for the deficit already in the pipe line.

Sure many of the specific fears people are expressing aren't a lock to happen but, something will have to give. In the real world someone has to pay. The government doesn't give away anything they pulled out of a magical sack. They give what they have taken. Many of the 250 million Americans with health insurance are starting to fear they are going to be on the wrong end of the government's generosity.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Obama just raised the projected 10 year deficit to 9.1 trillion. That's a number most economists have been predicting for months. Until now the administration has been denying it would be so high.

This figure does not include any costs associated with providing a government program that would include insurance coverage for the 45 million uninsured Americans and illegals. Yes I know some Democrats are saying they are not proposing covering illegals but, 12 million of that 45 million uninsured are illegals so until they revised their figures(for the uninsured) one should include them. Perhaps the plan is to give them citizenship and then cover them right after. In any cased most insured Americans don't believe that you can cover 45 million more people without 1 or 2 things happening: Taxes being raised and/or services being reduced. Nothing in Obama's proposal would change that reality. Seniors are worried about a decline in services that they worked their lives believing they would receive. The working class fears losing even more of their earnings to pay for the government inclusive system. Most already anticipate tax increases to pay for the deficit already in the pipe line.

Sure many of the specific fears people are expressing aren't a lock to happen but, something will have to give. In the real world someone has to pay. The government doesn't give away anything they pulled out of a magical sack. They give what they have taken. Many of the 250 million Americans with health insurance are starting to fear they are going to be on the wrong end of the government's generosity.

I admit that I'm not a political person, so this is a genuine question:

Rather than nationalizing healthcare, and improving insurance coverage in that manner--why not just place strict regulations on insurance companies? Make it unlawful to drop coverage, except in very extreme circumstances. Regulate how much insurance companies are able to demand from doctors for malpractice insurance.

That doesn't mean the government is paying for the insurance, it's just making it more accessible. It's not raising taxes, it's just making it possible for working adults to get affordable health care.

I'm sure there are reasons this can't happen, but I honestly don't know, and at the moment, am far too lazy to look it up.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I was mocking the fact that you didn't say anything other than a one line piece of rhetoric that is recycled every day by people that have no idea what they're talking about.

Sorry, I was just heading out, didn't have time to elaborate - allow me. MarchHare explains well what seems to be happening in the US. The political spectrum, as we know, is further to the right of what we're used to in Canada. A moderate democrat is probably more similar to a 'conservative' here in Canada. Further to MarchHare's point, the far right in the US seems to have a place in the mainstream, so while ultra right-wing loonies like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have widely broadcasted platforms, the far left in the US is relegated to what? the blogs and the occasional NPR program? If you would assume that either form of extremism is bad, the far right has far more influence on society and therefore more scary - the far left is for all intents and purposes irrelivant.

This group of ultra-conservatives also has co-opted the republican party inciting a cultural war in the US centred largely on social and what they believe to be moral and religious issues. It has this bent of hyper-nationalism, is anti-immigrantion, anti-muslim, homophopic and lots of other stances that, from my perspective, are quite scary. On the other hand, the far-left seems to be based a lot less on fear, ignorance and hate and besides being far less relevant, is innocuous.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

I admit that I'm not a political person, so this is a genuine question:

Rather than nationalizing health care, and improving insurance coverage in that manner--why not just place strict regulations on insurance companies? Make it unlawful to drop coverage, except in very extreme circumstances. Regulate how much insurance companies are able to demand from doctors for malpractice insurance.

That doesn't mean the government is paying for the insurance, it's just making it more accessible. It's not raising taxes, it's just making it possible for working adults to get affordable health care.

I'm sure there are reasons this can't happen, but I honestly don't know, and at the moment, am far too lazy to look it up.

I like some of your suggestions. There has been some talk about restricting the amount a person can sue a doctor/hospital. It has been floated a few times by Republicans but, there seems to be an effective lobby against it in both parties. I think it would help if people stopped electing lawyers to represent them in government. Just imagine how low insurance rates would go across the board if lawyers themselves were restricted in the amount of compensation they could receive for representing a client's lawsuit in court.

Another thing the government could do is repeal the federal law that prohibits a person from buying their health insurance from out of State. I don't even understand why that law was put in place in the first place. It only benefits insurance companies.

About 10 million of the 45 million uninsured Americans are simply uninsured because they are in between jobs or have started a new job and are waiting for the coverage to kick in. This number has probably swelled in the last year. It might be a good idea to require insurance companies to offer some reasonable bridge insurance to cover the first few months after a person is forced to leave a group plan because of employment status. I can't see that as being too expensive of a requirement. They could offer three months bridge coverage to any employee who had worked under their group plan 8 months and an extra month bridge insurance for every year of service after that. I wouldn't penalize the employee for quitting or getting fired either.

There are probably a few other things the government could do that would provide better and cheaper medical insurance without spending borrowed money to do it. Tax incentives to companies and employers who offer plans that allows for a certain percentage of chronic illness in their coverage. Tax credits for Doctors who donate time to free walk in clinics and such. The list could go on.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Sorry, I was just heading out, didn't have time to elaborate - allow me. MarchHare explains well what seems to be happening in the US. The political spectrum, as we know, is further to the right of what we're used to in Canada. A moderate democrat is probably more similar to a 'conservative' here in Canada. Further to MarchHare's point, the far right in the US seems to have a place in the mainstream, so while ultra right-wing loonies like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have widely broadcasted platforms, the far left in the US is relegated to what? the blogs and the occasional NPR program? If you would assume that either form of extremism is bad, the far right has far more influence on society and therefore more scary - the far left is for all intents and purposes irrelivant.

This group of ultra-conservatives also has co-opted the republican party inciting a cultural war in the US centred largely on social and what they believe to be moral and religious issues. It has this bent of hyper-nationalism, is anti-immigrantion, anti-muslim, homophopic and lots of other stances that, from my perspective, are quite scary. On the other hand, the far-left seems to be based a lot less on fear, ignorance and hate and besides being far less relevant, is innocuous.

Western world doesn't need radical far-left when it has marxists such as John Pilger winning mainstream journalist awards.

In my perspective mainstream left does more damage than Rush Limbaugh because it holds actual power and not a microphone.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Western world doesn't need radical far-left when it has marxists such as John Pilger winning mainstream journalist awards.

In my perspective mainstream left does more damage than Rush Limbaugh because it holds actual power and not a microphone.

Although there was that little matter of George W. Bush and his group with the likes of Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz that did carry the US significantly to the right during their time in office. Should we recount the 'damage' that was done in the last 8 years in the US?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Although there was that little matter of George W. Bush and his group with the likes of Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz that did carry the US significantly to the right during their time in office. Should we recount the 'damage' that was done in the last 8 years in the US?

8 years is small potatoes and I don't even think this group can be described as right wing radicals.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Although there was that little matter of George W. Bush and his group with the likes of Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz that did carry the US significantly to the right during their time in office. Should we recount the 'damage' that was done in the last 8 years in the US?

Take it to the right?! How?! They increased spending and engaged in foreign democracy building. Classic examples of political liberalism.