www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/07/debt-ceiling-debate-seen-abroad
I particularly liked the Tea Partier pulling a turd out of his diaper and hurling it at John Boehner's head, and the Tea Partiers dancing in ecstasy as Congress burns down. It's now the turn of Dingy Harry Reid to get the Taiwanese treatment.
bwlove wrote: Aug 1st 2011 2:04 GMT Funny how the Tea Party is held out as some extremist group - when all they want is to balance the budget. When has our world become so screwed up that a balanced budget is a bad thing? And Democrat intransigence has played as big, if not bigger, of a role in the deadlock than the Tea Party. But of course, the media swallows the line that it's always the conservative party's fault.
You seem to have forgotten what the original teapartyers did to George III. Any government that threatens to jail citizesn who don't want to buy healthcare insurance is a government that deserve to persih from the face of the Earth.
kinsho wrote: Aug 1st 2011 5:44 GMT bwlove: Extremists refuse to compromise on their position, even when such stubbornness jeopardizes the nation's fiscal health. Hence, the Tea Party in general can be classified as extremists... True extremists give themselves completely to their beliefs, like some of the jihadists that blow themselves up. The Tea Party talks big, but I would love to have seen their reactions had the debt ceiling issue not been resolved in time and the government ran out of funds to continue Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
FTsQsTGgkE wrote: Aug 1st 2011 5:49 GMT 9XvB8jamii, "When will you socialists learn that Americans are citizens of a nation and not subjects of the crown? You seem to have forgotten what the original teapartyers did to George III. Any government that threatens to jail citizesn who don't want to buy healthcare insurance is a government that deserve to persih from the face of the Earth." I think that the typical British citizen has more freedom than the typical American citizen does these days. Insurance is there to spread the risk of financial loss amongst a broader group of people. And the rest of the people who have insurance have to pay more because people with your attitude won't buy it - until you need it and then you'll go out of your way to get it but won't be able to. I'm sure you're the type that doesn't want to insure your car or your home either. And you don't believe in life insurance because if you die (I'm going to assume you are the bread winner in your family) your spouse can damn well just get a job and support the family. Regardless, I doubt you'd be thrown in jail for your miserly ways. But in your country you already have plenty of other things you can go to jail for that wouldn't be considered a crime punishable by a prison sentence in many other countries. But if they come to arrest you I'm sure you'll exercise your right to defend yourself and take out as many of them as you can with your assault rifle. Bet you would have loved to be around during the revolution to take on those awful Brits.
wUXxMKnYWY wrote: Aug 1st 2011 6:10 GMT @9XvB8jamii, if you don't want health insurance I have no problem with that, but you should not be allowed to go to the hospital and receive any treatment not paid for up front. People like you are criminals that steal from the hospital by receiving treatments you do not pay for and stealing is a crime.
Darian2 wrote: Aug 1st 2011 6:54 GMT I believe the tea party is sincere in that they believe our nation is in financial trouble and we need to do something. Unfortunately they have been purposefully mis-educated by powerful private interests. Their 100% privatized, anti-government, unregulated Darwinian economic vision is the reason we are in this mess. Private interests rerouted us into Iraq, Private banking interests stole Trillions of dollars from middle class retirement savings and created ( perhaps unwittingly) the housing debacle. Government is the check & balance on private forces, but not its enemy. But we cannot pay our debts completely by reducing our income. And the anti-government forces must be removed from office. In the Bush era any antigovernment talk was called treason. The tea party, well-meaning as they may be, are tools of old economic dynasties that are in the death throws of a dying unsustainable era.
Matt_Bond wrote: Aug 1st 2011 7:45 GMT @FTsQsTGgkE No one is doubting that insurance is a good thing, and the original poster wasn't hostile to insurance in anyway. He said that its immoral for a government to dictate what a citizen can and cannot buy. Once you grant that, what other powers do you grant to the government? He also NEVER said that he doesn't have insurance, he is against individual mandates. Once again, a liberal who's true desire is to control the actions of others reveals his/herself. As one of my good friends says (who is a democratic-socialist, so no one can accuse me of ideology-bias) "Dictators dictate Death" @wUXxMKnYWY Absolutely correct. If you choose not to pay for healthcare you should be turned away from the hospital. Then don't complain when the police don't help you when your stuff gets stolen or your spouse gets killed.
qcqyMqGhmQ wrote: Aug 1st 2011 8:28 GMT Bwlove, leave it to a hard right winger to decide that one tiny article poking fun at the tea party's simple minded leaders is the entire coverage of this event! Yes, the media thinks it is humerus how little the freshman in congress and poorly educated tea partiers everywhere understand the world's complex economy. The idea that you can just shut down the government and that solves everything is what is pervasive throughout this movement called the tea party? Unfortunately for these simpletons, you can't just decide you are going to start watching Fox News and reading email forwards in order to gain a strong understanding of world affairs and economics. My career is understanding these things and I don't even claim to have half the answers these cowboys want you to believe they have for you.
FTsQsTGgkE wrote: Aug 2nd 2011 12:17 GMT Matt Bond, The reader whose views I criticized seems to think that either the readers who are posting here or the writer of the article introducing the animated clip is a "socialist". It seems reasonable, since he brought up health insurance, to assume that he would certainly have a problem with government provided universal coverage like they have in Europe or Canada. The reader would also appear to be of the opinion that if an American citizen doesn't see the need to insure themselves then it is their choice. If the government didn't mandate insurance coverage many people would choose not to buy it. If an uninsured person crashes into my car and kills or injures me or my family I could sue him or her, but what if the defendants financial assets are insufficient to cover the damages done to me? I'm just screwed because some cheap idiot didn't buy insurance. The government, by making others buy insurance coverage protects me from those who would otherwise put me at risk, either directly or indirectly. Anyone that owns insurance and is interested in obtaining it at the lowest price should prefer that all citizens are insured as it will bring down the prices for everyone and, in the case of universal coverage, would allow those that would otherwise be refused coverage to have some. It spreads the risk and avoids anti-selection (buying it when you know you are going to need it). Where a person lives and what they eat don't necessarily directly affect everyone else. But as another reader pointed out those who don't buy health insurance but show up at emergency needing care cost us all money. You and other conservatives would rather see them refused treatment. I guess that is one option but not very consistent with the whole Christian thing you conservatives like to talk about. Sure, oppose abortion but let them die if they didn't buy health insurance. I'm sure your democratic-socialist friend would tell you that you are a long way from a dictatorship in the US. Your "dictator in chief" can't even get the same people that approved the budget to authorize the increase to the debt ceiling necessary to proceed with it without adding condi...
|
http://csua.com/feed/