[luchabee]

Yes, sorry, it should be shameful to have a child out of wedlock (but I’m just an old fashioned conservative CA attorney who is also a Christian, so what do I know? I’m also married, in my early 30s, and Caucasion. I know, terrible).

How many of society’s ills stem from children or unprepared young people having children themselves?

Let’s go through a short list: Kids that are home alone, kids not being educated b/c the parent is working, kids having their parent’s lovers come in and out of their lives who are strangers (preying on the children, too) giving them no stability, kids doing drugs or having sex because their parent is working, kids doing drugs or having sex because they need affirmation from someone b/c their father (typically) is gone.

Let’s not even talk about crime! In the inner cities, this is one of the greatest reasons why kids are killing each other with drugs and violence. I should know, I lived in Richmond, CA for 3 years–one of the most crime ridden cities in CA. I bet less than 20% of the kids had two-parent families. Probably less than 10%.

This really is the legacy of modern liberalism. No moral judgments and the sexual revolution sounded great, but what were the consequences? So far (and it will likely get worse, spreading to the traditional middle classes), millions of lost children and heartache!

Also, billions spent by the government in social programs to remedy all of these problems (stemming primarily from out-of-wedlock births), thinking that if we have more after-school programs it will get better.

It will not get better until society gets back to basics . . . a belief in traditional values, repentance, and a belief and relationship with God. Yes, that’s the secret. Harsh and antiquated, I know. Don’t worry, though, our society is too far gone for this type of prescription, I’m afraid.

Sure, I’ll pass on the complete disgust if you’re an educated, affluent single mother who has a kid, but how often have you seen that happen (unless your a movie star)?

In my experience with my friends, it has been a 16 year-old Latina who’s boyfriend sells meth, a girl who was never loved as a child and got pregnant trying to find what she never had, and a girl who got pregnant because kids were cute.

So, scorn, no. A little shame, yes.

Having a kid out of wedlock should be just as shameful at least as dropping out of high school, making a homophobic remark, or not recycling (sarcasm off).

Don’t you just love Liberal priorities?

[luchabee]

Yes, sorry, it should be shameful to have a child out of wedlock (but I’m just an old fashioned conservative CA attorney who is also a Christian, so what do I know? I’m also married, in my early 30s, and Caucasion. I know, terrible).

How many of society’s ills stem from children or unprepared young people having children themselves?

Let’s go through a short list: Kids that are home alone, kids not being educated b/c the parent is working, kids having their parent’s lovers come in and out of their lives who are strangers (preying on the children, too) giving them no stability, kids doing drugs or having sex because their parent is working, kids doing drugs or having sex because they need affirmation from someone b/c their father (typically) is gone.

Let’s not even talk about crime! In the inner cities, this is one of the greatest reasons why kids are killing each other with drugs and violence. I should know, I lived in Richmond, CA for 3 years–one of the most crime ridden cities in CA. I bet less than 20% of the kids had two-parent families. Probably less than 10%.

This really is the legacy of modern liberalism. No moral judgments and the sexual revolution sounded great, but what were the consequences? So far (and it will likely get worse, spreading to the traditional middle classes), millions of lost children and heartache!

Also, billions spent by the government in social programs to remedy all of these problems (stemming primarily from out-of-wedlock births), thinking that if we have more after-school programs it will get better.

It will not get better until society gets back to basics . . . a belief in traditional values, repentance, and a belief and relationship with God. Yes, that’s the secret. Harsh and antiquated, I know. Don’t worry, though, our society is too far gone for this type of prescription, I’m afraid.

Sure, I’ll pass on the complete disgust if you’re an educated, affluent single mother who has a kid, but how often have you seen that happen (unless your a movie star)?

In my experience with my friends, it has been a 16 year-old Latina who’s boyfriend sells meth, a girl who was never loved as a child and got pregnant trying to find what she never had, and a girl who got pregnant because kids were cute.

So, scorn, no. A little shame, yes.

Having a kid out of wedlock should be just as shameful at least as dropping out of high school, making a homophobic remark, or not recycling (sarcasm off).

Don’t you just love Liberal priorities?

[luchabee]

Luchabee, the question raised by Micheal Moore is whether US citizens should be getting the “free ride”. He clearly thinks they aren’t. It’s also not clear that French, Cuban or other countries’ health care owe much to contributions made by the US economy. The extent to which this may be true, it could be argued that they may be better able to take advantage of advances in technology due to their health care systems.

———————————–

Yes, American citizens are not getting a free ride. We have an expectation that they pay for medical services they use, like in any other industry. I suppose adding billions of dollars in government layers and regulation to administer the program through taxes from other sources could make it seem like a “free ride” to those paying little to no taxes, especially primarily for the young, lazy (who don’t want to apply for medicare) and illegal aliens. Also, to those that would pay for this new government agency, they’ll do less investment for efficient businesses that hire those people seeking free medical care.

——————————–

Health care and medical advances are two different things. Whilst the US R&D is higher per capita, its “health care” ranks one of the lowest. It is the system that lags behind in relation to expenditure.

——————————-

Are you English? You said “whilst.” Just wondering.

Anyway, these statement are not very specific. Would you expound on them? Are you saying that the higher charges for prescription drugs in the US (which funds state-of-the-art R&D) are not a complaint by the left?

—————————————

With the exception of Cuba, these countries have market economies. A national health care system does not imply the country is not market driven. The other major market economies in the world all have a universal system, which includes, Japan, Germany, UK and France. They are all considered to be better than the US model, and have their own R&D budgets and have made significant advances themselves. Many advances are cross national, with foreign
researchers contributing to a pooled effort.

——————————

Another very general comment concerning “cross national research.” We would have to compare actual numbers, which I think would show the overwhelming US innovation in this area. Additionally, I never implied that they weren’t market driven with a national health care system for every other industry. However, obviously, they are not market driven in healthcare. Making close to 1/7 of the American economy not market driven would be a horrific idea, adding billions in taxes, rationing, inefficiencies and casuing the need to import even more illegal aliens to prop up another welfare program. This idea might have worked (albeit poorly) 20 years ago, but with millions of Baby Boomers retiring, it will further bankrupt the US.

——————————

It was as a result of defending themselves in wars that Europe decided to devote large chunks of tax money on health. I don’t think there is an assumption in Europe that the US will defend it. US military policy is largely dictated by self preservation, not altruism. It took a bit more than colonial ties to entice the US into WWII. But it is correct that less spent on military means more to spend on health.

—————————

Yes, there is an assumption that the US will defend them: It is ratified in law by SEATO and NATO. Concerning the US military spending, your response is a nice general response about “US militarty self preservation.” Let’s be realistic about it, however, Europe spends next to nothing on their military forces relative to the US. Japan, too. Canada’s spending as a portion of their GDP is a total joke. All of them have received free rides with their military spending, allowing them to subsidize their health care programs.

For the US, we divert spending to the military because the moral benefits of defending the West and protecting capital markets outweigh the costs. Europe, et. al., are happy to let the US do it.

——————————–

Not necessarily. The US spends significantly more on health than other leading economies, but Americans remain amongst the least healthy, with higher child mortality, shorter life expectancy, and higher rates of fatal ailments. I don’t think the US is giving their research away at the expense of their own citizens. If less was spent on R&D and more on health care, it could conceivably save more lives.

———————————

Does this include the 12-20 million illegal aliens that have been drawn into the US? What about the millions in inner cities that have been mismanged by liberal politicians for nearly a century, who throw more money at the poverty problem and don’t address root causes–like the erosion of the church and values, single mothers, government run schools, and a culture of dependency on welfare.

——————————-

It is unlikely that a universal system would fundamentally transform the US economy. Michael Moore’s film didn’t focus on the uninsured. He went to great lengths to show that many victims are the insured.

A lot of people have confused his message with some sort of unpatriotic European left wing social reform mumbo jumbo. To see it that way is bit like reading the bible upside down.

—————————-

Nearly 1/7th of the American economy would be converted adding billions of dollars in government agencies and regulations? That’s not a fundamental change? For me, well, I’ll pass.

Also, many “victims” were already insured? Isn’t that what tort law is for a la John Edwards, Esq.? How many millions of “victims” will there be with a government system? Will the government have immunity from negligence law suits?

Besides, much of this is a moot discussion. We can no longer afford to add to government programs anyway. We are facing a tidal wave of government obligations with Medicare, SS, and the prescription drug program in the next 20 years. Adding this entitlement will kill us, making the dollar worth less than it already us, causing untold misery. I suppose if we “import” another 60 million young illegal aliens we might be able to pay for it, though?

[luchabee]

Luchabee, the question raised by Micheal Moore is whether US citizens should be getting the “free ride”. He clearly thinks they aren’t. It’s also not clear that French, Cuban or other countries’ health care owe much to contributions made by the US economy. The extent to which this may be true, it could be argued that they may be better able to take advantage of advances in technology due to their health care systems.

———————————–

Yes, American citizens are not getting a free ride. We have an expectation that they pay for medical services they use, like in any other industry. I suppose adding billions of dollars in government layers and regulation to administer the program through taxes from other sources could make it seem like a “free ride” to those paying little to no taxes, especially primarily for the young, lazy (who don’t want to apply for medicare) and illegal aliens. Also, to those that would pay for this new government agency, they’ll do less investment for efficient businesses that hire those people seeking free medical care.

——————————–

Health care and medical advances are two different things. Whilst the US R&D is higher per capita, its “health care” ranks one of the lowest. It is the system that lags behind in relation to expenditure.

——————————-

Are you English? You said “whilst.” Just wondering.

Anyway, these statement are not very specific. Would you expound on them? Are you saying that the higher charges for prescription drugs in the US (which funds state-of-the-art R&D) are not a complaint by the left?

—————————————

With the exception of Cuba, these countries have market economies. A national health care system does not imply the country is not market driven. The other major market economies in the world all have a universal system, which includes, Japan, Germany, UK and France. They are all considered to be better than the US model, and have their own R&D budgets and have made significant advances themselves. Many advances are cross national, with foreign
researchers contributing to a pooled effort.

——————————

Another very general comment concerning “cross national research.” We would have to compare actual numbers, which I think would show the overwhelming US innovation in this area. Additionally, I never implied that they weren’t market driven with a national health care system for every other industry. However, obviously, they are not market driven in healthcare. Making close to 1/7 of the American economy not market driven would be a horrific idea, adding billions in taxes, rationing, inefficiencies and casuing the need to import even more illegal aliens to prop up another welfare program. This idea might have worked (albeit poorly) 20 years ago, but with millions of Baby Boomers retiring, it will further bankrupt the US.

——————————

It was as a result of defending themselves in wars that Europe decided to devote large chunks of tax money on health. I don’t think there is an assumption in Europe that the US will defend it. US military policy is largely dictated by self preservation, not altruism. It took a bit more than colonial ties to entice the US into WWII. But it is correct that less spent on military means more to spend on health.

—————————

Yes, there is an assumption that the US will defend them: It is ratified in law by SEATO and NATO. Concerning the US military spending, your response is a nice general response about “US militarty self preservation.” Let’s be realistic about it, however, Europe spends next to nothing on their military forces relative to the US. Japan, too. Canada’s spending as a portion of their GDP is a total joke. All of them have received free rides with their military spending, allowing them to subsidize their health care programs.

For the US, we divert spending to the military because the moral benefits of defending the West and protecting capital markets outweigh the costs. Europe, et. al., are happy to let the US do it.

——————————–

Not necessarily. The US spends significantly more on health than other leading economies, but Americans remain amongst the least healthy, with higher child mortality, shorter life expectancy, and higher rates of fatal ailments. I don’t think the US is giving their research away at the expense of their own citizens. If less was spent on R&D and more on health care, it could conceivably save more lives.

———————————

Does this include the 12-20 million illegal aliens that have been drawn into the US? What about the millions in inner cities that have been mismanged by liberal politicians for nearly a century, who throw more money at the poverty problem and don’t address root causes–like the erosion of the church and values, single mothers, government run schools, and a culture of dependency on welfare.

——————————-

It is unlikely that a universal system would fundamentally transform the US economy. Michael Moore’s film didn’t focus on the uninsured. He went to great lengths to show that many victims are the insured.

A lot of people have confused his message with some sort of unpatriotic European left wing social reform mumbo jumbo. To see it that way is bit like reading the bible upside down.

—————————-

Nearly 1/7th of the American economy would be converted adding billions of dollars in government agencies and regulations? That’s not a fundamental change? For me, well, I’ll pass.

Also, many “victims” were already insured? Isn’t that what tort law is for a la John Edwards, Esq.? How many millions of “victims” will there be with a government system? Will the government have immunity from negligence law suits?

Besides, much of this is a moot discussion. We can no longer afford to add to government programs anyway. We are facing a tidal wave of government obligations with Medicare, SS, and the prescription drug program in the next 20 years. Adding this entitlement will kill us, making the dollar worth less than it already us, causing untold misery. I suppose if we “import” another 60 million young illegal aliens we might be able to pay for it, though?

[luchabee]

Like most of the things in this world, the rest of the world gets a free ride because of the contributions of the US economy and corporations. Specifically, much of the great research and innovation in medical research comes from the US. These advances can only be funded with a true market economy. Canada, Cuba, and Mexico are not going to be on the cutting edge of medical research because there is no market incentive for such progress.

In many ways, it is like Europe and Canada’s free ride on military spending. They can devote a larger chunck of their tax receipts to ridiculous socialist programs because they don’t have to defends themselves. They know the US will do it for them. The same is true for healthcare. If we decided to transfer from a market orientated system to a single payer, it would mean significantly much less inovation and R&D, which would literally means millions of people across the world would die sooner because they did not receive the latest treatments.

Besides, it is amazing what percentage of the uninsured are very young, illegal aliens, or those that are too lazy to fill out the paperwork for Medicare. Do we really want to funadamentally transform the US economy (and curtailing inovation) for this segment of the population?

[luchabee]

Like most of the things in this world, the rest of the world gets a free ride because of the contributions of the US economy and corporations. Specifically, much of the great research and innovation in medical research comes from the US. These advances can only be funded with a true market economy. Canada, Cuba, and Mexico are not going to be on the cutting edge of medical research because there is no market incentive for such progress.

In many ways, it is like Europe and Canada’s free ride on military spending. They can devote a larger chunck of their tax receipts to ridiculous socialist programs because they don’t have to defends themselves. They know the US will do it for them. The same is true for healthcare. If we decided to transfer from a market orientated system to a single payer, it would mean significantly much less inovation and R&D, which would literally means millions of people across the world would die sooner because they did not receive the latest treatments.

Besides, it is amazing what percentage of the uninsured are very young, illegal aliens, or those that are too lazy to fill out the paperwork for Medicare. Do we really want to funadamentally transform the US economy (and curtailing inovation) for this segment of the population?

[luchabee]

Isn’t this self-evident with millions and millions of illegal aliens now in the country?

[luchabee]

Isn’t this self-evident with millions and millions of illegal aliens now in the country?

[luchabee]

We already have tons of state laws against fraud and misrepresentation. Federal law, as well. It is common knowledge with most investors that they shouldn’t put all their eggs in one basket, but you still want to create levels and levels of government to protect these people, in turn driving business and jobs from this country and increasing state and federal taxes, as well?

Thankfully, most policy makers don’t share this view and most of countries competing with us internationally have embraced deregulation.

[luchabee]

We already have tons of state laws against fraud and misrepresentation. Federal law, as well. It is common knowledge with most investors that they shouldn’t put all their eggs in one basket, but you still want to create levels and levels of government to protect these people, in turn driving business and jobs from this country and increasing state and federal taxes, as well?

Thankfully, most policy makers don’t share this view and most of countries competing with us internationally have embraced deregulation.

[luchabee]

Much of these discussions turn on the degree to which regulation should be used. These public policy decision are case-specific. I’m not advocating total deregulation, but this experiment has worked well in the airline industry and in telecomunications (at least from a consumer perspective). Most every other sector is deregulated.

Globally, deregulation is the new paradigm, save Venzeuela. We can copy Hugo if you would like.

As to due dilligence, you are right this is less a protective tool if someone wants to circumvent securities laws with misrepresentation, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. (Before Sarbox, however, these laws were already on the books at the state and federal level (12 b 6, etc.) This was not the main effect of Sarbox; it was the burdensome reporting requirements.)

Due dilligence was only a partial recommendation, however. The primary protection is proper asset allocation. All of these problems would be avoided if common people stopped trying to make tremendous gains on specific companies. Why create billions in new goverment, hamper these industries, drive jobs overseas, etc. when you could warn investors to stop being so stupid and placing half their retirement in Enron?

As to the other comments, I don’t listen to Limbaugh. Agree with much of what he says, but he is boring.

Concerning Social Security, of course we should have private accounts similar to a 403 (b) or 401 (k). Should they be able to place all their social security investments in Nextbigcompany.com? Of course, not! This is a typical liberal straw man. Because of the Left’s inablity to innovate our government programs, our schools are worthless in inner cities and we are facing trillions in debt load with SS and Medicare. Don’t want private accounts? No problem. There might not be any SS at all or it will be making payments that are worthless because of huge inflation and taxation of benefits.

Private accounts have worked tremendously well for some other countries and it is no big deal there. Congress also has the same ability. Why not everyone else?

[luchabee]

Much of these discussions turn on the degree to which regulation should be used. These public policy decision are case-specific. I’m not advocating total deregulation, but this experiment has worked well in the airline industry and in telecomunications (at least from a consumer perspective). Most every other sector is deregulated.

Globally, deregulation is the new paradigm, save Venzeuela. We can copy Hugo if you would like.

As to due dilligence, you are right this is less a protective tool if someone wants to circumvent securities laws with misrepresentation, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. (Before Sarbox, however, these laws were already on the books at the state and federal level (12 b 6, etc.) This was not the main effect of Sarbox; it was the burdensome reporting requirements.)

Due dilligence was only a partial recommendation, however. The primary protection is proper asset allocation. All of these problems would be avoided if common people stopped trying to make tremendous gains on specific companies. Why create billions in new goverment, hamper these industries, drive jobs overseas, etc. when you could warn investors to stop being so stupid and placing half their retirement in Enron?

As to the other comments, I don’t listen to Limbaugh. Agree with much of what he says, but he is boring.

Concerning Social Security, of course we should have private accounts similar to a 403 (b) or 401 (k). Should they be able to place all their social security investments in Nextbigcompany.com? Of course, not! This is a typical liberal straw man. Because of the Left’s inablity to innovate our government programs, our schools are worthless in inner cities and we are facing trillions in debt load with SS and Medicare. Don’t want private accounts? No problem. There might not be any SS at all or it will be making payments that are worthless because of huge inflation and taxation of benefits.

Private accounts have worked tremendously well for some other countries and it is no big deal there. Congress also has the same ability. Why not everyone else?

[luchabee]

Sorry, but I would definitely call much of Sarbox needless regulation.

This regulation has led to litterally billions of dollars leaving the US and thousands of jobs. It might be good for auditors, but it is not an efficient use of capital for creating jobs that matter and jobs that will increase economic activity for everyone.

How many tremendous companies won’t be doing IPO’s in the U.S.and instead in Hong Kong or Japan? How many companies will stay private, so as to not have to comply with Sarbox? (Actually, this regulation might make things worse since there will be more private firms and more offshore companies.)

How much of a net-job loss will this be for the US because this needless regulation? Try thousands.

Instead of regulating these companies wouldn’t it be better to preach the virtues of appropriate asset allocation and due dilligence so that investors can protect themselves from these malicious acts?

Instead of spending billions to regulate and losing billions in return because of our inability to compete with other economies, why not realize that some people will make stupid mistakes and speculate by putting all their eggs in one basket? Perhaps we can help them if they are hurt from an unforseen event or act, but why sacrifice literally thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to prevent this? As to punishing those that commit fraud, we have plenty of state and federal laws to deter most people. Some will get around the laws, but that is life.

[luchabee]

Sorry, but I would definitely call much of Sarbox needless regulation.

This regulation has led to litterally billions of dollars leaving the US and thousands of jobs. It might be good for auditors, but it is not an efficient use of capital for creating jobs that matter and jobs that will increase economic activity for everyone.

How many tremendous companies won’t be doing IPO’s in the U.S.and instead in Hong Kong or Japan? How many companies will stay private, so as to not have to comply with Sarbox? (Actually, this regulation might make things worse since there will be more private firms and more offshore companies.)

How much of a net-job loss will this be for the US because this needless regulation? Try thousands.

Instead of regulating these companies wouldn’t it be better to preach the virtues of appropriate asset allocation and due dilligence so that investors can protect themselves from these malicious acts?

Instead of spending billions to regulate and losing billions in return because of our inability to compete with other economies, why not realize that some people will make stupid mistakes and speculate by putting all their eggs in one basket? Perhaps we can help them if they are hurt from an unforseen event or act, but why sacrifice literally thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to prevent this? As to punishing those that commit fraud, we have plenty of state and federal laws to deter most people. Some will get around the laws, but that is life.

[luchabee]

You seem to be contradicting the point of the doctor and making my point. It was actually government intervention by artificially depressing interest rates that has led to this min-disaster!

Also, people, naturally, sought to take advantage of this government intervention made millions. Even the relatively uneducated in real estate made hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. This was not a bad result. Will people late to the party get hurt? Yes. Will people who have no understanding of basic finance get hurt and who took out loans that were too big? Yes (not really that much, though, cause they will get free rent after the NODs. The people who actually will get hurt the most will be affluent investors who made the loans posssible.

Would this have been avoided by making loan applicants read scores of pages of disclosures about not taking out too big a loan? No. They didn’t even read the fine print to begin with, so why would they read additional disclosures?

Maybe, after artificially depressing interest rates, the government should have limited loan sizes? Why not do this in the stock market, too, when artificially low interest rates cause the market to heat up?

So, thank you for agreeing with me. Also, I’ll pass on smelling the coffee. I prefer tea.

[Author]

Posts