XPost: alt.activism, alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.republican
XPost: alt.politics.conservative
From: xxxrayted@aol.com
In article <4d8835c9$0$4385$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net>,
Tim Howard wrote:
> > But instead of debate, I'll use the figure your site provided of 50
> > billion dollars per year. If it's such a small amount, why then does
> > Obama and the Democrats figure they can fix our healthcare system by
> > injecting almost twice that much?
> >
> 50 billion, while huge, is a lot less than the $200 billion you came up
> with. And socialized medicine would cost more initially, but would save
> people money in the long run. But here we go on tangents again. This
> was supposed to be a debate about Republican state governments becoming
> dictatorial!
How is it dictatorial when people voted for representatives to balance
the budget?
> Dr. George D. Thurston
> Associate Professor,
> NYU School of Medicine
>
> Cleaning up the air we breathe is not only sound science, but it is also
> sound economicsespecially when you consider what air pollution costs us
> every day in needless sickness, lost work days, missed school days,
> added hospital admissions, and even premature deaths.
>
> So what's the "payback"? It is said: "An ounce of prevention is worth a
> pound of cure." Actually, the most recent cost-benefit study done by the
> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the monetary value of
> clean air health benefits is even more than 16 to 1it is some 30 times
> the cleanup cost.
>
> Clean air has been a good investment. Air emissions have been cut by
> half since 1970, while the U.S. GDP has increased about 176%. EPA
> estimates that lower pollution was responsible for averting 200,000
> deaths, 210,000 hospital admissions, 22,000 cases of coronary heart
> disease, 850,000 asthma attacks, and 22 million lost work days in 1990
> alone. For 1970 to 1990, EPA values the health benefits at $22 trillion,
> versus only $0.5 trillion for cleanup. Cleaner air has paid great dividends.
And you actually believe this nonsense? Who have you ever known that
died or became ill because of pollution? Hell, I live in Cleveland, and
nobody I know became ill because of pollution. This is nothing but
left-wing bias speculation at best.
> >>> They get nothing. All the government can do is take less, that's all.
> >>
> >> Wrong! I am not just talking about tax breaks, I am talking about
> >> government subsidies--"corporate welfare".
> >
> > Very well. Take away this so-called corporate welfare. And where does
> > corporations get money to cover the loss of such subsidies?
> >
> You act like corporations are not making any money.
No, what I meant here is that when you cost companies or corporations
money, they make it up somewhere else. Either way, we pay for it.
> >>> And by welfare, do you include Medicaid in the mix? Because Medicaid is
> >>> one of the largest expenditures in state budgets. And let's not forget
> >>> HUD. I am a victim of HUD as they move lowlifes into my suburb causing
> >>> millions of dollars in lost revenue due to stores closing down,
> >>> taxpaying people leaving for higher grounds, and increase in emergency
> >>> services. Even auto and house insurance is on the rise. No corporation
> >>> ever did that to me--government did.
> >>>
> >> So what is your solution for the poor, who you call "lowlifes" that
> >> cannot afford housing and medical care on their own? I probably should
> >> not ask.
> >
> > Very simple. For one, restrict HUD residents to lower income housing
> > and not the suburbs.
>
> How is that kind of economic discrimination any different than a racist
> policy that says all blacks must be confined to certain places, and not
> live next to whites? What you want is now HUD used to do things for
> decades. It bread a permanent attitude of hopelessness and low
> self-worth among the poor, which contributed to them staying poor. Poor
> people tend to move up in status if they live and grow up around other
> socio-economic classes. That is why Clinton changed public housing
> policies.
What HUD has done is destroy once beautiful suburbs and neighborhoods,
mine being one of them. The difference between public housing policies
and discriminatory laws is that public housing people should be happy
with whatever they get. Can you explain to me how it is fair that a
people go to work every single day, work their way to a nice suburb, and
then government comes in and sticks their lowlifes right next to them?
If you don't want to work.....fine. But don't expect royal treatment
from taxpayers because of your laziness. If I have to work to support a
lowlife, then that lowlife should be living far from me and my fellow
working citizens. He or she should not be living the same lifestyle.
> Secondly, if you need public assistance, you
> > should be fixed so you cannot have more children. It makes no sense for
> > working people to limit their family to two children while lowlifes are
> > having eight. Thirdly, all people on public assistance should be
> > required to take drug screenings just like working people. If you fail
> > the drug test (much like a job) you lose your benefits.
> >
> You have a very hateful attitude toward the poor. First of all,
> TANF/AFDC does prohibit more $ for children born after their parents
> start receiving aid. If you are going to drug test poor people, then
> drug test all the corporate board members who receive corporate welfare
> first.
Corporate board members produce something. They provide jobs and secure
the markets where many of us have our retirement in. They build all
those wonderful large buildings downtown, and even donate money to
charities. That's why they should be treated differently.
Now you show me where government stops handing out money to welfare
people who have children after they are on the program. Do you really
believe that a 25 year old woman with seven kids supported them fine and
then went on welfare? No. They were on welfare since they started
having kids and dropped out of school. The more kids, the larger HUD
home they provide and the more food stamps they get. I'm a landlord, so
I stay on top of all this stuff.
> > One of our customers is a place that makes crates. Big crates, little
> > crates, crates the size of tractor trailers. Because we are their main
> > delivery company, I've been to dozens of plants that ordered these
> > crates to relocate out of the country. During those deliveries, I've
> > had the opportunity to speak with management about their relocation.
> >
> > In our state, we have expensive Workman's Compensation. That's a main
> > factor. In other situations, unions refused to back down. But no
> > matter what reason they leave, it all has to do with the expense of
> > producing products in the US; expenses that they don't have in other
> > countries.
> >
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
