Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser_bbcode.class.php on line 567

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser_bbcode.class.php on line 1210

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser_bbcode.class.php on line 1221

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser_bbcode.class.php on line 1264

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser_bbcode.class.php on line 1281

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser_bbcode.class.php on line 1535

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser.class.php on line 285

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/classes/ubbcode/stringparser.class.php on line 982

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

Deprecated: Function split() is deprecated in /home/hispcon/public_html/components/com_comment/joscomment/utils.php on line 256

A Brief Sketch on Tom Barrett's Congressional Voting History

Tom Barrett

When politicians announce their candidacy for a higher office, they tacitly agree commit their political careers to public scrutiny.  I have decided, therefore, to do my part and examine a segment of Tom Barrett's career as a U.S. Congressman.  The idea here is to see if his voting record from 1999-2002 reflects the values of Wisconsin voters today.   

On National Defense

To begin, Barrett was among a small minority of Representatives (only 15%) to vote against the Patriot Act in 2002.  If the bill had not passed, it would have likely put our nation at a greater risk for a terrorist attack.  Ironically, the argument of "increased government intrusion", posed by the 15% of Representatives that voted against increasing the investigative capacity of the FBI, are not used concerning the massive federal expansion of health care currently posed in Congress.  [As an aside, the only Wisconsin representative besides Tom Barrett to vote against the Patriot Act was Madison's finest - Tammy Baldwin.] 

Adding to Barrett's repertoire of national security, he found himself yet again in a small minority of Representatives (only 16%) that voted against setting up a national missile defense to protect American territories from a potential ballistic missile attack.  Both bills rolled through Congress unabated and were signed into law the better interest of national security.  And finally, it's worth noting that Barrett had consistently voted against annual appropriations bills that provide funds for our military.  In some instances, he was among only 10% of Representatives that voted against military funding.      

On Spending and Small Businesses

As mentioned on other conservative blogs, Barrett also has a distinguished record of voting for more spending and less accountability.  In 1999, Barrett voted against a bill that would have required greater accountability standards for federal spending programs.  Representative Tom Barrett voted against the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, which required the Congressional Budget Office to submit to Congress an annual report estimating the total costs and benefits of federal programs, the examination of their inefficiencies, and recommendations for addressing market failures. 

Barrett also has a record of voting against the interests of small businesses.  He voted against providing tax breaks for small businesses and greater protections against frivolous liability lawsuits.  Given the fact that small businesses are the heartbeat of the American economy, it doesn't bode well that a gubernatorial candidate has a voting record of rejecting tax breaks for small businesses when Wisconsin is among the top 10 worse business climates in the nation.

On Taxes and Fraud

Concerning taxes, Barrett voted against repealing the death tax, against repealing the marriage penalty, against reforming bankruptcy law, and against reforming malpractice insurance.  He also voted against repealing the marriage tax Not much more to say on this except each of these bills would have saved taxpayers substantial amounts of spending. 

On Partial Birth Abortion

The most disturbing vote I saw was his vote against the ban on partial birth abortions.  A ban on partial birth abortion essentially outlaws the method by which the abortion is performed.  And since the ban is strictly on the method and not the event of an abortion itself, its legal enactment would not put the mother's life at risk, which is an important factor.

When Congress was grappling with the issue, legislators defined a partial birth abortion as follows:

"An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus."

 

The above description says that Republicans have drafted a bill to stop medical practitioners from intentionally delaying a vaginal delivery in order to kill the unborn baby.  What the above description omits is that the procedure involves using a scissors to puncture the base of an unborn baby's head to vacuum out its brains, which then grotesquely collapses the fetal skull for easy removal and disposal.  In their bill, Republicans not only stated that the act was "gruesome and inhumane", but also medically unnecessary to protect the life of the mother.

In 2002, Representative Tom Barrett voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban stopping the proposed legislation from becoming law.  In 2003, when Barrett was no longer in Congress, the bill was finally signed into law by President George W. Bush.  

During his gubernatorial campaign, Mayor Tom Barrett must answer for his Congressional voting record.  Why did he take anti-national defense, anti-waste reform, and a pro-partial birth abortion positions when, according to polling data, they don't reflect the values and interests of mainstream America?    

Comments (27)
  • Ken Van Doren

    While I can agree with most of your criticism, the PATRIOT Act effectively repealed the 4th amendment, and threatens to be one cog in the wheel that brings us to a full police state. PROBABLE CAUSE + WARRANT? I have no problem. Absent that, it may be that the terrorists we most need fear are agents of our own government.

    Be nice to see an NTU report card also.

  • Jason Crye

    Well, from what I understand, the legal term "probable cause" is rather flexible.

  • Jack Lohman

    I don't know all of Barrett's votes, but the one issue I totally agree with him on is public funding of campaigns. Until we fix our corrupt political system politicians will continue voting on behalf of the special interests that fund their elections. Increased taxes can be the only result.

    See: http://www.fairelectionsnow.org

  • Jason Crye  - Your Position

    Jack,

    What is your position on his partial birth abortion stance?

  • Jack Lohman

    That's a complicated issue I don't think either of us can resolve, Aaron. I despise abortions but believe in the woman's choice. At least in 1st and 2nd trimesters, and then becoming stricter as viability progresses.

    The right wing wants government out of our bedrooms, except in cases of homosexual activity or abortions. Then they want it the way they want it. The woman's voice is not considered.

    But I'd rather see this one settled by the supreme court. I don't trust politicians or ideologues.

  • Zeus Rodriguez  - Choice

    So in other words Jack, only the "women" outside of the womb have a choice but at least 50% of the time the "woman" in the womb has no say on whether they live or not. Sounds Misogynistic.

    The reason that real conservatives have a problem with certain behavior like homosexuality and abortion is because a true democracy has to be based on AUTHENTIC laws otherwise true democracy breaks down and totalitarianism takes over.

    I never understood how people can say they "despise" abortion, but then they say someone should have the "choice" to have one.

    If that person "despises" abortion, it must be because they think it is the murder of an innocent life. Otherwise, what is to be "despised?"

    Tell me Jack, what is so despicable about an abortion?

  • Jason Crye
    Quote:
    If that person "despises" abortion, it must be because they think it is the murder of an innocent life. Otherwise, what is to be "despised?"

    Tell me Jack, what is so despicable about an abortion?

    That's a very good point!

  • Jason Crye
    Quote:
    That's a complicated issue I don't think either of us can resolve, Aaron. I despise abortions but believe in the woman's choice. At least in 1st and 2nd trimesters, and then becoming stricter as viability progresses.

    That sounds good, but the term "viability" is a euphemism that is philosophically vague and poorly defined. True viability doesn't occur until an organism can live independently. In this sense, there is no significant difference between feeding from the uterus or feeding from the nipple.

    Quote:
    The right wing wants government out of our bedrooms, except in cases of homosexual activity or abortions. Then they want it the way they want it. The woman's voice is not considered.

    I'm indifferent about what the right wing wants. Can someone really complain about the woman's voice not being heard when doctors are turning the fetus around in the canal to snuff out its life?

    I can guarantee this, Barrett will have problems with his vote in Congress - big problems. Barrett is a Catholic. And considering that we just got an politically outspoken arch-bishop in Milwaukee, I don't see this looking good for him.

  • Jack Lohman

    I understand the emotions of the issue. To claim that it is for the mother's safety when it in fact forces the same birth process is a bit of a stretch.

    But were I a woman I doubt that I'd accept politicians or ideologues (or bloggers) telling me what to do with my body and my life. I'd have to live with my decision the rest of my life while they just walk away and move on to their next heartfelt cause.

    The problem I have with this whole issue is one segment of the population telling another segment what their morals should be. Sounds a bit righteous to me.

    Perhaps we need a mechanism whereby the ideologues have to support the unwanted child, then we'd perhaps bring the issue home.

    But all of that said, Barrett should and will be judged by the voters.

  • Zeus Rodriguez  - Say WHAT Jack?

    Jack,

    You can't be serious?

    First of all, what does "emotions" have to do with anything? I am not emotional about my understanding of abortion.

    So then by your logic, why shouldn't the woman have the choice to kill her 1 day old baby if the baby was born premature at 20 weeks gestation?

    I for one don't think there is anything "righteous" about telling another person that they have to respect the right to life of another person.

    Isn't that baby a person Jack? If it isn't, then what is so despicable about Abortion?

    Your second to last statement was the best. My answer is that I am a practicing Catholic and not only are we the most outspoken group in the world on abortion but we also have the most adoption agencies and other services for women, men and children in need.

    Please...

    Quit dodging the questions.

  • Jack Lohman

    Fine. Then let Barrett go down in the voting booth.

  • Jack Lohman

    I'm obviously not a practicing Catholic, and I am obviously on a different page than you.

    So I'm wrong and you're right. I'll have to live with that.

    I suppose you feel as strongly about saving adult lives through the expansion of our health care system. I'm glad to hear that. We need more advocates.

  • Jason Crye
    Quote:
    But were I a woman I doubt that I'd accept politicians or ideologues (or bloggers) telling me what to do with my body and my life. I'd have to live with my decision the rest of my life while they just walk away and move on to their next heartfelt cause.

    If it were her hand, then that is one thing. But we're not just talking about appendages, but rather a human life with a complete set of DNA capable, in most cases, of having a full-fledged human experience.

    Quote:
    The problem I have with this whole issue is one segment of the population telling another segment what their morals should be. Sounds a bit righteous to me.

    That's what we call law in a democratic society. Is it not?

  • Jack Lohman  - re:
    Quote:


    That's what we call law in a democratic society. Is it not?

    So, if the majority believes in a womans free choice, you're okay with that?

    And you skipped my comment:

    "I suppose you feel as strongly about saving adult lives through the expansion of our health care system. I'm glad to hear that. We need more advocates."

    Was it unclear?

  • Jason Crye
    Quote:
    So, if the majority believes in a womans free choice, you're okay with that?

    No, I'm not. But no matter how you flip the coin, there will be others telling you what is right and what is wrong. And they may appear to be self-righteous, but their attitudes are irrelevant if their moral positions are grounded in reasonable argumentation.

    And that is what we're looking for right? Don't we want a rational discourse to be the basis of government policy?

    Quote:
    And you skipped my comment:

    "I suppose you feel as strongly about saving adult lives through the expansion of our health care system. I'm glad to hear that. We need more advocates."

    Was it unclear?

    My sincere apologies, I thought you were directing that comment at Jesus Rodriguez.

    I don't believe the expansion of our health care system will save more adult lives any more than England's health care system saves "more" lives. Instead, we hear bizarre stories of women giving birth on sidewalks and cardiac patients waiting months for stints. You can't just introduce 30 million more patients without causing some sort of a lag in the system.

    And finally, you didn't answer Jesus' question about why you consider abortions despicable if you don't value the fetus as a human person.

  • Jack Lohman  - re:
    Quote:
    And they may appear to be self-righteous, but their attitudes are irrelevant if their moral positions are grounded in reasonable argumentation.

    I see. So the radical's take on killing infidels (in their moral view) is okay? Or are we just talking about Catholics' moral view?

    Quote:
    I don't believe the expansion of our health care system will save more adult lives any more than England's health care system saves "more" lives. Instead, we hear bizarre stories of women giving birth on sidewalks and cardiac patients waiting months for stints.

    Your argument is weak. They'd not have wait times either if they took 1/6th of their population out of their system, as we do here in the US. Or they spent double the money, as we do.

    They have higher life expectancies and lower infant mortality than does the US (because 100% of their expectant mothers have free access to pre-natal care). So does Canada and virtually every other country that has universal care.

    And after all, isn't "infant mortality" what this whole abortion issue about? Or are we only concerned when it's a fetus?

    And to Jesus' question, I dislike abortions but do not believe that my views must be everybody's views. I recognize that Catholics take a different view and I live with it.

  • Jason Crye
    Quote:

    I see. So the radical's take on killing infidels (in their moral view) is okay? Or are we just talking about Catholics' moral view?


    I'm talking about moral views that are grounded in rational argumentation. By rational argumentation, I'm referring to principles of philosophy and science, not religion. When legislators pass a bill that supports the mother's choice to abort her unborn baby, that suggests to me that they presuppose the fetus to be something less than a full human person. There is no scientific data to support such a conclusion.

    Quote:
    Your argument is weak. They'd not have wait times either if they took 1/6th of their population out of their system, as we do here in the US. Or they spent double the money, as we do.

    Are you telling me that 1/6 of the American population don't have access to medical care? Are you sure you want to assume that position?

    Quote:
    They have higher life expectancies and lower infant mortality than does the US (because 100% of their expectant mothers have free access to pre-natal care). So does Canada and virtually every other country that has universal care.

    You're right, but for the wrong reasons. Our mortality rate is high because of malnutrition and the worst obesity rates is the industrialized world. God bless the free market, but it has also given us McDonalds, Burger King, and Culvers. We have the fattiest and most sugar-laden food in the world.

    Quote:
    And after all, isn't "infant mortality" what this whole abortion issue about? Or are we only concerned when it's a fetus?

    False comparison. Eating habits and obesity are a part of taking personal responsibility for being human, not depending fellow taxpayers to pay extra because we won't eat right or exercise.

    Quote:
    And to Jesus' question, I dislike abortions but do not believe that my views must be everybody's views. I recognize that Catholics take a different view and I live with it.

    Why do you dislike abortions? If the fetus is not a human person, then why would it matter?

  • Jack Lohman  - re:
    Aaron M Rodriguez wrote:
    Quote:
    Are you telling me that 1/6 of the American population don't have access to medical care? Are you sure you want to assume that position?


    1/6th do not have insurance, and it's growing as unemployment goes up. If they are poor and have a health problem they can go to the ER. If serious the hospital must (by law) stabilize the patient, but they are not obligated to treat beyond that. If they have no assets to attach they are left free. If they have assets the hospital can go after them, all the way into bankruptcy court (and take most of those assets away). 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical reasons and most of those are people who have insurance and still can't pay the high bills.

    But that said, its interesting to see how you segregate your "moral views" and "rational argumentation." Frankly, that's not what I have viewed (at least in the past) as compassion and Christianity, but what do I know.

    But you have all the answers. Its all in diet and obesity. At least until you come across a three-year-old who is diagnosed with diabetes that is hereditary.
    Quote:
    Why do you dislike abortions? If the fetus is not a human person, then why would it matter?


    For the same reason I don't like ketchup. Personal choice.
  • Jason Crye
    Quote:
    1/6th do not have insurance, and it's growing as unemployment goes up. If they are poor and have a health problem they can go to the ER.

    So you're now saying they have access to health care? I thought you said that 1/6th of Americans were cut out of the health care system?

    Quote:
    If serious the hospital must (by law) stabilize the patient, but they are not obligated to treat beyond that.

    You're now saying that our horrid health care system "saves adult lives" of those who don't have health care insurance? Interesting.

    Quote:
    If they have no assets to attach they are left free. If they have assets the hospital can go after them, all the way into bankruptcy court (and take most of those assets away). 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical reasons and most of those are people who have insurance and still can't pay the high bills.

    I think you need to do your research on bankruptcies in the United States. The 60% number is a very common figure used by universal health care proponents, but what is often left unsaid is that those 60% aren't due to medical problems exclusively or even substantially. Included in the 60% are people who have declared bankruptcy who had admitted to having some medical debt on their application. They are then categorized as a particular group that filed bankruptcy "due" to medical reasons even when the primary reason may be credit problems.

    Quote:
    But that said, its interesting to see how you segregate your "moral views" and "rational argumentation." Frankly, that's not what I have viewed (at least in the past) as compassion and Christianity, but what do I know.

    You are indifferent toward medical practitioners jamming a scissors into the skull of a live, unborn baby to suck out its brains, and you want to talk to me about compassion. No, you don't have the moral grounding to challenge my compassion, sorry.

    Quote:
    But you have all the answers. Its all in diet and obesity.

    You're putting words into my mouth. I didn't say that it's "all" in the diet and obesity rates. I said that the reason we have such high mortality rates is due to our choice of diet. These are not synonymous.

    Quote:

    Quote:
    For the same reason I don't like ketchup. Personal choice.


    I'm trying to understand the logic behind your comment for the simple fact that is sounds very callous. Perhaps someday you will learn to understand that ketchup will never say "I love you", will never graduate from college, or will never be the pride and fulfillment of your life.

    Also, you described your disapproval with abortions as something you despise. Do you really despise ketchup, Jack?

    But who am I to talk, I'm just an ass for not wanting Canadian-styled health care for all Americans.
  • Zeus Rodriguez  - Lesson in TRUE Democracy

    As I said in my first post, a TRUE democracy is rooted in AUTHENTIC law. Freedom is the ability to FREELY choose from "GOODS" not the LICENSE to do what one feels is right (i.e. Abortion and Homosexual behavior)

    If a Democracy is NOT rooted in Authentic law then it merely becomes totalitarianism. Or as you alluded to, "if the majority believes." This is basic common sense.

    So, in other words, if there is no Authentic Law i.e. Natural Law - which comes from God- then there is no true Democracy, just "might equals right."

    And that is why practicing Catholics and many conservatives believe that there are certain behaviors like homosexuality and Abortion that are not acceptable, not because we are "holier than thou" but because those behaviors break down the foundation of true freedom and democracy, which is Natural Law.

    I personally want what is good for everyone not just what is good for an individual.

    What do you believe "true" Democracy and "true" Freedom is Jack?

  • Jack Lohman

    Having 4 kids, 7 grandkids and two miscarried great-grandchildren, I don't need your sanctimonious lecture on the joys of raising children. Nor have I ever said that I condone partial birth abortion. I detest it and would not have a problem if they were (mostly) banned. I do not relish the idea of any one of my family members accepting that as a way out, and I don't need your gory description to try and change my views.

    But I am also not so righteous that I believe that all others should accept my views.

    And please, let's not talk about callousnous on the one hand and ignore it on the other. 20,000 Americans die every year because they don't have adequate health care, ranging from mothers who can't afford to buy their blood pressure medicine because they have to put food on the table, and then die of strokes, to patients who are denied transplants and other critical life-saving procedures. 20,000 per year!!! That's 5 9/11's every year because we are stupid and self-centered and callous.

    You really should educate yourself on the Medicare-for-all system the insurance industry has paid $46 million to keep "off the table." For the same amount of dollars we are spending today (16.5% of GDP) we could provide first-class Cheney-care to 100% of our population. Including those in BadgerCare and Medicaid, and those who are uninsured and under-insured.

    The SAME dollars as we are paying today, not the $1 trillion the House and Senate are promising to shove down our throats. I won't waste your blog on this but you can see details at http://moneyedpoliticians.net/medicare-for-all . And for the record, you taxpayers already ARE paying for 100% of the health care (that is given). Live with it.

    Winston Churchill was right when he said "America will always do the right thing, but only after everything else fails."

  • Jack Lohman  - re:
    Quote:
    I'm just an ass for not wanting Canadian-styled health care for all Americans.

    Well, you may be an ass otherwise, I don't know you. But even if so, you are also very uninformed about Canada. *IF* you are as compassionate as you want us to believe, my recommendation is that you learn about their system. Recent polls show that it has 90% public support. You owe it to your family to know it better than you do. See the articles at http://moneyedpoliticians.net (search on "Health Care - Canada";)

  • Zeus Rodriguez

    That's okay Jack, you can just ignore my last response to you. I am a busy guy anyway.

    For you do minimize the tragedy of Abortion because there are other injustices in the world is typical of someone who just won't take the time to see things for what they are and choose to keep their head in the sand. "Out of site out of mind" right? That is very Liberal of you to redirect focus when faced with brutal facts that you do not want to deal with.

    I think you should go see an ultrasound assisted abortion like that Planned Parenthood director, because you would probably change your tune, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. If not, I would no longer consider you just ignorant but a coward. For only a coward could witness something so horrifying and cruel and not feel the need to defend those who are most vulnerable. If with no other force but a simple vote (no one is asking you to risk your own life).

    But then again, you wouldn't want to come off "sanctimonious"....

  • Jason Crye
    Quote:
    Having 4 kids, 7 grandkids and two miscarried great-grandchildren, I don't need your sanctimonious lecture on the joys of raising children. Nor have I ever said that I condone partial birth abortion. I detest it and would not have a problem if they were (mostly) banned. I do not relish the idea of any one of my family members accepting that as a way out, and I don't need your gory description to try and change my views.

    I'm sorry about the two miscarriages. I just had a child, so my heart goes out to those who experience such things. Keep in mind, however, you just compared your distaste of abortion to that of ketchup. So pardon me if I thought you were callous.

    Quote:
    But I am also not so righteous that I believe that all others should accept my views.

    Are you saying there are no norms or standards that you believe are absolute enough that others should have to follow? None?

    Quote:
    And please, let's not talk about callousnous on the one hand and ignore it on the other. 20,000 Americans die every year because they don't have adequate health care, ranging from mothers who can't afford to buy their blood pressure medicine because they have to put food on the table, and then die of strokes, to patients who are denied transplants and other critical life-saving procedures. 20,000 per year!!! That's 5 9/11's every year because we are stupid and self-centered and callous.

    Let's deal with it then. The current problem however, is that there are solutions, just no good ones; and the government health care programs we currently have in place are wildly inefficient and incredibly wasteful. Providing necessary care to those who really need (and not just the uninsured) it is not the same thing as a government-run health care system.

    Quote:
    You really should educate yourself on the Medicare-for-all system the insurance industry has paid $46 million to keep "off the table."

    Medicare huh? You mean the program that will be insolvent in less than a decade? Yes, by all means, lets expand a program that's already falling apart.

    Quote:
    For the same amount of dollars we are spending today (16.5% of GDP) we could provide first-class Cheney-care to 100% of our population. Including those in BadgerCare and Medicaid, and those who are uninsured and under-insured.

    Who is your "we"? 33% of what we make is extracted for Medicare, Medicaid and other such mandatory medical need programs. 21% is taken for Social Security. That's over half. Perhaps we should find a way to tighten these government systems to eliminate waste, fraud, and other inefficiencies so we can cover the insurance costs of those who really need care with the same 50% that the government is drawing from our checks?

    And finally, I see you've diverted the discussion into a health care debate, which is fine because I am more than happy to have this debate. But it shows that you are weak at worst or uncomfortable at best with the abortion debate.

  • Jack Lohman

    I am not ignoring your previous post, Zeus, there is apparently a delay in the posting (or I am slow in reading, which is likely at my age).

    To believe that we have anything close to a "true democracy" would be naive. We have a government run by the special interests that fund the elections, as the $125 million in campaign contributions from health care interests to block effective health care reform will attest.

    You want good laws that benefit everyone, while the insurance industry wants exactly the opposite. They are winning and you are losing, so get used to it.

    Even if you oppose healthcare reform it is being based on industry money; bribery, not constituent wishes. That's Crony capitalism, not democracy.

    And Aaron, get off the ketchup thing. I was using it as an example of free choice, not to compare it with what must be the most difficult choice a woman must make in her lifetime. I refuse to interfere with my personal views, though the 1st amendment allows you to. Have at it.

    Quote:
    Medicare huh? You mean the program that will be insolvent in less than a decade? Yes, by all means, lets expand a program that's already falling apart.

    Yes, that's the Republican spin, and they've been paid well to espouse that view. You know, the same R's that voted in the Bush Medicare Drug program that passed $780 billion of taxpasyer dollars to the pharmaceutical manufacturers that help fund the elections. And oh, THEN they complained that Medicare was going broke??? Duh!!!

    Compare traditional Medicare with the private Medicare "Advantage" plan (which is a taxpayer-funded option for seniors). The latter costs taxcpayers 17% MORE than than traditional Medicare. So much for "private" being more efficient than "public."

    As well, if Medicare is so bad why did the insurance industry demand that it be left "off the table?" They could have shown it for the boondoggle they want the public believe, but they were afraid of the truth of its efficiency would be known.

    Quote:
    And finally, I see you've diverted the discussion into a health care debate, which is fine because I am more than happy to have this debate. But it shows that you are weak at worst and uncomfortable at best with the abortion debate.

    More talk is not going to bring us together on the abortion issue, but I find it hypocritical for pro-lifers to ignore the 20,000 people who are dying every year because of our faulty healthcare system. So much for compassion.

  • Zeus Rodriguez  - Two Things

    Jack,

    I never said that we HAD a "true democracy" in America. How could we with voters like you? :whistle:

    I merely explained the definition of true freedom and a Democracy. Something you are refusing to do, even though I have asked you and you seem to imply that you know.

    Do you?

    Second, why are you assuming that pro-lifers (i.e. myself) ignore the 20,000 people who are dying every year (due to the lack of healthcare as you claim) simply because we pay attention to the 1,000,000 murdered children every year from the genocide of Abortion?

    The two do not need to be exclusive to one another. Come on man, quit being intellectually dishonest and just answer the questions and quit diverting to straw man and red herrings.

    What is freedom? What is Democracy? And do you believe in absolute truths?


  • Zeus Rodriguez

    Jack Said: "You want good laws that benefit everyone, while the insurance industry wants exactly the opposite. They are winning and you are losing, so get used to it. "

    And one more thing, me "winning" in life has nothing to do with what other people do or get away with, it's only how I respond and perform while I am alive.

    IOW, I could be a political prisoner in a dungeon for the next 40 years until I die and I still wouldn't be a "loser." You see my God actually got humiliated on a cross in front of the world and He didn't "Lose."

    That's the worldview that I have and the obvious difference between you and I. I don't see living and suffering as a zero sum game, I see it as an opportunity to grow as a true human being in both situations. And probably the reason you are more obsessed with getting breathing treatments for those dying of smoking induced COPD instead of fighting for the right of people who have made no bad choices of their own, such as unborn children.

    This is the problem with your worldview, it's so depressing and limiting. Which begs the question Jack, why do you want to keep these 20,000 sick people alive?

Write comment

[b] [i] [u] [s] [url] [quote] [code] [img]   
:angry::0:confused::cheer:B):evil::silly::dry::lol::kiss::D:pinch:
:(:shock::X:side::):P:unsure::woohoo::huh::whistle:;):s
:!::?::idea::arrow:

Security

Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.