Republicans Not Satisfied with Attacking Libya; Now Community Health Centers

Yes, they bring on pain and want to share it all around, make one big hurt. This is the pain of the sins of the forefathers, the founding fathers, the captains of industry, the capitalist barons and kings. It is the painful tightening of nooses and stirrups, the calculating cackling of Nazgul riding high on misery. Taste the pain. Savor the flow of blood from damaged hearts, wounds of battle, beggars kicked into oblivion on darkened streets, excessive violence. Pain is, after all, the great motivator. Grind them all into a massive meatball, cover with condiments extracted from the Earth, this is the wealth that is worth every sacrifice.

I'm reminded of Dennis Hopper in Romero's Land of the Dead controlling that city amidst the destruction of earth and zombies. Hopper is only a stand in for boehner (or any republi.com).

You said: "The idea of spreading the wealth is intolerable to conservatives"

Whose wealth? The wealth once belonged to those who actually pay taxes. Now governments are receiving less because those who pay taxes are earning less. When the money isn't there, it isn't there. The government only receives money when people earn money...

Why not talk about how the government can support entrepreneurship, innovation, and business profit so more money is earned. Government does not create wealth, it simply spends money that was earned by other people.

When the money is earned in the private sector, the government has money to do things for the public. I'm not sure where you think money comes from, but you don't seem to think it should be used to help other people other than Americans.

If republicans in society agree with it, it may be because, "War is always ugly and messy. But allowing Colonel Qaddafi to massacre his people would be even uglier and messier." (Nicholas D. Kristof).

Republicans do not like governments and government leaders massacre their people. Freedom is precious and they want it for everyone--sometimes this means getting rid of ruthless dictators. Obama didn't consult with Congress before going to war, but he is winning points for the next election with those who appreciate freedom.

''The wealth once belonged to those who actually pay taxes."
Does that mean then that wealth once belonged to those who bought something?

In your fantasy make-believe land it is readily apparent you think wealth only comes from rich people. How do people get rich? There are many ways, but I believe money buys power buys (things) to ensure more money and power.

And thank you for this top-notch explication on supply-side economics.

And why do you confuse republican tax strategies with helping entrepreneurship and innovation? I'm all for that. What I'm not is for inherited wealth and corporations to allow individuals to have much more say in (what you say) "freedom". Don't you see freedom can be sold to those with money? I see how govt. can infringe on freedom, but it seems you can't see that monied and powerful individuals can purchase freedom thus negating it.

I like your apology for the libyan war. I guess all those covert cia wars in the 80s under reagan were ust to "promote freedom and democracy" right? Jeane kirkpatrick said it was always good to arm and fund and support autocratic right-wing dictatorships to further democracy in latin america: AAA in aregentina, pinochet in chile, contras in nicaragua, and so on and on and on. Go figure.

"Republicans do not like governments" You've got to be missing something here... Anarchists don't like govts. Republicans don't like govts that share the wealth, they only like govts that consolidate wealth into their hands.

And aside from giving France 16% of france's oil glut, the french are only upset about libya because it was never one of their north african colonies.

If you think killing people and shooting 150 tomahawk missiles is money well-spent "help[ing] other people ther than Americans" I can only laugh out-loud. That is the most absurd Orwellian Republican Christian thing I've heard today, so far.

Here's an interesting article about tax revenue.

And another one that tries to support your thesis. But pay especial attention to the first comment which basically illustrates the fruadulence and disingenuousness of the author. While statutory tax rates ARE 35% and the 2nd highest in the world, the EFFECTIVE tax rates on corps. is something like 17% AND on the lower end of the middle of all OECD nations. In other words, corporations pay less, but this has NOTHING to do with statutory rates. It has to do with the fact that money is buying legislation, plain and simple. So when you talk about taxes come from those who make money, utter bs. Top 500 corporations frequently pay NO TAXES and often RECEIVE refunds from the govt. HOw the heck is that promoting entrepreneurism? Innovation? Sinecures? Cronyism? COllusion? Graft? Corruption? Democracy b(u)y the dollar instead of the vote?

It should have read "Republicans do not like when governments" I left out a word--new keyboard.

War got rid of Hitler. Our military has been in Germany and Japan since just after WWII and these countries have rebuilt their economies and have thrived (until the recent natural disaster).

Peron ruined Argentina. He was the president of the "working class". He and his wife squandered the money the state brought in by living like royalty and destroyed the country. An inside job that had nothing to do with America.

My quote comes from a very progressive (liberal) journalist for the NY Times. I don't think he meant he agrees with death, but dictators do not play by the same rules we do in America. They gain support through fear. This fear is produced by killing people who do not agree with them.

Share with me, how you believe we should rid the world of ruthless dictators? or should we not worry about it?

I don't distinguish between corporations and the people. I know there are legal differences. Corporations pay half of every employee's FICA. Additionally, share holders pay taxes on corporate profits not sheltered for retirement, education, or other purposes. They are sheltered because the government knows that encouraging saving for these purposes creates less dependency on government.

Shelters exist so that government can control and direct where Americans put their money. People are less dependent on social services, government education funding, and retirement if they use tax shelters and the legal loopholes. The same applies to corporations. Loopholes and refunds help the government direct where money is spent.

Green rebates are a good example. Legislators know that operating a green company is generally not cost-effective and can put a business out of business, but morally, it is the right thing to do, so they give refunds to companies who choose to cut energy consumption. It's not a bad thing for corporations to receive refunds.

François Marie, We are broke and some of us conservatives would cut all aspects of government to get the budget within our rate of income, just like every family in this country.

>Republicans do not like governments and government leaders massacre their people. Freedom is precious and they want it for everyone--sometimes this means getting rid of ruthless dictators.<<br>
Spoken like someone who knows no history whatsoever.

Spoken like someone who not only knows history, but is interested in making history. I understand history to the extent to know that religious conservatives are interested in having all people be free from government oppression. Many countries that are communist do not allow their people freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to pursue happiness, etc.

Liberals envy countries that restrict religious freedom, assign everyone a job, and guarantee paychecks, healthcare, and an apartment to all citizens. That's what they want for America. The liberals want everyone to be equal through oppressive laws that inhibit freedom.

Josephine, I agree and when we apply the actions of the US government to the situation in Libya, the question is what side are we on? Are we getting rid of a ruthless dictator to replace him with a more ruthless dictator? Or is the end game only to rid the planet of Israel?

Margaret, Not only do I know my history but I play chess too. Do you look at the headlines and think you understand or do you really try to figure out where this is all heading? What happens if Israel is attacked by all who hate them in that area of the world?

Japan and West Germany were success stories, but since then, our leaders have lacked the confidence to take a stand for freedom and democracy. They are afraid to do what they did during and after WWII in West Germany and Japan.

Another problem we have is that "abused people" tend to gravitate toward repeat offenders. They do not have a healthy psyche, so to speak, to support those who will be good for them. Sometimes America gets itself too involved in the politics of other nations, too, by supporting people who who later take advantage of power.

Our choices are to be involved or watch from the sidelines. We take risks when we involve ourselves. Holocausts and Human Rights violations are not something I can could watch from the sidelines. Action is necessary.

You two are bonkers! (C.V. and J.B.)

You know YOUR history, I don't think you know history.

JB Your discussion above about various tax loopholes is a pathetic attempt at apologizing for corporate subsidies. What kind of subsidy do we give for oil?! CV tries to make libya into saving israel!!!! If libya had no oil we wouldn't be there, until it got way out of hand. JB, you think we got into wwii to help jews and gypsies? Please, we didn't start until the killing was already years unleashed.

You posit japan and germany as success stories of american beneficence!?!?! You are right, america is the greatest force for good this planet has ever seen. Our leaders have been "promoting democracy" and "spreading freedom" ever since! Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan all these guys have been supporting autocratic right-wing dictators across the globe, killing tens of millions of people doing it: cuba, el salvador, nicaragua, guatemala, panama, chile, argentina, east timor, korea, philippines, vietnam, laos, cambodia, iran, iraq, afghanistan, sudan, beirut, and on and on and on endlessly.

"Sometimes America gets itself too involved in the politics of other nations, too, by supporting people who who later take advantage of power." What a load of bs. We don't "Sometimes" get involved with supporting somebody who then "later" takes advantage of power. What utter imperialistic foreign policy apologetic hog wash!!

Name one communist country. Just one. That practices communism in anyway. Means of production in the hands of the people. Not right-wing autocratic dictatorships (even if they use leftist terminology about people and workers and solidarity!).

No, liberals want the separation of church and state. todays consrevatives believe america is a christian nation, and think that communism must necessarily be godless, and that we must do anything to save israel (not because they care about the jews who are going to burn in hell anyway, but for some other inane eschatological idea).

"Liberals envy countries that restrict religious freedom, assign everyone a job, and guarantee paychecks, healthcare, and an apartment to all citizens. That's what they want for America. The liberals want everyone to be equal through oppressive laws that inhibit freedom."
Liberals don't want to restrict religious freedom--we just want to keep it separated from the state. We don't want to "assign" everyone a job, we want to... well, FDR said it best: "The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; [SO YES WE DO WANT EVERYBODY TO HAVE A JOB THAT PROVIDES ECONOMIC PROSPERITY]

The right of every family to a decent home; [YES, WE WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE SHELTER, BUT MORE THAN THAT, A "DECENT" HOME]

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; [YES, WE WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE HEALTH CARE]

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being."

NO, we don't want to inhibit freedom or oppress people or make them all equal. That's what republicans want: they believe that FDR's second bill of rights--the "security" from destituted want--is an infringement on liberties, Liberals say that is what allows us to truly be free. Republicans want to oppress people even though they call it freedom and individual liberty. The liberty that most of us won't attain the securities that FDR spoke about. You know, that 1/3 of american children live in poverty! They have that "equal opportunity" to succeed, don't they? Well, if you accepted the fact that we have class in america, you'd also realize that most pepole don't escape their class. and when these 1/3 of children gorw up and have families of their own, why, the great majority of them will not ever come close to the SECURITY that FDR spoke about.

After Great Britain controlled oil in the Middle East until the 70's when their contracts for oil rights ended. The area was left to govern itself and has been in shambles since. America and other countries have intervened to protect oil interests and to get the dictators and their supporters out of the way. Oil makes them so rich they can't think straight and anyone who makes an attempt to come to power to take their place is put to death. Oil is controlled and owned by the governments of the Middle East. This is what we get when government controls natural resources instead of the private sector--stock holders, etc. The US has little to no power over most of the world's oil.

FDR destroyed America. People have the right to pursue these things. The only thing that determines whether or not people have food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc. is their own initiative and effort.

I can understand giving charity to those who are down on their luck, but it should be temporary and given in a way that doesn't create dependency. Also, the elderly, diseased, and disabled should be cared for by charity, but able bodied and able minded people have to work things out for themselves.

It should not be up to the government make sure the playing ground is "fair" so everyone can have a shot. It's up to the individual to figure out what they need to do to get to where they want to be. If they want to screw around in high school or drop out, they have to live with the consequences of their choices or turn their life around through their own efforts. You can't give handouts or else we create a welfare state of socialists. France is a good example of that.

People there have this notion that the best job in the world is a government job and they look down on the business owners. It's a really screwed up system.

No one thinks to invent or improve products. Where do technological advances come from? Not France or any country with a socialist-style government.

"Oil makes them so rich they can't think straight and anyone who makes an attempt to come to power to take their place is put to death."

So, to understand you correctly, when one becomes "so rich they can't think straight and anyone who makes an attempt to come to power to taker their place is put to death"? I agree. Just look at the wealth inequality right here in the U.S.!

Also, thanks for your Ayn Rand rugged individualism. That works.

Inventions. I think the answer you are looking for is: Only the US, the greatest country and the greatest force for good in the world. (Was I right?)

No single individual in the US is anywhere near having the power and wealth the leaders of these nations have. There is no comparison. Furthermore, wealthy Americans don't have an entire military at their personal disposal. These leaders did nothing to earn or work for the wealth. Middle Eastern wealth couldn't be more different that wealth earned in America.

Tell me what a Middle Eastern dictator has in common with Bill Gates or Warren Buffett and other self-made people? Most wealthy Americans share their wealth voluntarily. I'd like to know what philanthropies have been established by the Middle East governments.

Government power and wealth is not the same as personal business wealth.

Bill Gates isn't gunning down people who compete against with him and threaten to take away his wealth or power.

I am conservative and I ask:
Why Libya, why now? Why not the rest of the countries that are killing its people? Unless saving the people is not the real objective?

Watch the domino's fall, and keep an I on Israel!
What will the beginning of world war III look like?

When Republicans say 'share the pain', they only mean it to apply to poor people. Wealthy people get more tax breaks, thus increasing their wealth.

Wealthy people's wealth doesn't directly increase when they receive tax breaks. After all, they earned the their own money. Not giving it to the government can increase their wealth if they invest or just use it for their own benefit. Even selfish spending on the part of a wealthy person can create jobs. These investments also provide other people with income. Rich people hire people to do everything for them when possible--prepare their food, clean their homes, drive their children here and there, teach their children, take their phone calls for them, organize their papers, prepare their taxes, keep their calendars, update them on investment performance, mow their lawn and tend to their flowers, change their oil, wash and detail their car, shop for them, make their travel plans, clean their business buildings, manage their buildings, analyze future business moves, report accounting data, telemarketers, etc. This doesn't count all of the people who build the electronics, furniture, and anyone who creates and sells tangible goods.

There are those who create jobs and those that take a job.

Josephine, you are talking to an empty room. Most here have no idea what goes into making a product or acquiring the materials to make the product. If one prog would follow the path of one simple wood chair from the tree to their living room and see all the people employed in the process, they would be stunned. Emotion, not logic, is the mantra today.

Nice support of the by-now defunt supply-side economic theory JB. AP, progs? If i were to follow the path i'd have to leave the country to see it manufactured, and then come back here to see it sold at exorbitant rates to profit the major corporations! It's funny how you say it's emotion, not logic. You have pseudo-logic, it sounds smart, but it is wrong. In fact, what is attractive isn't the logic of your argument but the implicit emotions that are embedded in the argument and those that you try to elicit.

By "prog" you mean progressive?

I'd also like to know where he gets the idea that progressives don't run businesses or make anything. They do.

Josephine, Thank you for trying to educate people about what is really happening.

If you are interested in the truth at all, please take time to try and understand a subject the is very hard to explain.

We can not keep spending money that we are not bring in!!!! If we do not give business the ability to make money then they have to cut expenses which means less jobs and more unemployment. If business makes money than they put people to work, that means everyone makes money.

We must at least balance the budget as we are increasing the debt at a rate higher and faster than ever before in history. Since Obama has taken office our debt has increased about $ 4,000,000,000,000.00. (If the zeros bother you, it is 4 trillion dollars.)

The Federal Reserve is not an American institution, it is a world bank and like all banks, they have secured our debt with collateral, which is - all our lands and "we the people" as chattel (bondsmen or slaves). Do not kid yourself, American's may forgive debt but other countires, like China, and world banks do not. Go to - the national debt clock web site. Sadly, that does not represent all of our debt - government allocated funds, like the social security retirement fund, are not considered in the amount displayed at this web site.

We need people in Congress that will stand their ground and insist on balancing the budget. We have to cut spending across the board by make deep cuts that will effect all of us if we want to win the war against debt. We must decrease the size and involvement government has in our lives because when the government does things it almost always costs more than when free enterprise dose the same thing.

The best government is one that does not get involved in things that we should be doing for ourselves. Supporting our families and ourselves is one of the basic responsibilities we have. Remember, the government does not earn any money, it just spends ours.

Obama care is a huge mistake and will truely fail in the long run. It will also bankrupt this nation. I agree that prevention is the best medicine. Try eating more fresh fruits and veggies, it helps.

I personally do not want to be around when the collateral for our debt is collected.

ET, you forgot to start at the beginning! The govt DID NOT get us into this mess!!!! Corporations who are lending money did.

Remember, our banking system (WHICH IS NOT OWNED BY THE GOVT--only permitted) works on fractional banking. They lend money they don't have. They also lobby the govt to change lending laws and other regulations to allow them to lend EVEN MORE money, which they don't have. Nobody does! It was a margin bet on our future production!!!!!! It's the neo-liberal, free market scam!!!

You are right, it is a complex subject. Keep studying.

lol.

Dear In mate 702, You need to cut the sarcasium and read a little deeper about a subject yourself before blasting away like you did. I was trying to explain a very complicated issue without writting a book on the subject. Yes it is an American institution but the money we are getting over what we bring in is mostly foreign. Go to Wikipedia - Federal Reserve - Foreign exchange market. That is where the money is coming from that is covering our deficit. There you will find out that the Foreign exchange market determines the value of our money against all other currency and the buyers of our debt are foreign and there is collateral attached to those loans. It is not widely known but you can talk to your representatives in Washington and hopefully they will give you a straight answer.

I have been involved in the political process for over 40 years and have discovered that much of the information I need to know comes for special interest groups that monitor what is going on in our government. If you have an interest in something, find a group that has someone in Washington watching what is going on up there.

We have to make deep cuts across the board if we want to keep some of the freedoms and rights we have enjoyed in the past. If we do not make big changes in the way this country is operation we are in big trouble. Just trying to make big business pay the tab will not work. The majority of business in our country is still from smaller businesses, thank you God. That is what made this nation so great to begin with.

It is still possible, but not for long if we do not change things, for a person to start out with an idea, create a business, and prosper. Many people from other countries come here and do just that but it takes hard work and the ability to manage money. Better management of the money given in taxes is what we must demand from our government./strong>

Families taking care of families is alway the best way to go for any nation. The family is the foundation on a nation and America has been destroying the family structure for years now and we are reaping the problems it causes.

Yes we need to do something about our health care and the best way is to change the eating habits we have grown accustomed too. Prevention is always the best medicine and that approach is the cheepest one as well. Obama care will truely bankrupt this nation and it will not cover you as well as you think it will. Do you really want the government tell your doctor how to treat you?

People from other nations are coming here for treatment because this country has a great medical care system. If you give it over to the government many of our best doctors will stop practicing or go to other nations that do not try to control their practices.

The more control we give the government, the more rights and freedoms we loose. Then our ability to create a better life for ourselves decreases and we are stuck in a system that no longer gives us the ability to improve our lot in life. There is no free lunch. We must work hard to regain control of what is going on in Washington before we no longer have the right to do it.

Oh by the way, I have been working in the medical profession for longer than I have been involved in the political process. What do you do?