O'Reilly claimed Edwards "has no clue" over claim about homeless veterans
SUMMARY: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly stated: "As for John Edwards, good grief, this guy has no clue." He then aired a clip of Edwards saying: "And tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. We're better than this." O'Reilly commented: "The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain. Ten million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home, and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money. Hard to believe." While it is unclear what O'Reilly found "hard to believe," Edwards' claim about the number of homeless veterans is supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
During the January 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, discussing the January 3 Iowa caucuses, host Bill O'Reilly stated: "As for John Edwards, good grief, this guy has no clue." He then aired a clip of Edwards' speech following the caucuses, during which Edwards stated: "And tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. We're better than this." O'Reilly responded: "That was Edwards' concession speech last night. I mean, come on. The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain. Ten million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home, and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money. Hard to believe."
While it is unclear what O'Reilly found "hard to believe," Edwards' claim about the number of homeless veterans is supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs:
About one-third of the adult homeless population have served their country in the Armed Services. Current population estimates suggest that about 195,000 veterans (male and female) are homeless on any given night and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year. Many other veterans are considered near homeless or at risk because of their poverty, lack of support from family and friends, and dismal living conditions in cheap hotels or in overcrowded or substandard housing.
The Washington Post confirmed the veracity of Edwards' claim, reporting on January 7:
Several readers have asked us to check this surprising statistic, often used by Edwards. The language may be overly dramatic, but the figure is an official one, from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The department believes that one-third of the adult homeless population of the United States "have served their country in the Armed Services." A posting on the department Web site says that about 195,000 veterans are "homeless on any given night" and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year.
From the January 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly reporting tonight from Boston. Thank you for watching us. We're on our way to New Hampshire. We'll be there tomorrow. Anything could happen. And we hope you tune in on Monday to see how our journey up there works out. I can promise you this. It's going to be different.
Now the "Talking Points Memo" this evening, where each presidential candidate stands right now. Congratulations to Senator Barack Obama. He ran an excellent campaign in Iowa and won big. He deserves much credit.
And congratulations to Governor Mike Huckabee. He also ran an excellent campaign, deserves a lot of credit, and has made the Republican race very interesting.
The reason Huckabee won is that 60 percent of the voters described themselves as evangelical Christians, and just about all of them voted for the governor. He will not have that luxury in New Hampshire. So that state is a key test for Huckabee's staying power.
Mr. Obama won because of Iraq. He captured the Iowa anti-war vote, and that propelled him to victory. Iraq will be in play in New Hampshire, so Obama could also do very well there.
As for Hillary Clinton, she just needs to hang on. Once the campaigns roll into the big states, the senator's powerful organization should kick in. However, she has been rocked and must improve her campaigning style.
As for John Edwards, good grief, this guy has no clue.
EDWARDS [video clip]: And tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. We're better than this.
O'REILLY: That was Edwards' concession speech last night. I mean, come on. The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain. Ten million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home, and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money. Hard to believe.
I find that statistic hard to believe.
Here is the part I find hard to believe:
EDWARDS [video clip]: And tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates.
Under bridges and on grates? Sorry. That sort of hyperbole only hurts Edwards.
Where do you think homeless people sleep? Should he have added park benches and bus stations, or would that have been more hyperbole?
And if Edwards had listed every possible place that a homeless person could sleep, then he'd get criticized for not knowing how to make a speech.
This criticism by AA is one of the stupidest ever vomited onto this board.
Oops, I hope AA doesn't get all upset because he didn't physically get ill or anything.
Your comment was that you find "the statistic" hard to believe.
Usually if you disagree with a statistic, you disagree with a numerical value.
And The point that Edwards made is that these 200,000 vets who are homeless each night are not at home sleeping comfortably in their beds.
If he had said under bridges, on grates, in boxes, in doorways, in alleys, in abandoned cars, etc would you have been OK with his statement?
Worrier,
I think you see my point. You are including more examples in order to make sense of Edwards statement. To answer your question though, no, that would have been more of the same.
Here's what I found out when I looked into the definition of homeless.
an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, or has aprimary nighttime residence that is designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill); a temporary residence for persons intended to be institutionalized; or a place not designed for sleeping accommodations for human beings.
-------
What I would like to see is out of the 200,000 stated as chronically homeless, how many are living in welfare hotels, congregate shelters, transitional shelters.
ps. Before anyone goes off on me as being heartless, my heart goes out to all who suffer, including those that are homeless, no matter the reason. I personally donate to a local homeless shelter.
You're being way too literal about Edwards' comment. He didn't mean that all 200,000 were sleeping specifically under bridges and on grates. Homeless is still homeless, whether you're sleeping under a bridge or in a shelter.
Clams,
I didn't question that there are homeless, only Edwards contention that there are 200,000 sleeping under bridges and on grates every night.
If questioning Edwards inflated hyperbole is being too literal, then so be it.
AA, HUD estimated that there 727,000 homeless in urban areas in the US in 2005. A 2000 study by the Urban Institute estimated 444,000 to 842,000 homeless people.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-10-11-homeless-cover_x.htm
So Edwards' figure could be right on.
Except that Edwards said they sleep under bridges and on grates.
Hyperbole plain and simple is my point.
I doubt that there is a stat that totals how many sleep specifically "under bridges and on grates every night" but if half of the 727,000 were were not sleeping in a building, Edwards' figure would be an underestimate. I hope you are not being so literal that you expect an accurate tally of bridges and grates.
No, he's being deliberately obtuse to distract from the desperate reality that at the end of the day tax cutting, you're on your own conservative geovernance forsakes the most vulnerable among us. He's drawing our attention from the fact that the for profit mentality of public services are utter failures. He's trying to make us think of anything besides the fact that underfunded, overburdened government programs have terrible consequences for flesh and bone people.
ROUNDHOUSE:
Exactly.
Can you parse edward's statement any more finely? Only an idiot thinks that was a literal statement. But then again...
A little Clintonian, too (not that the 2 are mutually exclusive, of course). Wow, I just got to insult Clinton....and O'Reilly in one fell-swoop. How cool is that?
More evidence that cons are concrete thinkers unable to grasp even the simplest abstractions.
Hahaha... thanks for the laughs.
I find it funny that some you are arguing by name calling and excusing Edwards for making up extreme circumstances. Heck, why didn't he say they were getting run over and falling through the grates while he is at it.
The plight of homeless veterans is as complex as the plight of all homeless. Falling for hyperbole and then demonizing and namecalling isn't necessary.
I suggest we just talk about the issues in 2008.
So homeless veterans aren't an issue? Or it's just that Edwards isn't properly discussing it because some moron might hear about a vet in a shelter and say "wait a minute...Edwards said that every single solitary homeless vet slept on grates and under bridges...why can't he talk about the issues??"
Give us all a break, would you please? When you make a stupid argument, nobody's going to feel bad about calling you out on it.
Get over yourself.
You are right on! Seems like too many people are demonstrating the Hannity, O'Reilly and Coulter attack strategy of wear them down with minutia thinking they'll forget the bigger picture.
For those of you questioning whether the homeless are in fact homeless - next time you're out-look! You'll be surprised at how many are actually out there. Right here in my small county of 70,000 we have homeless sleeping under bridges, park benches or anywhere they can remain out of sight. They are out there - many of whom are not out there by choice but by circumstance.
You have no point. Edwards says it's a disgrace that so many who have served our country are homeless. That's the point. Cheez.
It is a disgrace, no American should be homeless. The way we treat our vets has always been a natioanl disgrace.
If you could find the percentage, I bet it would be less than half and would only further support Edward's message. If you donate to your local shelter, than you must be aware that they are in very short supply and cannot come close to sheltering all those who need it.
Also, you gotta take into consideration that veterans are not the only homeless people in America.
AA,
I said this in another post, but it seems to fit better here; I'm sorry for the repitition.
You said that you want to see "...how many are living in welfare hotels, congregate shelters, transitional shelters." Are you of the opinion that people in these situations are somehow less homeless than a person sleeping out on the street? Are you OK with the way that Republicans have cut veteran's benefits? Do you ACKNOWLEDGE that Republicans have cut veteran's benefits? Do you find it acceptable that on any given night there can be 200,000 vets living on the streets, whether in some kind of shelter or simply out in the elements? Do you think that the federal government has any sort of responsibility to these vets? Do you think that the federal government has MET any obligation(s) it might have to them?
I'll try to answer your questions.
1. Are you of the opinion that people in these situations are somehow less homeless than a person sleeping out on the street?
Yes.
2. Are you OK with the way that Republicans have cut veteran's benefits?
No.
3. Do you ACKNOWLEDGE that Republicans have cut veteran's benefits?
Yes. Do you know which ones?
3. Do you find it acceptable that on any given night there can be 200,000 vets living on the streets, whether in some kind of shelter or simply out in the elements?
I disagree with the number stated as "living on the streets" part. I think there is much more going on than the simple statistic.
4. Do you think that the federal government has any sort of responsibility to these vets?
Yes.
Do you think that the federal government has MET any obligation(s) it might have to them?
Out of 200,000 my guess is yes however I have no anecdotes. I wonder how many have already received government help? How many are being subsidized right now with what is considered temporary housing even though they are considered homeless?
What is your solution? Should we provide permanent shelter for each of these 200,000? What about food? What about the rest of the homeless? How many more would join the ranks of homeless if they knew they would be supported indefinitely? It is a tough question with no easy answers.
"I disagree with the number stated as "living on the streets" part. I think there is much more going on than the simple statistic."
Then you're still unclear on what it means to be homeless. Just because you manage to get into a shelter doesn't mean you are living on the streets. A shelter isn't a home, and you aren't guaranteed a bed the next night.
I understand your definition. However the definition has been stretched so that it does not necesarrily reflect the reality.
I should clarify that I meant to say that just because you get into a shelter that doesn't mean you AREN'T living on the streets.
AnotherAmerican WTF are you talking about? Stop trying to cloud the issue. The issue is that their are many homeless Vets regardless of the number this is a travesty especially in a nation that touts itself as the richest nation in the world . We are bombarded daily with accusations that we are traitors if we don't support GB's phony war on terror yet we it comes to real support this issue of homelless vets is ignored. Edwards was giving voice to an issue that has not been discussed by other preasidential canidates and regardless the number it is a shame and blot on an administration that mouths support for the troops but in reality only sees them as cannon fodder. What is your point? Maybe along with you giving money you should educate others that there are such problems instead of your nitpicking and knee jerk response to a Democratic canidate. Tell me what Republican canidate even speaks on this issue? Why don't you criticize them for not doing so?
Cong,
Apparently you don't believe politicians should not engage in hyperbole. Go ahead.
I see your post as similar to the Dan Rather defense. Which is that the facts are not true but the story somehow still is.
Why demogoge such an important subject with hyperbole that is easily proven to be just that. I'm of the Joe Friday school of political speech.. "Just the facts, m'am".. or in this case , Edwards.
His use of hyperbole shows me that he is using ambulance chasing rhetoric. I expect more than that from serious candidates. Fortunately I feel Edwards hasn't a prayer of winning the nomination.
Feel free to disagree.
Please excuse the double negative. I should have said in the first sentence, "Apparently you believe it is okay for politicians to engage in hyperbole."
What is your problem with double negatives? Hopefully you never bought into the old canard about to negatives equally a positive. That canard in folk linguistics is naive at best.
Still does not take away from the rather dishonest claim concerning "ambulance chasing rhetoric."
"Ambulance chasing rhetoric?" I can only imagine that that is some how not hyperbole. It is clearly a dishonest statement though.
I cannot tell with absolute certainty, but it would seem reasonable to assume that AA shares the not uncommon belief that there has been an explosion of costs funneling into the health care system because of malpractice awards, especially jury based malpractice awards. And that this is one of his [androgynous masculine pronouns throughout] principal reasons for not liking "ambulance chasing" trial lawyers such as Edwards.If AA does not share this view, he need read no further, as he probably already has the following information I am about to provide. For the rest of those who might have been taken in by some of the fact-challenged demagogues (with an "a" and a "u") who are proponents of tort "reform," the facts appear to be quite different. Consider, for example, the principal conclusions of the 2002 study (covering a nearly 30 year period) by Americans for Insurance Reform (AIR), the whole text of which can be found at:http://www.centerjd.org/air/pr/AIRRatesRel.pdf"The AIR study makes two specific findings: First, over the last 30 years, medical malpractice payouts have directly tracked the rate of medical inflation; and second, over the same period [30 years], insurance premium rates have not tracked payouts at all (e.g. jury verdicts, settlements, etc.), but instead directly follow the ups and downs of the economy."I know AA understands what is being said here, Joe Friday sort of fellow that he is. But just to hammer the point home for those who may not have AA's intellectual discipline, the claim that "ambulance chasing lawyers" are a material economic determinant for increase in malpractice insurance rates appears, to put the point charitably, to be a risible claim (one is even tempted to say a demagogic – with an "a" -claim).So what is really going on with A "Joe Friday" A and his Edwards-as-trial-lawyer seemingly irrational phobia? There are myriad possibilities. Let me comment briefly on two of them. And I stress, these are only possibilities.First, AA may have principled objections to the findings of the AIR report. If so, I presume he can state them. Though I would note proleptically that it would not be a principled objection to the AIR report to point out that they are an interest group which has an agenda which differs from that of the insurance industry. Nor would it advance the discussion to try to overwhelm us with Darwin Awards like anecdotes (urban legends and all) about the more notable excrescenses of the jury award system. Finally, good statistician that he obviously prides himself on being, it would be beside the point for the purposes of this discussion for AA to try to bore in on the fact that the AIR report focuses on national averages. We can, if necessary, eventually take up the matter of West Virginia, or any other micro economy, where it may arguably be important to take a closer look at the relative differences in the components of the relevant r-squareds with respect to malpractice insurance rates that are at play in these environments. For those advocating tort "reform" at a national level, the national average is a much more important statistic than what might be going on in a particular microeconomic environment – presuming, of course, that one is arguing in good faith and not simply spreading around red-herrings indiscriminately.Second, it may actually be that AA sees no net net benefit in the existence of a robust trial lawyer function in our system of justice and equity. If so, let him state that candidly and provide his principled reasons for arguing why this is the case, particularly in an environment where the Federal government has been aggressively decreasing its role as a regulator of such things as poisons in our pets' food, lead in our children's toys, and pollutants in our environment.And, oh yes, after we have worked our way through these particular matters, perhaps we come back to AA's challenge in another post: "Can you show me some link where it says the poor have gotten poorer? I've seen statistics that show the opposite."Just to give AA a heads up, if and when we start going down that particular path, we will find ourselves going fairly deeply into the bowels of Paul Krugman's blog. Is AA really sure he want to go there? I mean, pitting Thomas Sowell against Paul Krugman on this particular matter is not really a fair fight.
Help! Can someone more experienced than myself in such matters please explain how I get my posts to paragraph properly? The paragraphs were evident in the Preview but disappeared when I went to Post.
Thanks.
I thought it was the statistic you questioned. That's what your first post stated. Now, after you've been shown the statistic is accurate you want to criticize the descriptive?
Do you really think it will hurt Edwards that some portion of that number aren't literally under bridges and on grates? It has absolutely zero effect on his main point.
Bill,
My first post was a reaction with no explanation, so I tried clarifying in the second. It is Edwards statement that these 200,000 are sleeping under bridges and on grates that I find hard to digest. I hope my later posts explains my objection.
I'll take you at your word that you were seeking to clarify. It struck me as backtracking at redirecting when I read it.
I will concede there was a degree of hyperbole in Edwards' statement, but I don't think it was unwarranted and doubt very much it will damage him.
Fair enough.
You may be correct about this statement not hurting him. I don't know if many actually took notice of his statement beside BO.
I wish all politicians would be a little less bombastic.. but then I also buy a lottery ticket now and then.. And I think my odds at winning are better than politicians modifying their speeches.
Don't hold your breath. What politicians (and marketers) know is that 95% of the population vote (and make purchases) based on gut feeling over rationality.
Here is the stat I find hard to believe. The only one sleeping under a bridge is that guys brain. Is O'falafel saying NO homeless vets EVER sleep under bridges? Where did he get HIS stat that no one was sleeping under bridges? Oh yeah. The beareau of Billys butt.
I see how this works.
It's proven that 200,000 military veterans are homeless, uncared for by an ungrateful government.
Edwards addresses this issue, saying those 200,000 are sleeping under bridges and on grates, as homeless people do.
Another American shows up with slide rule and calculator, and has determined that IF Edwards has Misstated his FACTS, then the whole issue can be dropped.
So, There were only 80,000 officially sleeping under bridges, 80,000 on grates, and the remaining 40,000 were sleeping in dumpsters, in cardboard boxes, or if lucky, in a shelter for the night.
Another American has WON THE ARGUMENT, branding Edwards as using "ambulance chasing hyperbole" on the issue, and so we can all disregard the entire subject of VETS being homeless and abandoned by the government.
Except there are still over 200,000 American military veterans homeless and abandoned by their government. AA doesn't want it addressed, Edwards does.
thank you Tex. I don't like to single out AA, but he expresses a common theme among "conservatives." and you addressed it very well.
Tex,
The statistic of homeless veterans does not prove that 200,000 are uncared for by an ungrateful government. It implies that but does not prove it.
My guess is very few homeless sleep under bridges. I doubt if I have ever seen more than one and I travel into the downtown and neighboring area of large Urban area early in the morning every week. Not only that, but I never see anyone reporting on it in the media. Not that there are some, but it is my opinion that the numbers are hugely inflated. If you can find actual statistics, I'd be grateful.I never said the whole issue should be dropped. Why would you make that up?
I never said the issue should be dropped. Please read what I write rather than making up stuff. After all you are not John Edwards. :-)Sorry. I don't know why some of my response came out in such a tiny font.
AA,
Do you disagree with the statistic? Look it up--it's correct. Or do you disagree with the characterization? If so, what do you think Edwards should have said?
HistoryG,
I disagree totally with Edwards populist, class-envy campaign. I think he represents the typical ambulance chasing personal injury lawyer, and demogoging politicans which can be seen in his using hyperbole such as in this thread. I see him shedding crocodile tears in his speeches. I consider him a complete phony based on his 'off season' work on Wall Street.
But it makes for an interesting campaign. :-)
What do you think of him?
I think Edwards' rhetoric doesn't always match up to his background, but I like his message MUCH better than the corporate welfare advocated by those across the aisle. The fact is that for the last 27 years the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer -- you can look it up. The disparity of wealth in this country is horrible, and, unfortunately, it seems to me that by the time most politicians have risen to national prominence that they are often not the kind of people who should be involved in politics. Edwards is far more palatable than most politicians I have seen in my lifetime (I am 40).
HG,
Fair enough.
Can you show me some link where it says the poor have gotten poorer? I've seen statistics that show the opposite.
On the other hand, income tax data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service seem to show the exact opposite: People in the bottom fifth of income-tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005
The top one percent -- "the rich" who are supposed to be monopolizing the money, according to the left -- saw their incomes decline by a whopping 26 percent.
Meanwhile, the average taxpayers' real income increased by 24 percent between 1996 and 2005.
How can all this be? How can official statistics from different agencies of the same government -- the Census Bureau and the IRS -- lead to such radically different conclusions?
There are wild cards in such data that need to be kept in mind when you hear income statistics thrown around -- especially when they are thrown around by people who are trying to prove something for political purposes.
One of these wild cards is that most Americans do not stay in the same income brackets throughout their lives. Millions of people move from one bracket to another in just a few years.
What that means statistically is that comparing the top income bracket with the bottom income bracket over a period of years tells you nothing about what is happening to the actual flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving between brackets during those years.
That is why the IRS data, which are for people 25 years old and older, and which follow the same individuals over time, find those in the bottom 20 percent of income-tax filers almost doubling their income in a decade. That is why they are no longer in the same bracket.
That is also why the share of income going to the bottom 20 percent bracket can be going down, as the Census Bureau data show, while the income going to the people who began the decade in that bracket is going up by large amounts.
...
Following trends among income brackets over the years creates the illusion of following people over time. But the only way to follow people is to follow people.
Another wild card in income statistics is that many such statistics are about households or families -- whose sizes vary over time, vary between one racial or ethnic group and another, and vary between one income bracket and another.
That is why household or family income can remain virtually unchanged for decades while per capita income is going up by very large amounts. The number of people per household and per family is declining.
Differences in the number of people per household from one ethnic group to another is why Hispanics have higher household incomes than blacks, while blacks have higher individual incomes than Hispanics.
...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/11/21/income_confusion
You idiot! Of course their REPORTED income goes down, they have had to hide more of their income. God, to poke holes in all this crap would take to much of my time, but seriously, just ask anyone WORKING for a living if they feel "better off" under Bush than Clinton. Unless your money is in investments and inheritance, I know the answer.
Iowadem,
Now now. No need to resort to name calling. That is the lowest form of argumentation and is generally only used by those who have nothing else to offer.
I find it ironic that you have to resort to "the rich hiding money", as your proof. Do you have any statistic, or link to back it up? I realize it might take all day for you to try to find it, but I am patient. :-)
Seriously, unless you have something to argue based in reality, lets drop the insults. I'll just chalk up your post as an emotional response.
As for your other contention. I can find a dozen working people right off the top of my head that feel they are better off under Bush than Clinton. (see Tax cuts.)
see factcheck.org
Actually, according to a nonpartisan analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, nearly 75% of all families are getting a tax cut this year from the two tax bills signed into law by President Bush in 2001 and 2002. The amounts vary widely, but the average is $1,217 – a dozen times more than Dean suggested.
Even families making only $20,000 to $30,000 a year are getting an average cut this year of $638. And 98.4% of that group -- "middle-class" by almost anybody's standards -- are getting some tax reduction, exactly contrary to what Dean said. And the amount of money is significant -- it increases their after-tax income an average of 2.7 percent above what it would have been before the Bush tax cuts.
And for those farther up in the middle-class hierarchy -- making $75,000 to $100,000 a year -- the Bush tax cuts are worth an average of $2,543 this year -- 25 times more than the $100 figure Dean suggested. More than 20 million American families earn $75,000 a year or more, and will be getting tax cuts in the thousands of dollars this year, not the the hundreds.
Generally, the only ones who get NO cut are those making less than $10,000 a year -- and few would think of them as middle-class. They’re the ones who earn too little to pay federal income tax in the first place, mostly singles and elderly retirees. Only 7 percent of them get a tax cut.
http://www.factcheck.org/dean_wrong_on_bush_tax_cut.htmlMy apologies for the emotional outburst. You are correct in that there may be some people who claim to be better off under Bush, but my guess is that they are not benefitting financially, but through some form of vicarious chest-puffing power trip. For most people, the tax cuts were nominal at best. For myself (with three kids and a new home) the tax cuts were almost non-existent and I would gladly pay more to care for homeless vets, my children's education, and universal (i.e. single-payer) health care. These things are benficial not only in the short term, but make for a more stable and powerful society.
I would spend hours trying to back up my income hiding claim, but it would doubtless be to no avail. You are convinced of your rightness and I am but a humble poster hoping that truth is being told here. Perhaps there is someone here who can convince you with statistics and numbers.
I've seen statistics
This is all without considering anything other than what's above and without researching the figures, which is unnecessary to the purpose.First, quoting Thomas Sowell warning about "people who are trying to prove something for political purposes" is really quite funny. And he provides no links to any sources, just the vague "IRS statistics" and "a study," so it's hard to actually examine his arguments or his data. However:1. "Average," in this context means little if anything. As the not-so-funny joke has it, Bill Gates walks into a bar and the "average" income of that room skyrockets.2. True, people often do not stay in the same income bracket throughout their lives. Some go up. What Sowell doesn't acknowledge is that others go down.3. Following only income-earning individuals over 25 is obviously inadequate to examine the entire economy and in fact is not intended to do so. The IRS figures address taxable income. The Census Bureau is interested in the overall state of the economy and address all people and consider both income and wealth (which are not the same). That alone would make the Census Bureau's figures more relevant and more revealing.4. Sowell's supposed explanation of "why the share of income going to the bottom 20 percent bracket [is] going down" makes no sense at all. If the incomes of the tracked people are going up as he claims, either they are no longer in the bottom 20% (in which case they are irrelevant to the comparison) or even as their incomes have gone up, those of the top 20% have gone up even more, leaving those at the bottom even further behind.5. The reason the Census Bureau uses economic classes (by fifths) rather than percentage changes for individuals is that percentages can be grossly misleading. If I earn $10,000 a year and you earn $1,000,000 and each of our incomes goes up by 10%, then I'm making an additional $1,000 and you're making an additional $100,000. The percentages are the same but the dollar amounts are vastly different - and we don't buy things with percentages, we buy them with dollars.6. Finally, for the sake of the argument I'll accept that household income is "unchanged for decades while per capita income is going up." We don't live in per capitas. We live in households. We live in families. By Sowell's own argument, the typical American family has gotten precisely nowhere "for decades."
I apologize for the mass of text. I have no idea why my comment did not paragraph properly.
LARRY:
You make many good points.
Some other considerations about the economy, and Bush's effect on it, come from some other factors.
Initially, Bush "lost" 7 million jobs. Slowly, those jobs came back, but they weren't the well-paying industry jobs that got lost. The "new" jobs paid 23% LESS than the jobs lost.
"Stagnant" incomes don't tell the whole story. Demands on the income in a family increase, when the wages do not. Health care, tuition payments, local taxes, gas at the pump, heating oil, energy costs all have GONE WAY UP, and are hitting that stagnant wage for bigger and bigger slices. Standing still wage-wise, most families are falling way behind, much WORSE off than they were.
Just looking at "incomes" doesn't tell THIS side of the story.
A $1200 "tax break" does not cover the increases, and further jeopardizes our future if given at a time when deficit spending by government is skyrocketing. Our children will be hamstrung by such irresponsible policy.
The rich-poor gap has increased so alarmingly Alan Greenspan fears it is reaching levels that will cause social unrest and threatens "the stability of democratic capitalism itself".
NeoCons, Supply-Siders, Plutocrats and Republicans are all invested in telling the middle class they never had it so good, and that everything is economically peachy. Meanwhile, there is plunder and looting taking place which is destroying America's middle class, and enabling the UNEARNED hoarding of vast fortunes in the hands of a very few.
Under Republican "leadership", all rules, laws, regulations, and practices are rigged towards further enriching the already very wealthy, while letting the conditions for average working families decline, and virtually ignoring the plight of those in poverty, in need, and suffering.
To be fair, these "free marketeers" may well believe that this sort of policy makes for a "better" America (it's certainly a boon to the top 5%!).
If we believe they are WRONG, we need to deny them the POWER to enact their plans by voting AGAINST them.
AA,
I hope you had a good holiday. I want to ask you about one small part of your statement here: If you or a loved one was injured by a doctor/hit-and-run driver, etc, would you sue?
Also, homelessness, to me, is not merely having a place to spend the night. Homelessness is being able to seek comfort at a place of your own (rental or ownership) during your troubled times. Many (unfortunately, I am at work and can't look up stats on these places where they sleep) of these people who fought bravely for our country, have no place for that. Some of the lucky ones have a roof at night at a shelter, but, when times are tough, they have nowhere to go.
I see that the thread goes on about entitlement later. I fully think that any of these brave men and women who were injured either mentally or physically in such a way that they cannot support themselves during the time they were following orders of our Commander-in-Chief deserve/are entitled to food and shelter at our expense for as long as they live if they are unable to procure it on their own. Period.
Fried,
I had a great holiday. I hope yours was the same.
I see your point. Having never sued anyone my perception is based on the specialty that Edwards concentrated much of his practice and the huge settlements from which he profited. I think the system is broken when the lawyers get 33% or more of any successful suit. But that is another story.
To answer your question, I have experienced the death of a loved one due to what I perceive as either incompetence or neglect by a doctor on an operating table. No amount of money can bring that person back. I chose to simply move on.
Having said that, I don't know what I would do next time. It is too general of a question.
Even though personal injury lawyers are part of the tort system, as a rule, I still would not vote any one of them into office.
AA,
I can respect that. Did you hear what Justice Bork (Mr. Tort Reform Himself) did when he injured himself at the Yale club?
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/21079
I would love your opinion on the rest of my post about homes and entitlement too. Glad to hear your holidays went well!
AA,
The only problem with letting a negligent doctor off the hook, if they were incompetent, is that they may cause another to die/serious harm.
Unfortunately, personal injury lawyers are a necessity in our system. Do some take it too far? Sure, but the broad brush that they, and frankly other attorneys get painted with, is truly unfair (full disclosure-I am an attorney, not an injury attorney).
Good points.
If I get a chance, I'll continue later tonight.
ps. Some of my best friends and one relative are lawyers. Maybe I should have been one too. I seem to like debating. :-)
Maybe I should have been [a lawyer] too. I seem to like debating. :-) - anotheramerican
Sounds like fun, but how would you support yourself? ;0)
I can assume "clase envy" and "off season" and "a complete phony" are all examples of hyperbole? Or are they merely dishonest assertions? Obviously, you simply do not know one way or the other.
We do know, that on any given night, there are nearly 200,000 homeless veterans. That is, indeed, troubling. And I thank Edwards for making that point. That is not "class envy" (whatever that is supposed to "mean"--it functions rather as an emblem, semantically vacuous but rhetorically powerful).
That is the stat the homeless vetrens group uses.
http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm
Although accurate numbers are impossible to come by -- no one keeps national records on homeless veterans -- the VA estimates that nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. And nearly 400,000 experience homelessness over the course of a year. Conservatively, one out of every three homeless men who is sleeping in a doorway, alley or box in our cities and rural communities has put on a uniform and served this country. According to the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness and the Urban Institute, 1999), veterans account for 23% of all homeless people in America.
I know a homeless vet that sleeps in his car.
Hard to believe? Where do you reside;DisneyWorld? I grew up in Chicago and still visit the city for sports,concerts,familial visits,etc. I see DOZENS of men and women that fit the description of homeless EVERY time! I,ve seen them sleeping on grates in front of skyscrapers on Michigan Avenue,IN JANUARY! And,yes,some of them are wearing old tattered military apparel.Are they legitimately vets? Possibly.I DON'T ask.I just offer them a dollar or loose change.They're ALWAYS thankful.
The National Coalition For Homeless Veterans backs John Edwards.
The Veterans Administration backs John Edwards.
The truth of the matter is at any given time in this country there ARE 200,000 vets living on our streets, in any given year there are 400,000 vets homeless for at least one night.
Veteran Specific Highlights:
23% of homeless population are veterans 33% of male homeless population are veterans 47% Vietnam Era 17% post Vietnam 15% pre Vietnam 67% served three or more years
(Statistics from The National Coalition For Homeless Veterans website.)
[link to www.nchv.org]
Once again O'Reilly mocks someone who has the truth on their side.
I guess Bill is lookin' out for us, as long as we're not homeless vets.
And the NCHV aslo says that "veterans helping veterans" in community based programs would be the most effective help to homeless veterans......housing veterans who wish to be substance free living with those who are clean and have bettered themselves.
I would have no problem with local funding of these programs with local control and oversight in local communities.......not some bloated, wasteful federal program where money is sucked out by administrators and never sees those they purport to help - unless I miss my guess this is the route Edwards would take.
Just more of his class warfare speech he gave after his Iowa loss.
Edwards is the biggest divider in the race, I hope he leaves. He has been nothing short of a disgrace. As for OReilly, who really cares what Oreilly thinks and says about Edwards, Oreilly does not like anyone who will not appear on his show.
Edwards is the biggest "divider"? What is your definition of this word. I think it does not mean what you think it means? Edwards talks about saving the middle class and restoring this country back to its people (us). Maybe you mean he divides between the extraordinarily wealthy and everyone else. Well, in that case, I guess you're right? My bad.
He pits people against people, he is too partisan and too divisive. His attacks on Senator Clinton have been nothing short of disgusting. His use of his wife and her cancer makes him look cheap and desperate.
I would say to you that your statement is cheap and offensive.
Mary, you are welcome to state that, that is what makes America great, different views.
I would second Mary's comments. Your statement is unfounded and disgusting.
Maybe if you could look past your dislike of Edward's you would realize what a difficult decision it was for both him and his wife to continue with the election process.
Please specify who these people are that are being pitted against each other by Edwards.
And your charge about using his wife's cancer is a blatant mischaracterization of what actually happened.
Us vs. them. Rich vs. poor. Working families vs. whomever. Himself vs. "politicians who will get up everyday and work for them". Mill workers vs. non-mill workers.
You name it. It's his whole campaign, to divide and divide and divide.
The polar opposite of Obamas.
All candidates attempt to separate themselves from the others'. It is how these things are done. Romney attacks Huckabee, Romney attacks McCain, Romney attacks Clinton... well, I'm sure there are other examples too
So in your mind asking the rich to help the poor translates as "rich vs. poor"?
It ain't asking, it would be telling.
That is nowhere near what I said and you know it.......is Edwards "asking" the rich help the poor?
No, he pits them against each other - if you can't see how or why he does it, then it's too late to explain it to you.
Let me ask you, do you think someone else is ENTITLED to someone else's money? I didn't ask you if it would be nice, or generous, I said specifically entitled?
Tommy, I think Veteran's are ENTITLED to whatever aid they require due to their military service. I wouldn't begrudge them one cent. I don't think Oil companies are entitled to billions of dollars of write-offs and loopholes in order to avoid paying their taxes like the rest of us. And really, why do you hate America so much? I mean, all of this money goes to Americans. American Seniors, American children, the American Poor. Why do you hate them so much?!?
Clams asked about poor, in this discussion it wasn't about veterans only, but people in general.
So, I ask you - are people entitled to other people's resources?
I'll say again. In the case of Veteran's my answer is yes. However, your attempt to back me into a hypothetical corner with the "entitled" label is disengenious. It is clear that many people in the country FEEL entitled to my money and most of them happen to be the wealthy. They lobby to keep their generous tax cuts in the face of deficits and a war that they root for so desperately. They vote for candidates that support the borrow-and-spend attitude of this administration. Entitlement spending in this country as a percentage of GDP is miniscule. What exactly is your point, Tommy?
I meant welfare spending in case you throw Medicare at me. However, I support the care of old people and the poor who can't care for themselves. I am Christian after all.
I asked a specific non-political question....very simple. One more time,
Do you believe people of lesser means are ENTITLED to money from people of greater means? As I said, not whether it would be nice, or generous.....it's a direct question, nothing to do with medicare or anything else - if you won't answer, fine.
Look, Tommy, I personally believe that what is Ceasar's give unto Ceasar, okay. What answer should I give? If I say no, then you can say that all "entitlement spending is wrong then or some other libertarian screed. If I say yes, then I am what...lying, not normal? What. Why is it so important what my answer to this question is? What argument are you trying to make. No one is "entitled" to anything in this world. Are the children of wealthy people entitled to their parent's money?
Well, in a sense by law they are. I think this isn't an issue of absolutes. It seems to me that only those on the rabid far right totally oppose entitlement programs. Moderates have more of a sense of providing a safety net, and the far left seems to want to always take from one to give to another. It seems to me that there certainly has to be some oversight in weeding out the abusers and identifying those who can do for themselves and won't. I know that by and large these type of people are not the norm for entitlement programs. But to incessantly fund these programs with ever growing budgets just shows that the entitlement programs are not showing success. Success would be demonstrated by decreases in entitlements because of a clear lack of their need. IN the end it is not o.k to take away from someone who has worked their arse off to make it to give to someone who won't take advantage of the countless opportunities offerred in this nation. There has to be limits.
I agree with almost everything you wrote. However, there will prbably always be poor people in the world. The rich have to much invested in maintaining their grip on resources to just give them away. Therefore, entitlements will never "go down" there will always be a need. We are human, after all, and people make mistakes, live wrong, do drugs, committ crimes, etc. I believe that you make a better society by lifting up the lowest of those among us rather than further rewarding those who are already successful. We have been doing that for the last several years and it doesn't seem to be working either.
There will always be need, but Edward's theory is that if we do the things he proposes then ultimately the need for entitlement programs would be far less than what we have today. I agree with you in a basic level I just think that there is an obvious problem if entitlement funding is ever increasing and there has got to be limits on abusers.
Are we still funding fire and police depts? Are we seeing LESS fires and crimes? IF we arent does that mean fire and police depts are failures? I agree for the most part that it isnt an absolute. Weeding out abuse is something I am all for. I dont know anyone who isnt. The economy is a fluid thing. It changes, it gets better and it gets worse. Saying that since we arent seeing LESS need to help at any given time means they arent working doesnt make sense to me.
Fire and Police Depts.????? Huh???? Look, it's quite simple really, with medicaid, medicare, and social security excluded, entitlement programs such as AFDC for example are not and were never meant to be cradle to grave services. Nor were they meant to be the center of a cycle. The ideology behind entitlement programs such as AFDC is a safety net. Now if you take the myriad of other government programs in terms of educational opportunities, then the desired result is that entitlement programs should shrink as the other services designed to give more oppurtunities show results. Are you saying that by having an ever increasing funding of safety net programs shows progress in this nation? I just don't get that. Take Edward's for example. If he was able to accomplish everything he wants and assuming that it all worked perfectly, then why would we need entitlement increases?
"Do you believe people of lesser means are ENTITLED to money from people of greater means? "
That question smells of class warfare to me.
TOMMY:
To answer your question about ENTITLEMENT, especially as it relates to being FORCED to pay, rather than voluntarily help out with personal charity ... I need an indication of how you define ENTITLED.
In America today, NOBODY can be turned away from an emergency room, BY LAW.
So, does this mean that they are ENTITLED to free medical care? After all, if they don't or can't pay, SOMEBODY has to pay that bill, and not voluntarily ... this care is currently taxpayer funded (because the government mandates the treatment be given).
So how about it, Tommy? Is emergency medical care an ENTITLEMENT? Put another way, would YOU change the LAW to allow hospitals to REFUSE TREATMENT to anybody who cannot prove on the spot their ability to pay for the services?
The answer to this question will tell us how you define ENTITLEMENT, the better for us to answer YOUR question. Thanks in advance.
When they risked their lives to protect those resources, absolutely.
"I think Veteran's are ENTITLED to whatever aid they require due to their military service. I wouldn't begrudge them one cent." That is a very overreaching statement. If you are honorably discharged from the military there is an abundance of things which a person can take advantage of to better themselves. The military is just like any other large institution, there are idiots who just won't do for themselves. This give, give, and give attitude is ridiculous. There are many who abuse the VA system for drugs, medical services, etc. I would hazard a guess that many of the homeless veterans are substance abusers. Enabling them only makes things worse. I think there has to be a system in place to identify those who really need additional help. In the end whose fault is it that one doesn't take advantage of the G.I. Bill, or veterans housing assistance through low interest mortgage, etc? I certainly begrudge those who use and abuse the system at the detriment of those who really need it.
I'd venture that some veteran's wouldn't want the help if you begged them to take also, but that doesn't change my feeling about it. Why should I begrudge a homeless drug-addicted veteran another hit, or a bed at a shelter, or medical supervision while he cleans up. Are you going to decide which veteran's "deserve"our help and those that do not? I am not saying that there are some people out there that don't make good decision. Many of them are simply not even aware of their options because no one ever took the time to explain it to them. If there is a billion dollars worth of "wasted" spending on veterans, I would swallow that easier than hearing how oil complanies avoided paying $4.3 billion in taxes due to a tax loophole that Bush wouldn't close last year.
I just wish the government who gives would at least have the backbone to provide oversight for abuse. I took advantage of the G.I. Bill and all the things offered to me as a combat wounded veteran. I will tell you this, whether you like it or not, there are those who just plainly won't do anything for themselves. They expect the government to do everything for them just because they wore the uniform. That is ridiculous and it quite frankly insults those who served with honor and used the system in the ethical way. You seem to assume that every drug addled veteran wants to clean up therefore there needs to be an endless stream of funding for that person based solely on the possibility that they may clean up. How many chances should one get? How are you helping someone like that if you constantly enable them? As far as noone taking the time to explain options to veterans that is just silly, with all due respect. Each person is cognizant of what they are doing when they enlist. Each person does so for their own personal reasons. The military does a pretty good job of taking care of its enlisted members and they do a good job of explaining your benefits to you upon leaving. Not taking advantage of programs because someone did not explain them to you is a poor excuse.
I'll concede the lack of knowledge point, except that there are people that either can not or do not take the time to truly understand these things. It is simply my belief that those who have served honorably should be taken care of, whether they think it is owed to them or not. It does not bother me that there might be some veterans who take advantage of the system. To me, that money is not wasted regardless of how THEY view it. And let's be real here, the money an individual soldier needs to be cared for, even WELL cared for, is far less than the money being wasted on pork barrel projects, oil subsidies, etc. That is money I could do without if it means that not one single soldier who risked their life for me and my children goes hungry or sleeps in the cold EVER. I gladly err on the side of caution here. That's all.
You're slipping Tommy. You have again seamlessy answered a question posed to your sockpuppet monicker, Sueeld, as Tommy.
Anyhoo, you got it backward. Instead of neighbor helping neighbor in the Progressive spirit of shared sacrifice, the ultimate end of the conservative personal responsibility, you're on your own, argument is neighbor pitted against neighbor in bitter competition to get their piece.
People who work for companies that are in "Big Medicine", "Big Oil" vs. people who do not. People who are Republicans vs. people who are not. People who are successful vs. people who need help in getting success. Old vs Young, men vs Women. I do not know where to continue. That is why I love Obama, he does not pit people vs. people he provides hope. Edwards provides nothing but hate and division, America does not need that anymore we have had enough of it for 8 years.
There has been a "class warfare" going on for the past 7 years. The moneyed elite and corporations vs. Joe six-pack and his family. Evidence is in the tax reductions for the rich/corprate communities, the draconian bankruptcy law, etc.
The middle class has been left behind and Edwards is merely speaking up for them.
Unless you're rich, you should appreciate that rather than being outraged about him being "divisive". I think he is standing up for regular Americans.
Bullcrap sue. Edwards talks about taking back power from the hands of the wealthy few and giving everyone an equal voice in our democracy.
SUE:
You "LOVE" Obama because of his non-confrontational, non-divisive HOPE message.
Well and good, as long as his "Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood" lovely day sunny outlook does not translate to naive indifference.
"Let's all get along," is a fine-sounding message, but the accountants at Halliburton aren't interested in "getting along" ... they have another agenda, and will not easily be dissuaded from pursuing it.
The Rightwing Media's JOB is to be confrontational, to tear down Liberals and Democrats, smear and disparage, insult and character assassinate. They will not become sunny optimists because Obama "leads the way" with his message of unity and friendship.
I remember another optimistic, decent, God-fearing genuinely nice and decent man, highly intelligent, who entered the White House hoping to change the Washington dynamics of confrontation and conflict. Jimmy Carter learned that WISHING for cooperation and pulling together for America is a goal that faces unbelievably strong opposition.
A presidential term spent trying to realize this goal will be a waste.
The thing about Hillary is that her (bitter) experience with opposition will have her laboring under no false notions about cooperation. On day one, she would govern knowing the realities of what it takes to get things done, and what to do about those who stand in the way.
The truth is, Politics at the White House level IS NOT NICE, and was never INTENDED to be nice. Our wise founders set up a CONFRONTATIONAL system, with checks and balances and opposition and confrontation, the better to practice democracy.
Obama seems a VERY nice guy. I just hope he's not TOO nice, to the point where, like Jimmy Carter before him, his term in office is wasted (should he "win").
(I'm reminded of the unlikely sit-com, "Hogan's Heroes", where the comical Col. Klink is "in charge", while Hogan's crew run circles around him, having their way behind his back.)
Perhaps you may have a personal reason for not liking him, but from a political standpoint, the only people he pits against one another are ultra-wealthy against the other 99% of people. Partisan? Sure, I guess he's a Democrat and he is liberal. Not sure where divisive fits in there.
So class warfare is o.k? It's a little more than pitting 99% against 1%. Personally, I like Edwards and would likely vote for him against a GOP candidate except maybe McCain. But, I think there is a point to seeing Edwards message as divisive in nature. It's all in perception, which is a factor in choosing who you vote for.
Point taken, I suppose I simply think that the class warfare tag is often misplaced. Why is it when someone wants to fight for the middle class and poor committing class warfare, but when someone wants to abolish the "death tax" they are not. Isn't it plain to see that the current administration has been waging the most punishing war in our history on those not of his class?
I can't disagree with that. It sure is an issue of labeling in that the right has succeded in avoiding the class warfare label with its policy initiatives. It is what it is, and the definition fits (I believe) for both sides.
too divisive
I always wonder why the term "divisive" seems only to be applied to those who go after the rich and the powerful.
Seriously: How often do you hear, say, Bush called "divisive" vs. how often you'd hear the term about, say, Edwards? How often is it applied to those who condemn immigrants versus those who want the rich to pay more in taxes?
Sue ...with all due respect ... this is one of the most hateful things you've said. Edwards has in no way "used" his wife's cancer. By all accounts, he wanted to drop out of the race when the diagnosis came in...but she wanted to continue on.
You're dead wrong.
Who cares what o'Reilly thinks?
I care.
I care that he can ridicule someone for reporting a fact.
I care that this country thinks nothing of sending boys and girls to fight and maybe to die, yet it washes it's hands of them and their problems when they get home.
This is a national disgrace.
This has been a national disgrace for more than 30 years.
Then you give OReilly too much power. The guy is the village idiot of FOX and yet you treat him like he is some powerful figure. He is not.
Unfortunately, many people listen to him and take his word for gospel. I mean, he's got the number one rated cable program, right? Besides, we all know that Olbermann is the most powerful man in the known universe.
The number one rated cable NEWS program. Big distinction. More people watch Spongebob, RAW, and Law and Order reruns.
But your point is well made, as is your point about Olbermann. :)
Thanks, Pete. There is a BIG difference and thankfully, my four year old daughter has more sense watching Spongebob than most O'Lielly fans!
POINT OF CLARIFICATION:
If the TV is on, how can one readily tell the difference between SpongeBob and O'Reilly?
Could I inadvertently be watching one while thinking it was the other?
O'Reilly's eye's pop out more than SpongeBob and his face is much more yellow than SpongeBob's.
SpongeBob also has a friend, Patrick.
I'm pretty sure that Bill doesn't have a friend.
I agree with you assessment of O'Reilly but disagree about his lack of power.
He has an audience. If he persuades one more American to believe that there are not 200,000 vets living on the streets each night, it sets back the cause of homeless vets.
This is not about Edwards being divisive or O'Reilly being an idiot.
It's about a man with a national platform setting back a worthy cause because of his hatred of the one who's bringing it to the nations attention.
You can side with O'Reilly but you're hatred of Edwards hurts those who've served their nation.
I am not siding with OReilly I find him an even more disgusting than Edwards. Edwards is the reason people love Obama, someone who is genuine, not Edwards. That is why I pray Obama stay away from FOX and OReilly, these people will do anything to destroy him.
Tommy, sadly most serious Democratic Candidates are afraid to go on FOX, not because of FOX but because of the outrage from the Daily Kos people. I think Obama should to on OReilly, he has the most viewers and it would be good for him to even widen his appeal. I think Obama is the real thing .
Yes, I did say that and I have changed my views and made a 180 on it. I educated myself and after what Oreilly pulled this weekend in NH that was the final point.
I guess however in the world of Pearlene people can not change opinions or views.
Welcome to the club Sueeld!!!
I want to hear more about how OReilly threatened the Obama staffer, he was just furious that he is unable to get an interview.I was disapointed that Hillary did an interview yesterday with Major Garrett on FOX News . That network should be boycotted by all Democratic candidates.
I saw that also on the "FOX Report". My feeling is that Obama is the real thing and he has something that we may never have in this country again, he is authentic and there will be elements that will attempt to destroy him.
Yes, I did say that and I have changed my views and made a 180 on it. I educated myself and after what Oreilly pulled this weekend in NH that was the final point.I guess however in the world of Pearlene people can not change opinions or views
Sueeld, of course people can change their views. I often change my however Bill has done NOTHING any different that he's always done so forgive me if my head turn a bit at you change from Friday till Monday.
Did you bother telling anyone you made the change, Sue? Don't start scolding Pearlene for not being able to read your mind, especially about a position that changed in the last 3 days.
No I did not you are right that was my fault, sorry for not going back and telling everyone I changed my position. I do have a family and do things on the weekend however, not that that is an excuse.
It would have taken one prior sentence in one post on this very thread to clarify your flip flop. Instead you wanna be a hater and chastise Pearlene.
J'accuse!
Hater!
Divider!
Roundhouse, you might want to direct your Accusatory Abyssinian to a Harmony Hitching Post.
Sueeld I would also say that Bush is the reason people love Obama. He is everything that our Resident in Chief is not and he is authentic.
Sueeld, you are correct. OReilly is the village idiot. However he has many viewers and listeners and he is able to spread his lies and conservative misinformation.
I understand that and I am not saying his lies should not be exposed but some on here give him way more power than he has. His ego must be huge when he thinks about how people think of him.
Sue,
If we should not care what BOR spouts, why do you put so much time and energy into KO? BOR has a larger audience, shouldn't we be more worried about him?
I am not saying we can not discuss KO or BO. Just is BO that important to America? I do not think so , does not mean I do not want to discuss him.
Sue,
"The guy is the village idiot of FOX and yet you treat him like he is some powerful figure. He is not. "
Just your words there. He does have power. More people watch his cable news show than any other. Someone needs to call him on all of this.
Unfortunately, many, possibly most, local communities won't have the resources to address this issue. Do you think homeless vets should shop around for a community that is willing and able to address the problem? That they should then flock to those communities in large numbers?
These veterans were frequently damaged in service to our country. It doesn't seem unreasonable that our federal government should assume a large portion of the burden of addressing their needs.
Lastly, I've yet to see solid evidence that most federal programs are as wasteful as you imply. Social Security, Medicare and many other federal programs have admirably low administration costs even compared to most charities and private companies.
We have a VA, do you want another government agency or why not just make them more accountable and relevant in veteran's affairs, specifically homelessness?
I've got no objection to using the VA and I doubt that Edwards does either. Even so, the problem can't be addressed without adequate funding and organization, both of which are currently lacking.
A follow-up to my last post.
I've just visited the Edwards campaign website. I'm correct that he favors addressing veterans' issues through adequate funding of the VA. He also wants to make sure that there is support available for vets who choose to seek it outside the VA. Remember that not all communities have VA services available. A vet returning to his hometown or other choice of locale should be able to receive care whether there is a VA center or not.
So, when Edwards, whose entire campaign is about funding and more funding of government programs, details specifically what exactly "adequate funding" is, then I will be interested.
Until then, there is no need to bother.
He's identified a problem and pointed out that we should be addressing it. Most of us agree that the federal government should be doing more. You've failed to support your charge that Edwards wants to create a huge new bureaucracy to handle it. You've ignored the points about inadequacy of local program funding.
Now you want him to publish an exact dollar figure before you'll consider anything he says on the topic. Somehow I doubt he'll ever be able to catch up to your rapidly moving goalposts.
Well, lets just take the 2 billion or so we spend every week in Iraq and use that for the homeless, education, etc.
I bet that would go a long way, Tommy. Oh, and by ending the war, the volume of disabled veterans would become rather stagnant, don't you think?
Tommy,
Do you think that the VA receives adaquate funding?
Do you believe they are underfunded?
Every expenditure should be evaluated for its appropriateness, do you think otherwise?
Way to answer a question with a question, Tommy. Cheap.
He's right Tommy, the federal government has very little waste. The politicians of both parties only say that the government is wasteful for kicks. Did you still want that 1000 acres in Florida I had for sale for $100.00?
I know, no waste - people always watch every dime of somebody else's money just like their own, ya right.
Sign me up for that Florida land.......
Ok, I gave examples of federal government programs that have very low administrative costs. Perhaps you can provide us with examples with statistics where government administrative costs are grossly higher than private companies or charities providing similar services.
I knew that someone would take my statement that government waste is overstated and dishonestly portray it as an assertion of little government waste.
I am far more interested in wasteful pork projects and unaccountable bloated federal agencies than the VA.
If you aren't concerned the government wastes your money, then by all means that is your perfect right. People like Edwards speak to you directly, they loooooooove that........you just can't sell it to me, sorry.
So you're unable to produce examples. That's ok, I understand.
Oh, gimme a break - go to cagw.org or dozens of other watchdog websites for a list a mile long.
If you think the government has no waste, then you are either being disingenuous or naive.
Come on, Tommy, you can be more honest than that. You know perfectly well that I never said there was no waste, even though I knew some liar or other would say I did.
What I'm pointing out is that government agencies providing services are far more efficient than they are given credit for. You have so far completely failed to refute that point.
The point is there is far too much waste in government spending - and until that spending is cut and far more accountable, then the government doesn't need more, no more increases, no more new programs, none. Feeding the beast does not encourage it to stop eating.
It's out of principle for me, if you disagree, fine.
Tommy's view:
"Screw you, homeless vets. There is some money being spent by government in ways I don't like. We aren't going to try to fix your problems until everything in government meets my approval."
You fix waste by identifying specific examples of it and working to correct them.
You fix problems by identifying specifically what, if anything, will help address them and directing the needed resources to doing so.
These tasks can be accomplished separately, and usually are.
Your "screw you" idiocy just invalidates any serious discussion or anything further from me, sorry.
Considering you had to resort to that shows me you have nothing.
...then the government doesn't need more, no more increases, no more new programs, none - Tommy
Logic, Tommy boy, logic. More disabled veterans, more homeless, more unemployed, dilutes the pool of available services.
Again, why not take the $2 billion a week from Iraq and spend it on people who need it most. Or even better, let's not spend it at all!
I thought it quite succinctly restated your position. Perhaps you could point out where it isn't the logical next step.
I have commitments for tonight and likely won't have a chance for another response until tomorrow morning. Plenty of time for you to misrepresent my words some more.
He asked for some examples of Government waste. You can't provide any so you fall back on bloviating and rightwing spin. Our federal Government has gotten a very bad rap. In fact, where our Government has taken over for the private sector in the distribution of public goods (i.e. goods that are not used or paid for reletive to demand and supply) they have been extraordinaily successful. Medicare, of course, being the most obvious example. Their administrative cost are around 3% whereas, private insurance companies routinely have admin costs of around 25%. Talk about wasteful, you'd think the stockholders would revolt! What, they aren't? Hmm, why not, I wonder?
Oh, so i guess it's ok for the government to provide welfare for multinational corporations and to turn their backs on veterans who served and are having difficulties.
Class warfare indeed, the wealthy conservatives continue to wage it and won't be happy until they have the middle class working for poverty level and below wages.
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I find your comment rather distasteful, being a veteran myself.
Thanks Spin for saying what is should be obvious. The class warfare tag is only thrown when Rightwingers want to label a Democrat. You never hear it when spoken about tax cuts for the wealthy while simultaneously gutting the VA and education and other programs that help the poor. This is class warfare at its worst and happens every single day in this country, but no one ever talks about it in the media. Otherwise, we may question the corporately owned media itself!
These veterans are part of a national program called the United States military. It's a national problem. Their of course can be local programs to help vets, but that doesn't mean that the veteran's administration isn't responsible for service related injury and mental trauma.
Read the NHVC link, it's their idea, not mine.
And you agreed with it.
I did, locally based programs with local control always work best.
So then address Mary's argument without the "it wasn't my idea" dodge.
I love it when you demand (haha).... I answered it, if you didn't like it, tough.
That's just a lie. You didn't answer her point at all. You dismissed it by saying, "It was their idea, not mine."
Right on, Clams...it's great if a program works for vets on a local level, but the VA STILL has the responsibility to see that all the vets in the country are getting the help they need.
The VA needs to be run competently and veteran's benefits need to be fully funded. Which conservatives who want to see fiscal restraint should applaud and support by calling for severe restraint in using military force.
Inefficient? Whatever, Tommy. How is a billion dollar paycheck for a health insurance CEO saving money for the working guy?
Why aren't our socialized police chiefs making hundreds of millions of dollars like the insurance comany board of trustees?
These for profit industries are sucking up money and driving costs up, up, up with bloated executive salaries. But the populists are waging class war?
Please.
Conservatism is a sickness.
Again the selfishness of conservatives knows no bounds. Apparantly to tommy there is NO societal obligation to those whose lives become shattered after being sent off to fight a war. No they need to come home and rely on the kindness of strangers. Otherwise society might have to actually PAY for the consequences of shattering lives to obtain resources for vast corporations. Regular working people need to step up and do MORE so that those who benifit from these foriegn adventures can dodge any responsible societal obligations. They already served as cannonn fodder and DID their part for corporate profits why in the WORLD woud that mean society owes them anything? Just how disgustingly low are you willing to go to put ALL obligations on those who already do the most and get the least from this society just so those who do the least can give even LESS? Again the mindless canard, that it isnt class warfare to send mostly working class people to FIGHT a war that benifits mostly the wealthy, then ingnore them and deny the society that sent them there has ANY obligation to them for their shattered lives, No THAT isnt class warfare but saying there IS such an obligation IS class warfare. And ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery, up is down and as ALWAYS its the fault of those who have sacrificed the MOST that they just havent given up enough.
O'Reilly once declared that he'd "seen combat"--even tho he never did. It's not surprising that it's actually Bill who is in fact the clueless one (to use Bill's own description of Edwards).
Aw, Dave, ya gotta cut Repugnants and O'LIElly some slack: he used to watch all those John Wayne movies, so he has in fact seen combat (albeit in a somewhat sanitized version).
Well, it's impossible that Bill O'Reilly could be mistaken or outright lying, what with his stellar reputation for truth and accuracy. After all, he has all those Peabody and Polk awards, right?
Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that the US Department of Veterans Affairs, which was recently headed by Jim Nicholson, former Chairman of the Republican National Committee, has a liberal bias.
The solution? Copies of "The No Spin Zone," "Who's Looking Out for You?" and "Culture Warrior" for everyone at the VA. That'll teach those pointy-headed liberal intellectual bureaucrats to quit dealing in "facts" and "reality."
The solution? Copies of "The No Spin Zone," "Who's Looking Out for You?" and "Culture Warrior" for everyone at the VA. That'll teach those pointy-headed liberal intellectual bureaucrats to quit dealing in "facts" and "reality."
Even better - give those copies to the homeless veterans. They can burn them to keep warm while sleeping under those bridges.
Maybe O'Reilly would donate outerwear from his online store to help keep them warm, too? Oh, that's right, I forgot -- those homeless veterans don't exist. Well, if they were REAL Americans, they'd BUY O'Reilly Gear instead of wasting their veterans benefits on luxuries like food and medicine.
Har! My first trip to the BilldO store. What the hell is a "windshirt"? Do his Factor guests get one of these during their interviews with the windbag?
After you find out WTF a "windshirt"is, maybe you can find out why a "No Spin Windshirt" costs $9 more than a "Culture Warrior Windshirt".
And did you see that Premium members get an additional discount? I'm reaching for my AmEx card as I type.
You're not a premium member yet? What a popinjay!
Maybe a Windshirt is some sort of mystical ceremonial garb, like Thunderpants or Fireboots.Who knows what sort of shamanistic rituals BilldO offers the Factor Gods to exorcise the evil S-Pirits?
Popinjay? Are you channeling W. C. Fields?
Next you'll be calling me a moon calf or a jabbernow.
Windshirt is the terminology of traditionalist, America-loving patriots.
Windbreaker is the terminology of radical, America-hating, far-left loons like you, HBL! ;0)
"The language may be overly dramatic"
Yes, Washington Post, let's not get too upset with 195,000 veterans homeless. Maybe if you reported on this problem once in a while, this statistic wouldn't come as such a shock... oh wait, that would be too dramatic. Let's just calm down, dammit!
Good catch! That was the very first thing that irritated me, too - but I didn't start posting until 109 had already appeared, so I resolved to read those before expressing my upset. You did it for me, and better.
B O'R looks like he's missing his dentures in that photo.
It is a shame that ANY person who has served their country should be homeless, it is unacceptable.
What if they piss away all the programs and benefits afforded them? Like it or not some folks are in the position they are in because they choose to be. Serving this nation is a noble thing. Those who do so should be respected and in fact they are given numerous benefits to utilize. That being said, just because you wore the unifrm does in no way excuse you from making poor decisions and facing those consequences. Nor does it automatically earn you free everthing for the rest of your life unless of course you are injured in the line of duty. There are systemic measures in place to take care of those first anyway. Look, how many times are you going to help a veteran when all they will do is waste what you give them on drugs or alcohol? You do believe in limits, don't you?
What about those that are not "injured" but suffer mentally?
How many of those Vets do you suppose could arrange to barter psychiatric care (for PTSD, say) for drugs and drink?
With shortages of beds in most shelter, I'd guess they might have better luck trading a bed for a drink or a fix? No, among the things we're talking about, is the obstinate refusal of the VA even to record diagnoses of serious combat-derived physical damage to the Vet, since that would stress the limited funding available; and the year-or-more fight required to get benefits even if the Vet has procured the diagnosis that should make them instantly available. Many of those homeless Vets are just waiting for their first VA check, so they can afford the food and shelter they cannot now earn for themselves.
I've covered the same claims previously, in some prior thread(s) here, as to the inadequacy and outright perverse denial of benefits to vets by the DoD and VA; however, rather than allow some new names to have nothing but the rant to inform their take on this problem, here are a couple of more somewhat more recent links:
ABC News : Brain Injuries Overlooked (check the DoD statement that only 1835 such injuries exist, as of February, 2007.)
HealthDay: 2 Million Veterans Lack Health Insurance (note that DoD / VA service terminates at 2 years, except conditions attributed to combat, and diagnosed prior to expiration of the 2 years after release; note also the Bushco recission of eligibility for VA, based on income.)
LA Times / Boston Globe: Injured Vets Sue VA I have read kiss-and-make-up reports since July, that the problem is being addressed, and that the backlog has been halved or better. The appearance given by results for the cases of which I have knowledge, is that the diagnosis changed, the forms changed, and the benefits are still "probably a year away." AND the diagnosis still fails to account for the symptoms/disability, but represents mostly an effort to shuffle the paper out of the "old" backlog, without committing an extra minute or dime to helping the Vet or his(her) family. There is an institutional aversion to signing a report of disability, throughout VA; the result is, that some treatment may be provided, but unlikely effective due to denial of the condition of the patient, and, at or before the end of the two years, magically, the Vet is restored to full functionality.
Heck, if anyone reads all of that, and needs more info, since it is late, I would suggest google!
I know what you're getting at Chris, but I also know too many guys who never really made it all the way home and you probably do too.
These are people who are always going to need help. I have no problem in giving it to them. I'm sure that in those case you would agree with me.
Thanks Worrier. I am not without compassion here. We know the effects war has on young men both mentally and physically. Most here don't. They can do their research and spout statistics and regurgitate the analysis of "experts" with whom they agree on this matter. That is fine, but I don't need a lesson on what is happenning here with the veterans policies in this nation. I know fully well the effects of PTSD on our soldiers. I guess you could say I brought a little home myself. I also spent time in a VA hospital in recovery and rehab. I also worked at a VA hospital in east Tennessee. So, my opinions on this are based on first hand knowledge and experiences. I don't begrudge veterans who ethically use the VA system for their needs. It is underfunded and the ogvernement needs to do better with issues mentioned by Conley above.
You are correct, I have no issue with supporting these guys if their needs are legitimate. I have a real problem with guys, (and you know exactly what type of person I am talking about) who was nothing but trouble while he served and when he gets out they use and abuse the system over and over to the detriment of those who really need the services. I seen alot of abuse in my experience with the VA system. You had the guys who enlisted, stayed in trouble, never saw a day of combat, spent their time in mundane positions and when they get out they expect everything to be given to them because they are veterans. It just don't work that way. Or it shouldn't anyway. I just can't stand the idea of supporting someones habit, especially when you got young men returning home right now with serious mental and physical issues.
Chris that is pure BS, stop trying to justify your rediculous position. if you agree that the VA is underfunded why isn't your anger directed at that. Why isn't it directed at a President that got preferential treatment to get in the National Guard to avoid going to Viet Nam then because of his privalege doesn't even fulfill his duty there, then as appointed President sends thousands of men and women from mostly working class families to fight in an unjustifed and illegal war in Iraq killing nearly 4,000 of them with over 30,000 causualties then relegates them to an unprepared and admittingly underfunded VA system. Your hyprocrisy cannot be justified by blaming some "you know the kind" Vets who just want to get "high" BS. Your wrong and your anger misplaced so stop waffling.
Sir, with all due respect you continue to reinforce my belief that you really have no clue. Perhaps if you took the time to follow along you would undoubtedly see that my objections in this matter are based on a previous discussion with others here in which they have indicated they have no problem with endlessly funding services for those who abuse the system. If you don't see the ethical issue in that and see that it takes away from the people who really need help, then you are blinded by your own rabid partisanship.
What makes you think I don't have anger at Bush or Congress for underfunding the VA? I guess in your infinite wisdom one can't be critical of those who abuse the system and be compassionate. Riiiiight. Again, save your pitiful sermons for someone who you can fool with your empty rhetoric. I will tell you again, I have served, I have benefited from the VA, I know the importance of its services, I worked at a VA hospital, and I know how it is abused. When you can show my expieriences to be merely blips on the screen, you will have a point. Until then, I will still be waiting for your wonderful lesson about your own experiences with the VA system. Tell us all about it. Again, I'm wild with anticipation.
Chris you still fail to see my point. You make allegations of widespread abuse without providing any statistics of this abuse yet when I point out to you abuses by the VA system on Vets you don't respond. Are their abusers of the system? I guess in every program there will be those that take advantage. Widespread abuse show me, what do you consider widespread? Is it an inside job? Of course their shoould be oversite. Oversite to make sure the VA is getting help to those who not only need it but to make sure its the correct help and is making a difference but siince you do not claim to be a MD and do not make diagnosis you have no real knowledge of peoples records are follow their care so how can you make a judgement about someone lying about their mental or physical condition. I don't consider it rhetoric to point out that Vets are being discharged with diagnosis of previous mental conditions to keep from paying them benefits or to recieve VA by the thousands when their condition is directly attributal to PTSD that is just not a personal observation but one documented in the past year by "Nation" magazine, google it.
It never ceases to amaze me how little people know about the VA system. You rail against this and that while basing your opinions on the assesments of others. Let me tell you something. I spent nine months in a VA hospital. Four of which were flat on my back and the next five rehabing. Now then, During my rehab I asssited in the scheduling department. When I tell you there is abuse by veterans who just want a free ride I mean it. I saw it everyday. I also worked in a VA hospital for over 5 years in the early 80's, as a counselor. Again, speaking from first hand knowledge I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that there is in fact abuse by these guys who come in for narcotics and free rides. You don't like to see this becasue it destroys your partisan dream. It happens. As for Roundhouse. It's obvious that first hand knowledge and experience count for nothing in your world. When faced with an issue in which you may be wrong you immediately turn to the same old thing around here, "care to back up that satement". Well I thought I did when I explained my years of experience in the VA system. That's not good enough for you, fine. Here is something I found which may enlighten you as to what happens alot in the system. psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/53/3/345
Thanks for the link. That's all I was asking for.
You know anecdotal evidence doesn't stand up as valid argumentation.
Anyway. Why do you suppose these vets are exagerating their illnesses? Maybe they have no alternative for attaining healthcare coverage? You would probably say they're just useless, lazy gamers of the system. Maybe some are. Their cost to my paycheck is negligible compared to the amount I'm charged to continue the Iraq occupation or subsidize the myriad corporations our government protects and empowers.
But we don't know the motivation of these vets and your article doesn't even address the possible reasons.
In the presence of a for profit, insurance dictated healthcare industry people of limited means are brushed aside and forced into desperate means.
Healthcare for all would mitigate many of your conerns.
And oh yeah, you claimed widespread abuse. Your article doesn't support that claim at all.
"In 1996 total compensation and pension expenditures for the VA were estimated to be more than $18 billion; 2.2 million of the surviving 25.4 million veterans (8.9 percent) received some level of service-connected disability benefits (5). When claims are denied, veterans may appeal the decision an indefinite number of times. Such repeat claims outnumber original claims almost three to one and dominate the VA adjudication system (5). Furthermore, in a previous study our group found that 69 percent of veterans who seek treatment for PTSD in the VA system apply for psychiatric disability (3)."
So, your statement of widespread abusive disability claimants boils to 69% of the 8.9% of those vets who receive service connected disability benefits is what? 6.1% of surviving vets? That hardly qualifies as "widespread." And you have the damn nerve to call another poster clueless? Wow.
No, I have the damn nerve to have SEEN what you haven't. Why don't you tell us about your experiences with the VA system. Tell us about what you have experienced and seen in the VA hospitals across this nation. I have been in several myself, how about you? I provided the link as a mere demonstration of one type of thing that happens in this system. I did not use that data to support my whole argument. If I did then you would have a point. But again, the situation addressed in the link is only one facet of the type of abuse that is encountered in the system. there are many others, I HAVE SEEN THEM, have you SEEN any different? Therefore it is not really assumptive on my part to state that there is widespread abuse of the system. The VA runs the largest integrated health-care system in the country, with more than 1,400 hospitals, clinics and nursing homes employing 14,800 doctors and 61,000 nurses. The crap I have witnessed firsthand occurred in primarily three hospitals. That leaves 1,397 others which are going to have the same issues. Like it or not, there are many veterans who for whatever reason take advantage of the system, that equals to widespread abuse. When you spend some time in one and have a different view I'll be all ears. But until why don't you show me that there is not widespread abuse? I guess in the end you are without a clue.
Oh yeah, to call my argument anecdotal when I have indicated over 6 years of experience in the VA system is rather incredible on your part. do you have any credibility on this issue or do you just parrot assesments which support your already preconceived partisan notions?
Stop hyperventilating.
You produce little more evidence than what amounts to an I say it's so, therefore it's so stream of pissed off psychobabble. Sorry, Mr. High and Mighty that I don't believe everything I hear or am told by angry partisans of your particular nature.
I mean big whoop you say you have experience on this matter, how do I know if that's true? Give me verifiable evidence of your claims, because you continue to fail to do so. And then, after you're called on your bs you move the goalposts, claiming you weren't really trying to prove your point.
Furthermore, I'm sure you are more than keenly aware that it's a logical fallacy to assume that (what you may or may not have witnessed) in only three hospitals is absolutely applicable to the 13 or14 hundred other hospitals located in various locations all across the economically and demographically diverse regions of the United States.
Achrispage6992 its hard to respond to people like you that only look at life from their own narrow perspective. You pulled yourself up why can't everyone else BS. I say give them as many chances and opportunities as they need. life isn't easy and it's difficult to understand why people make the decisions they do, but I believe in compassion and there is only one being that will judge us all. Tell me what consequences has this administration suffered foor it's poor decisions? The more this system continues the more it robs from the have-nots to feed the rich and that is the truth. It is not the poor and powerless that are robbing you of your hard earned money why then do you point and blame them! The middle class iin this country wasn't created by corporations but by the policies of the "New Deal", and brick by brick those policies are being taken away and the middle is disappearing. Tell me how do reconcile the fact that spending for social programs has decreased yet the middle class keeps shrinking? Privitization in all facets of life is increasing along with corporate profits with no increase in real wages or decrease in poverty. Class warfare was not the creation of John Edwards, the fact is those that it is being wage on have no power, and only a weak party(The Democratic Party) that even purports to speak in the workers interest. What I'am saying is that class warfare is being waged but by only one side while most workers have no clue and are caught up in the daily struggle to survive. Workers create the wealth but do not share in it's benefits. We pay taxes but recieve very little for it in return as services(libaries,road construction, schools,etc)acrooss the board are cut and you want to blame some who might abuse some programs instead of coporate greed. There is class warfare and it's time the people start fighting back. Universal Healthcare,childcare for working mothers,shelter the homeless,feed the hungry,hands off Social Security, stop the phony never ending war that is robbing our resources, stop the destruction of our environment...profits should never be placed in front opf people's safety and health. Excuse my rant but I'am tired of you hiveminds attacking the defenceless while excusing the greed that is going on. You can't justify to me a CEO recieving a $65 million dollar bonus while over half the worlds people's struggle to survive on less than $2 a day. Your anger is misplaced,selfish and immoral in the biblical sense and istead of judging others try a little understanding.
Conger,
You have no clue. If you don't believe that there is widespread abuse in the VA system by guys who are complacent in their own personal responsibility and abuse the system to the detriment of others then you have much to learn lad. Not sure of the disconnect here opn your part, but I have never indicated a belief in the elimination of entitlement programs. I firmly believe in progressive policies. I came of age being inspired by JFK, fought for and supported LBJ, and have remained principled in my convictions for a long time. Just because I point out the obvious and call for some accountability doesn't mean I am a "hivemind" (how original by the way). I suggest you save your littany for someone who deserves it. I served with honor and distinction. I have directly benefited from VA services. I have worked in the VA system. You don't like what I point out, then prove me wrong. Tell us about your personal experiences with the VA. I will be waiting with wild anticipation.
Interesting anecdotal argument. Got any facts to support your claim of wide spread abuse by veterans?
Here is a piechart showing where all the income tax dollars are going:
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
war, what is it good for? Absolutely NOTHING.
See Video: Edwards Over Obama for the Win In a CNN survey of December 6--9, Edwards beat Huckabee by 15 points more than Clinton and 10 points more than Obama. And Edwards beat Romney by 11 points more than Clinton and 9 points more than Obama. (pass it on)
Doesn't matter. God forbid that my fellow Democrats voting in the early states actually take their responsibility seriously and vote for the candidate most likely to win and not the one who makes them swoon and puts stars in their eyes- never mind that their favorite never says ANYTHING that they can remember when the speech is over, it was the WAY he said it!
My party is going off the deep end, why am I not surprised? John Edwards could have creamed any Republican and brought real change. Obama is going to go down hard as his "newness" wears off and his starry-eyed fans go looking for the next shiny thing to worship.
Much though I agree - Obama appears to me to be truly substance-free - I cannot join fully the criticism offered against him - for he is maybe third or fourth on my list of acceptable Dem candidates. Moreover, Obama might gain substance during his term, if nominated and elected, for he does display a certain intellectual curiosity missing in the current incumbent and the entire Repugnant field.
I just wish that Edwards could gain the nomination based upon his approach to government, the substance already apparent in his speeches and on his site, and despite the attempt by the Corporate Media to deride him as "Breck Girl" or "ambulance chaser". He has certainly shown me, in both his career as a pro-individual lawyer, and his subsequent roles as Senator, and candidate, almost exactly the things I wish to elect.
JJAMELE and CONLEYTGWINN, I agree with you. I REALLY, REALLY want to like Obama, honestly I do. But his proposals on Health Care and Social Security lean too conservative for my taste. Since his politics are ambiguous and vague, you really don't get a sense on where he wants to take this country. It's hard for his opponents to attack Obama because he has basically runs on a platform of being "above" the usual D.C. politics. But the problem with that is when voting for him, you don't know what to expect out of him. In a leader you want someone with a strong direction on where he’s going take the pack. So far all I get of Obama is, “DREAM, DREAM and HOPE.” That’s all good but DREAMING ain’t enough! You hear words such as "CHANGE" and "HOPE" repeatedly from him, yet you don't hear any substance in his goals. It’s fitting that Oprah Winfrey supports him because they’re basically two peas in a pod: they make you feel good by giving motivational, self-help lectures. And if nothing else, America is full of cockeyed-optimist who prefers putting their heads to the sky and daydream, rather than feel upset by taking in reality of the situation we're living in. In a sense, Obama’s campaign tactics almost reminds me of Reagan’s “Morning In America.” As Sidney Blumenthal once noted, "Reagan's mission, as he repeatedly stated, was therapeutic: to make us feel good again. Nothing earned his contempt more than "gloom and doom," a psychological condition at the source of our misery, which he charged to his predecessor.” It's the politics of symbolism.
Another astute writer Katha Pollitt pretty much summed it up for me regarding Obama: "Somehow he has made himself a great big humongous hope object. People can project on him what they want him to be." However, it seems that we're in the minority since Obama is on his way to becoming the nominee.
Preston,
You gotta know I respect you but to think Obama is too conservative? I really think his healthcare proposal makes alot of sense. I will gladly support a system which lets people keep thier private covereage if they want and provides for those who need it. That is a fair and reasonable approach. That is the type of approach that will get the man elected.
For profit healthcare is neither fair or reasonable.
That is ridiculous. so I assume that you want the federal government to mandate to me and everyone else wht is the best plan. Make me take it right? What if I don't? Are you comfortable with the ramifications and consequences which will adhere to those who just want to be left alone and buy their own damned insurance!!!!
Calm down. You're becoming unreasonable.
Keep buying your insurance. Keep paying your premiums. But don't cry to me when your claims are denied for whatever whimsical fancy your provider decides to conjure. It's their business to make money by denying care, not just to you, but whoever they deign unworthy.
On second thought, do cry to me. It makes me a more dedicated activist in the fight for single payer, universal healthcare coverage.
But I get the feeling you are being disingenuous. You served our country with, as you say, distinction, as such you probably do not need to purhase insurance. I'm buying it for you in part. You're welcome, I'm happy to help.
Yes - but, unfortunately, Edwards is the least popular candidate (save, perhaps, Kucinich) with the minions of the Corporate Media. He is the sole direct threat to their oligopoly and the theft of our nation that they perpetrate upon us. He is the only anti-Corporatist drawing any funding or any audience - and that, despite being the first target of their lies, then ignored thereafter.
Insofar as the "divisiveness" cited by some here as a liability, I'd surely appreciate electing someone with the sense to divide the immortal corporation from the flesh of the citizen, and even impose upon those corporations some of the obligations of the merely mortal (such as painful consequence for killing humans, to be suffered both by the corporate entity - perhaps the death penalty for criminal misconduct leading to fatality - and by the Board and officers individually in terms of unlimited financial liability, plus criminal liability for contributory actions.)
"The market" has proved unsuited to that task, and the Repugnants have succeeded in defusing even the tools of law as a means of enforcement. So, division is not a bad approach: divide "us" - the human, bleeding, element - from the insensitive greed of the Corporations. Divide - good from evil. Divide - please - the Republicans, the conservatives, from the Repugnants, the liars, the thieves. And make that division solid and real: prison walls would do nicely, in my mind.
Edwards is right on about the need to destroy the last 8 years of shrub, everything repug should get thrown over the side. If Obama is the President that should be the first order of business.
This has me thinking back 40 years ago and my mother warning me that I would be “living under a bridge” if I didn’t get my act together. I’m sure everyone, including BillO and Anotheramerican, knew what Edwards was saying when he used this hyperbole. Hell, BillO LIVES on hyperbole – but when someone else uses it, he tries to pick it apart as a literal falsehood. Give me a break!
Regardless of Edward’s wording, the problem I have with O’Reilly’s (and Anotheramerican’s) argument is that their attitude is sooo “Republican”. As exemplified with their comments, to them, there is no homeless problem. You see, they contributed to “help the poor” at church. So now, not only do they feel that they are exonerated from all blame or guilt, but it is much easier for them to pretend that the problem does not even exist.
This parallels similar comments from GW and Romney that the uninsured are “taken care of” at hospital emergency rooms – or the Republican solution to crime, “build more jails”.
I suppose this was part of BillO’s “More Spin Zone”? Their attitude is not the least bit surprising to me - BillO and AA are always cocked and ready with the typical conservative talking points and ready to provide you with some “feel good” argument to lessen your concerns should your conscience stir up any thoughts of guilt regarding the underprivileged.
My favorite quote (and I’m not sure where I read it)… “Republicans have all the answers – the problem is, none of them work!”
I thinks Edwards; comment was Ok. This nitpicking is ridiculous.
"Edwards would be the most progressive Democrat to top the national ticket in more than half a century."Chris while i thank you for your service I won't let you are anyone talk down to me. I am a proud Afro-American man that has raised 3 strong adult men and i have worked over 25 years in the healthcare system a few in VA hospitals. You seem to make alot of judgements about people."Widespread abuse...by guys who are complacent in their own personal respopnsibility...spent their time in mundane positions and when they get out they expect everything to be given to them because they are VETS..." Since you provide no statistics to support your allegation of "Widespread" abuse I can only assume that that is your personal observation which quite frankly as I have posted earlier is skewed and misplaced. You say you point out the obvious but obvious to whom? I would point out that the military discharging soldiers with diagnosis of some previous personality disorder when their condition was more the result of PTSD in order to keep from paying benefits happen more than those that abuse the system, but you make or show no anger at that. How about denying vets bonuses because they were unable to fulfill their terms of duty due to injuries suffered iin combat! Instead you direct your judgement to those you deem not worthy and "complacent in their own responsibility.." That is judgemental and calloused since you do not know their stories and they are not to blame for the underfunding of the VA which you admit is taking place.
The ONLY thing "hard to believe" about those comments is,that BillO actually BELIEVES them.BillO IS the clueless one in this case.This from a "journalist" that was AMAZED that a black owned/run restaurant performed "no differently than a white owned" restaurant.If he EVER really went out into the streets of main stream America,he would MAYBE see that the USA IS NOT the utopia that he and his Right Wing ilk would have their delusional followers believe.As long as BillO and his "lemmings" keep their heads in the sand(I refrain from using a more colorful metaphor),EVERYTHING in the America is Fantasyland!