Wait, there's a secure area in the VP's home? Next thing you'll tell me there's a secure area in the White House!

Cute, but doesn't address the fact that our VP is a three-alarm verbal fire.

At least he hasnt guaranteed WMD's....yet

Oh, and I since I always come in here to praise the man, let me come in here to slam Obama.

That Don't Ask Don't Tell is still the policy of the military that he runs is disgusting. He lost a lot of my respect when he fired his first military member because that person was gay.

:lol: You might get the second half of that, but certainly not the first.

Not really. Bush setup trillion dollar legacy programs like the Medicare Prescription Drug plan that was a shitload of pork. He guaranteed trillions of dollars in debt for Fannie/Freddie, AIG, and crap loads of banks and financial institutions. His budget was also pretty close to the size of Obama's (3.1T vs 3.5T). Not to mention the war in Iraq that most here believe was a mistake (that we'll be pumping money into for a long time) and misguided tax cuts/rebates when we were running at a deficit.

The deficit will also be larger under Obama because tax revenues will be dramatically down due to this recession. We're also paying interest on the massive debt the last 3 Republican Presidents built up (which is about 14% of our total spending).

The funny thing is that Obama is sort of doing what Reagan did to get us out of the economic disaster in the early 80's. He was willing to run up a huge fucking deficit to get us out of the mess. The major difference is in what each President used to build that deficit (Obama chose spending while Reagan chose tax cuts). Both ultimately should have the same effect. But neither one of them could do anything about the lower tax revenues caused by the huge recessions.

I'm against massive spending and don't agree with either party (which are a lot closer than most partisians will have us believe). I just find it humorous when people bash Obama for his deficit when Reagan was building up historic deficits of his own and is considered a "conservative icon".

We have a fundamental disagreement in this regard that will likely never be rectified. We'll just agree to disagree.

You do realize that initially, Reagan did institute some real cuts. The deficits later was primarily due to Congress increasing spending. Yes, Reagan did increase military spending, but he had a bunch of budget battles with Congress. Hell, that's what got Bush I in trouble. He cut a deal with Congress which they didn't keep and he got pilloried for it in the 92 election cycle.

hmmm, i thought it was "read my Lips" but hey you can point fingers wherever you want....

shoot in the financials argument I realized that both sides would be right. Some people are claiming that Inflation is coming down the road, massive massive inflation. SO when I said, "Hmmm, I dont think it'll be massive I then realized that (much like MBBF's definition of 'vast') both sides will be able to claim victory.

Whatever, some people will continue to parse info to prove they are right and even when theyre proven wrong getting them admit it is like pulling teeth and then getting that same person to reevaluate their standpoint that theyve based on bad info is simply impossible because they'll just fill the newly created void with another blog, snippet, headline or poll....then you rinse and repeat.

He said that and the Democrats worked hard to back him into a corner. Same with Reagan: Reagan had to give the Dems the spending they wanted in order to get the military budget he wanted.

Stop using facts, you know MBBF hates that. Instead, go to some left wing blog and cut and paste about the topic de jour. That way everyone can be on equal footing.

Disclaimer, I hate the spending too! Believe it or not, I'm very fiscally conservative. I'm just willing to wait more than 120 days to see what happens. Of course, I won't wait 8 years either.

I've posted information from both sides of the aisle, but don't let that stop you. I guess the topic was OK when it came from the Huffington Post, which I have posted several times.

It's also amusing that Rainmaker continues to use the previous administration as the bar to be cleared, as though that's some type of an accomplishment.

Yes, if by both sides you mean Fox News and George Will, conservative columnist who has "worked" for several campaigns. And the conservative blog about the 4 fake veterans. I do see a few New York Times and random other ones covering your disdain for his "flip-flopping" but as I said, it would seem prudent to give somebody more than 120 days before casting them off.

But yes, you do say you're socially liberal, so I guess that leaves you and I both looking for a party that represents us. But alas, sometimes it's easier to just shout with the opposition and become a "no" person rather than try to be patient and make well informed decisions on reliable data.

dont forget Cato.

I haven't cast anyone off. Should we postpone discussion on this administration until you deem it the correct time? You're more than welcome to wait it out, but from what I've seen thus far, the financial decisions coming out of Congress and this administration have left plenty to be desired.

This message is hidden because Mizzou B-ball fan is on your ignore list.

Thread works a lot better this way.

Come join Foo in the land of rainbows and unicorns, where opposing views just melt into the River of Happiness and Agreement!

Well I believe both sides have some positive effect as well as negative effects (such as building up huge debts). You can fundamentally disagree with it, but evidence shows that the supply-side economic policies didn't really work.

Note that I agree with the tax cuts by Reagan and Bush because I think our system is unfair to succesful people. I just don't try to package tax cuts into some pretty formula that doesn't work in the real world.

Reagan still needs to sign that spending into law. He has the power to veto it with the swipe of a pen. The tax cuts he put into place helped cause massive deficits along with the spending. Overall, the buck always stops at the President when it comes to spending.

The previous administrations are just used as examples. Many people believed the massive deficits Reagan put in place were necessary in revitalizing the country. I just never understood why the world is coming to an end when a Democrat increases the budget but was simply good fiscal policy when a "conservative" icon did it. No one on the right gave a shit about Bush putting us into massive debt.

I'm against big spending no matter who is President. I just don't like the hypocritical stances taken by people. Obama is horrible and destroying the country because he is running up our debt, but both Bushes and Reagan get a free pass for getting us into such huge debt that paying interest on our debt is one of the biggest hurdles we are facing.

I think it would be easier for you guys to just say that everything a D does is wrong and everything an R does is right.

No one even talked about giving Bush or Reagan any free passes. Continue with the strawman argument if you prefer, but most of us are talking about Obama in the Obama thread. I don't care about the past. I only care about the current situation. If you actually think that deficits in other administrations is the real problem here, we have little to discuss.

You should care about the past as it's a major factor in why we have such a massive deficit. 14% of our budget has to go toward paying interest on their spending. That's half a trillion dollars a year in interest thanks to those Presidents (along with House and Senate). I don't know why the massive interest we have to pay on previous debt isn't relevant to a discussion on our deficit.

I know you only care about the current administration. That was my whole point. You didn't give a shit about Bush spending like crazy, but you are very concerned about Obama's spending. It's why over the last 7 years you have 2 posts that mention Bush and spending, but over 220 posts discussing Obama and spending. If you universally attacked each President who spends stupidly, it would have more credibility.

Like I said, this isn't about Obama's policies, it's about D vs R to you. What the R does is right and what the D does is wrong. Why get in-depth on it when we know your stance on every issue is just going to be the opposite of the Democrats (even if it was the same as the Republicans a couple years ago)? I'm not arguing about Obama's spending, I just hate this hypocritical little game partisians turn real issues into.

If you don't care about it, then there is no reason to discuss any of the current administration or even prior administrations' actions...let's just all join hands and hope tomorrow is a better day.

Ummm...if you keep the deficit at about the same level it was when you come into office...you can pawn that off on the previous administrations...when you basically quadruple it, that's all yours, baby.

I hate the new credit card laws. It will hurt good credit card users (again).

Leaving Reagan aside for a moment, I think the crucial Bush vs. Obama difference is that Bush spent a crapload of money when it didn't need to be spent (this obviously depends based on your view of the Iraq War, but he did run up a lot of other, non-military spending) while arguably Obama needs to spend now to restart the economy.

Arguably, Obama's fingerprints are on some of Bush's crazy spending habits too, since he was in the Senate and voted for those budgets. As a Senator, he was in favor of Tarp 1 too. So, it's a little disingenious for him to say he inherited the deficit.

Plus the stimulus is only one part of his quadrupling of the debt...the rest are his massive "reforms" of health care and education, environmental cap and trade, and "infrastructure" improvement...whatever the hell that is.

One more reason to cut up all but a few of those evil plastic rectangles. :)

Is there a simplified run-down of what the changes are on credit cards? I'm not a fan of telling the banks what they can and can't charge customers, but I'm down with a lot more transparency. None of this hiding a future interest rate 30 pages deep in a contract.

You might have a point here, if the budget that was just voted on wasn't submitted by the Bush Administration. There is an overlap between the budget years and the election years.

NYT: Responsible card users may pay more - The New York Times- msnbc.com

Whiney ass titty babies. They have no right to continue at the exact same profit margin. Credit cards are nothing more than legalized loan sharking. After they just got a trillion dollars from the US taxpayer they should shut the hell up.

I really have no problems with getting rich, but the sense of entitlement these bankers have really drives me crazy. Go ahead, start charging annual fees and you'll see your customers flee to cards that don't.

[quote=JPhillips;2027988]Whiney ass titty babies. They have no right to continue at the exact same profit margin. Credit cards are nothing more than legalized loan sharking. [quote]

Why is all the fault of the credit cards? If you can't pay them off on time, don't use them. Are some of the tatics they use sleezy? Sure. However, we take the responsibility for signing those contract agreements and putting ourselves in debt.

:+1:

This was basically my point, but you stated it better than I did.

I agree to an extent, but I do think some of the stuff has gotten overboard. None of us should need a law degree to sign a credit card agreement. State the terms up front and clearly. Don't hide them behind legal mumbo jumbo. I don't think that's too much to ask from the credit card companies.

The funniest part is the banks crying about how it will hurt good customers. That's bullshit. There is so much competition now in the credit card game that these companies have to give you the incentives like no annual fee and bonus miles to lure you in. I think the banks have some legitimate gripes with the plan, but trying to scare consumers into thinking the CC industry is going to step back 25 years is hunk of bullshit.

Is the CC industry stepping back 25 years a bad thing?

[quote=Galaxy;2028022][quote=JPhillips;2027988]Whiney ass titty babies. They have no right to continue at the exact same profit margin. Credit cards are nothing more than legalized loan sharking.
easier said than done in a fat ass recession the likes we havnt seen in 25 years or more.

No doubt he's responsible for part of that deficit under Bush. He did miss out on a lot of the goodies like Iraq and Medicare, but definitely deserves blame for anything he voted for after stepping into office.

But still, most of that deficit came from Reagan, Bush 1, and the W's first term. I think it's tough for anyone who steps into power that has to automatically allocate half a trillion dollars just to pay off interest on previous debt. Especially during a deep recession when tax revenues are going to be way down. That's no excuse for the excesses of Obama's spending, but it's not exactly like he is doing this during strong economic times with no debt on the books.

I haven't followed the programs for education, cap & trade, or infrastructure much, but I do think the health care thing will help the economy as a whole and won't be a huge burden on our government. My thoughts are that there are tons of people going bankrupt or being put in massive debt by medical bills. Not necessarily poor people, but middle and even upper-middle class families.

So if we can reduce that burden for those people, give them some more money in their pocket, maybe they spend some more money in the economy. I run my own company and rely primarily on middle class customers. When they have more money in their pockets, I make more money. I don't know enough of the details about the plan though to comment more, but I can't fathom it's anywhere near as bad as the embarassment our system is currently sitting at.

:jawdrop:

Posts like this make me sure that the average American has no clue what happens when a person without health care coverage who needs medical treatment comes into a publicly supported hospital.

Are there situations where health care could be improved for some people? Absolutely. Is it anywhere close to the tale of woe and misery that politicians paint to further the bill passage chances? No.

Half the people who file bankruptcy in this country do so because of medical bills. It's a huge issue and the statistics back it up. The rest of the civilized world figured this out years ago and have good systems in place.

I wonder who would know...let me think...oh yeah, I do some work at Atlanta's finest indigent care unit. Grady hospital is supported basically by the county, and staffed by Emory, on Emory's dollar, who then have to pass the costs on to somebody else or take big losses (they've been taking big losses). When a normal, middle-class person with assets and no insurance needs some emergency work, the hospitals still want their money. I had a friend who worked for a local company that didn't offer insurance. Because it was going to cost him basically half his paycheck to get personal insurance, he didn't get any. He got into a car accident and needed about 5 surgeries and a lot of care. Most hospitals don't just write those sort of things off, especially when said person has a condo and other assets.

After all was said and done, they gave him a bill of about 250k, which he has no chance of paying. But he had to file for bankruptcy or they were going to go after his condo. The shittiest thing about the 250k is, if he had insurance, the insurance company probably would have negotiated that down to like 75k in "allowable" costs and made out well. But private people don't have as much power as the big companies. I'm not saying it's all doom and gloom, but to think the health care part (insurance and hospitals are both at fault) is being overblown is pure silliness.

Publicly supported hospitals are never fully publicly supported, they are staffed by other hospitals in the area that have to pass the bill along somehow. Also, it takes tax revenue away from counties/states in a time when overall tax revenue is down. I would assume by your haughtiness that you are in the industry, otherwise you probably wouldn't have expounded on what the "average American" is clueless about?

:+1:

And, on top of this we spend more, per capita, than any other country in the world on medical care. This part of the system is clearly broken. The key political problem, as I see it, is that most politicians never experience this themselves, because they're covered under such a good federal plan.

We also subsidize the rest of the world's pharmaceuticals.

It's always fun to see how the rest of the world is civilized and the U.S. is not. Evidently, the Obama game of bashing his own country has filtered down to his supporters.

There are already many channels of opportunity built in to help people who cannot afford health care. The problem is that the abuse of that system is allowed to continue rather than cutting it off. If a person comes in with an ailment to a hospital, that hospital is required to give treatment. In publicly funded hospitals, many patients come to the emergency room complaining of certain ailments that they don't have just to support their prescription drug habits. Often they get sent on their way while getting nothing. Occasionally, they get medication. You can be sure under both circumstances that they'll be back in a couple of days with a new problem.

Either way, two things are certain. First, the doctor has wasted their time on a patient when they could have been treating people who really needed help. Second, the doctor bills the government for that time because that person didn't have insurance. As a result, gov't money is wasted and less patients that truly need help can be treated in a timely manner.

Here's a perfect example of how the new bill would implement the 'better' health care. They'll cut out the best forms of preventative medicine and take more 'cost-effective' alternatives. The problem is that they will often end up paying MORE than they would have in the first place under the old system. This would happen under many circumstances because the cheaper tests don't provide nearly as good results and often require follow-up studies that could have just been done in the first place. There's no magic way to cut costs, despite what Mr. Obama would like you to believe. This is what happens when a politician decides how you should be treated.............

How Washington Rations - WSJ.com

That's not how I read that.


Usually that type of sentence construction means the the object about which you were speaking (the U.S. in this case) is included in the description ("the civilized world").


Why must you start your counter-argument so?

Having worked in the industry, I come to believe that this claim is overblown. Certainly the prices of many pharmaceuticals to Africa and parts of South American and Asia are subsidized, but they're done so not just from sales in the U.S., but most first world countries. If anything, the considerably higher prices for drugs in the U.S. are what ensures the profit margins of the pharmaceutical companies, while the comparatively higher prices in first world countries vs. everyone else are what ensures the continued business case for R&D.

Good to know the problem with health care is too many prescription drug abusers. That should be pretty easy to fix.

And they're pretty much all underfunded, mired in paperwork, take forever to qualify for, or you don't qualify for them anyway.


Abuse of the system is overblown as a factor compared to other systemic problems.


Your positing a scenario where rationing happens because the system is not properly funded nor is it efficient. Obama's proposal is to address those two problems (among others).

Why is the counter-argument to health care reform always based on the bogeyman of rationing? We always have to hear about the one guy in Canada who didn't get his stent in time due to an incredibly unfortunate combination of circumstances when in fact virtually every other country with the resources of the U.S. doesn't have an issue with providing medical services that requires them to ration care.

If the U.S. priced drugs like the rest of the civilized world our prices would come down while the price in other western countries would eventually rise a bit to level things out. Right now we pay much more than the rest of the West, and whether you want to say that extra is profit or R&D, it shouldn't be primarily coming from US patients.

Does this mean we get to string up Rush Limbaugh now?

:D

While you may play it off as a joke, it's a serious issue in addition to the double treatments (which you convinently ignored). And as long as the lack of government oversight continues, it is a VERY tough thing to fix.

Another major concern is the possibility of a hike in the demand on doctors. We don't have enough facilities to treat people as it is. Under the new proposals, our health care systems could start to resemble Canada in a big hurry (wait for days or weeks for treatment). Universal health coverage has its downfalls. RainMaker may be right on in his assessment. There will be less bankruptcy filings because no one lives long enough to be operated on. They'll just die in the meanwhile.

I don't disagree, I'm just saying the disparity is overblown and the argument ignores the many nuances of the situation. For instance, on the flipside many European countries offer more support for R&D and clinical trials than the U.S. government does.

U.S. health care has the highest rate of cancer remission in the world. There is a correlation. Now we just have to figure out how to be the best while not spending 30% more than any other country, or at least that's the ideal that people want to obtain.

I never said the U.S. wasn't civilized. I said we are one of the only civilized countries that doesn't have a national health care system.

Please give me some of these opportunities for those who can't afford health care or can't qualify for it due to a pre-existing condition. Are you really telling me that 48 million people just never got the memo on all the opportunities they are missing out on?

So your entire argument against health care reform is that there is an extremely small percentage of the population that goes into hospitals and tries to score prescription drugs? And since this already happens in our system, what are you trying to get at? It sounds like "since people try and score drugs from the hospital these days, we can't pass health care reform because people will try to score drugs from the hospital like they do now".

I'm more of a stats guy personally. Our life expectancy is lower than most countries with national health care systems. Our infants die more frequently and our kids are less likely to reach the age of 5. I mean a kid born in Cuba has almost a 20% better chance of reaching the age of 5 than one born in the U.S.

We get all of those shitty numbers and pay more than any country in the world for it. That's the bottom line.

So, like a lot of HMOs, right? Plus with the additional fun of fighting your insurance company to get them to pay.

I lived in the UK for 5 years, and while the NHS has its problems, I'd take that system over ours in the U.S. any day. And I have excellent insurance.

We also have a life expectancy worse than just about every industrialized country in the world.

WE'LL ALL DIE IF WE HAVE UNIVERSAL COVERAGE!!!

I don't believe prescription drug abusers play much of a role in healthcare costs. I can't find any numbers outside of total estimated cost of drug addiction. Do you have any proof that it's a serious issue?

Once again, you are using an opinion piece that covers one small issue to prove your point. You do not work in health care (from what I gather), nor do you have a real understanding of the costs of health care. You are patently wrong about your initial statement on public ERs, but what is difference really as we know you have no idea what you are talking about. You continually present your opinion as fact, with no statistical numbers to back it up. I'm assuming you read that tidbit about drug seekers on some conservative blog because, well it's easy to just blame spiraling costs of health care on drug seekers, but you minimize the fact that many lower-middle, and middle-class families are struggling to afford insurance and getting billed out the ass by the hospitals. I do not believe in socialized medicine, and I certainly do not believe lawmakers should decide what tests are necessary and what aren't. But right now, those decisions are made by the insurance companies instead of doctors. We need some health care cost reform and insurance reform, not more government control (see, I agree with you on something). But to assume there is no problem other than drug seekers and doom-and-gloomers is disingenuous and entirely refuted by statistical evidence (something you seem to abhor in many aspects).

I lived in Canada and had no problems with their system. Nor did I hear any horror stories with their system. The only major difference I noticed was the lobbies and offices weren't as dolled up as we get here in the States.


Canadians live longer than us. Try and back up your statements with facts.

Yes/No.

I heard Ted Kennedy's cancer is in remission. The Canadian Ted Kennedy is dead. You lose.

I'd argue that has far more to do with issues in our society than the abilities of our health care system.

Like not being able to see doctors on a regular basis?

I have three family members who each head an ER. All three of them agree that 20-30% of the patients they see are drug-seekers. That's a very large chunk of time and money spent on people who don't need any help other than rehab. It's not like we're talking about Baltimore here. This is Kansas City. As I noted before, these are all publicly funded hospitals (i.e. they're in the rougher areas of the city). The hospitals in the suburban areas (often privately funded) don't have anywhere near the number of issues regarding drug seekers.

Doh!

Self-destructive activities was more what I had in mind.

I still don't get what you're trying to say here. Since it's already going on in mass numbers according to you, what does changing our system do to make this worse? Do people in the suburbs start going on drug binges all of a sudden because people who couldn't get insurance before can now get it?

Just a hunch not based on expertease but I'd think the price is other western countries would have to rise more than "a bit". Which would be great in a way, since its kind of annoying to hear those countries and many Americans be all snooty about their health care programs when our gross inefficiencies make their systems so much more affordable. I think it's a lot more complicated than just switching over to a European system.

Reform is obviously needed, but we already have massive public health care here and it's a huge mess. I don't see how the solution can be even more government involvement. There's no way that doesn't simply lead to more waste and more inefficiencies.

My point is that there are massive amounts of wasteful spending in the current system. This is only one example. The focus should be on reducing waste in the system as it currently stands, which will allow more people at publicly-funded hospitals to get the care they need rather than it being wasted. It will also reduce costs. These facilities are supposed to be where people can get health care if they truly need in and don't have the funds. Instead, it's an endless drain on the health care budgets. Changing the system to be 'universal' won't do any good if we don't fix the core problems first.

Curious, how do conservatives feel health care can be handled? All I hear them say is that universal health care is not the answer. Are they arguing for the status quo?

I'm not an expert on health care at all but I'd like to hear a conservative counterpoint besides saying that the status quo is just fine.

The problem you discuss seems more like a law enforcement issue than a health care issue. I don't see how you fix a core problem of people wanting drugs besides making them all legal. Somehow all these other countries have found a way to avoid this problem with their national health care systems.

Which is not anything close to what I said. The current situation is unworkable due to the gross amount of waste in the system. I'm saying that if the situation is handled properly, nailing down the waste should be the first priority. If you significantly reduce the inherent waste in the system, then a situation could very well be presented where Mr. Obama would have the wiggle room to properly implement a universal health care.

IMO, he should focus on heavily reducing waste in his first term with the payoff being that he can implement a worthwhile universal health care system in his second term should he be re-elected. It's risky from a political standpoint for him, but it's the proper way to do it long-term.

*slaps himself on the foreheard* That's why I said conservatives, not Mizzou B-ball fan. Your quote was simply a framework for my question.

As for waste, fine. You've brought up one example of junkies going into get prescriptions. Not sure how big of a waste that is in the grand scheme of things, but guess what the remedy is going to require? Treatment. That costs $$$ too.

Can you expand on the waste idea?

Cutting off the drugs doesn't inherently require treatment. You're just cutting costs by not paying for something. If that person wants to waste their money on drugs, that's their own business. Just don't have the gov't pay for it. The government doesn't need to start bailing out drug users.

I already offered another large waste, which is duplication of treatment. It's a major source of expenses for government-covered insurance (Medicare/Medicaid). They try to go on the cheap and then end up doing follow-ups that likely could and should have been done in the first place. Most doctors know they'll have to do the second test, but are required by the government to do the cheaper test first. It's a waste of time and money.

There's a lot more paperwork that's required by government entities than by private organizations every time you have an appointment/treatment. That's extra dollars that the patient/gov't has to pay due to added office expense. My father-in-law is close to dropping his family practice because the amount of paperwork has become so burdensome on his practice and his workers. He needs a large staff just for the paperwork. This is a common feeling amongst many doctors.

There is a lot of beauracracy in the system right now but that is all the more reason we need reform. The government system isn't any worse than what we have with the insurance companies. That is beauracracy times 100.

It works well in lots of countries. If you feel the U.S. is too inept and incapable of doing something like we see in Canada (or doing it better), than I understand your point of view. But I think this country is capable of much more.

It just seems like if the U.S. spends FAR more on health care per capita than any other nation, and doesn't cover very many people, it would seem the next step would be to cover the same amount of people for less money, or cover more people without spending more money. How can you go from where we are to universal health care? It seems like a pipe dream, a disaster waiting to happen.

It's like if we were making plans to conquer the world, why focus on Australia when we can't even figure out how to take over Canada or Mexico yet?

While individuals certainly take personal responsibility for their debts, it is difficult to pay off your card on time regardless. We're credit card debt-free and find it frustrating to pay off our card electronically a day or so before the deadline and find that some charges didn't show up until the day it was due. Consequently we had to pay interest on stuff we didn't need to pay interest on.

We lived without a credit card for a couple years until we got one just to boost our credit report. I like the bennys like extra points towards a hotel stay, but some of the practices need to be regulated.

Believe me, I'm a fan of personal responsibility but in this particular case I think the deck is stacked against the public.

dola, and another thing Obama related is that the gun control change is attached to the credit card bill...while not necessarily pork, it comes awful close.

I think the current problems are due to the patchwork nature of our health care system. It's like having an old house with bad foundation that you constantly patch up with stuff. Eventually it just becomes a disaster and some of the "fixes" you made actually made things worse.

The best solution sometimes is to just tear down the house and build a new one. A good national health care system can be done and is being done in lots of countries. I just think sometimes you can only patch up the current system so much. A turd is ultimately a turd no matter how many times you polish it.

That's great in theory, but anyone who assumes that can be applied to health care in this country is simply not dealing with reality.

I saw that. Stuff like that drives me crazy. What the hell does gun control have to do with credit cards. Reminds me of when Republicans outlawed online poker monetary transfers in a port security bill. Ugh.

A few moments later...
Aren't these statements contradictory? We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, but federal courts can only provide a guilty or not guilty verdict, no? Courts don't provide an innocent verdict, so I fail to see how Obama can make the pledge that he will not release anyone if it would endanger national security.

If they're found not guilty, presumably they aren't a threat to national security. Plus, by saying "those who have violated American criminal laws" I think he's preserving a loophole that allows him to keep pretty-much-certain terrorists who, because of the way evidence was gathered and/or interrogations were done, wouldn't get convicted in regular courts.

On a related note, I love the outrage about people not wanting these guys to be incarcerated on American soil. A reporter on NPR the other night pointed out that the two most likely destinations, ADX Florence and the supermax military prison at Ft. Leavenworth, have never seen an escape. It's not like these guys are going to get turfed to Cook County Jail or something.

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent, or "not a threat to national security". Our system is designed with the understanding that criminals can't always be convicted. We accept that. It's not an appropriate forum for prisoners of war captured thousands of miles away. Our juries can't even understand DNA evidence. And I love the 2nd defense of this, "we can always just lock them up anyway". So what's the point of the criminal trials? They're clearly just a sham. I guess I can be in favor of a civilian trial where there's absolutely nothing at stake, if it wasn't for the expense and principal of raping our criminal justice system in that kind of way. I guess the idea is Obama can brag about successful criminal prosecution, but in actuality, have no risk. It's kind of slimy. Who knows what else he misleads us on.

I could care less where they get locked up, as long as they're not giving civilian rights of citizens to terrorists. They're not citizens, and they are not civilians.

Fortunately, this is one of those many areas will Obama will act in more practical terms than his rhetoric suggests he will. And his supporters won't mind, his opponents will be relieved, it's a no-lose for him.

If you pay electronically, isn't there a way to set it up so that it gets paid automatically right when it's due? There really should be.

Emphasis mine, and in response I'll say that I don't accept it. Personally, I've thought for a long time that jury trials have run their course and are now are generally a detriment to justice. So I guess that makes me a supporter of military tribunals in this instance. Since I have more confidence in the Obama Administration that they'll be fair than in the Bush Administration, I'm OK with that.

Tell us how you really feel.

I hope that before the trial starts, the judge is at least candid:

"If you are found guilty, you will be sentenced and transferred to supermax prison. If you are found not guilty, you will be sentenced and transferred to supermax prison. Prosecution, please call your first witness."

Just so the defendant knows exactly where he stands. If he refuses to participate in such a sham, he'd actually have a point.

I'm sure that will happen (military tribunals), and I definitely understand having more confidence in the Obama Administration as far as running those.

That will also be the claimed position of the Obama supporters who are now in favor of civilian trials, once we get the military tribunals instead. It'll be, "Oh, it's OK, it's Obama". You have more credibility because you have this stance beforehand.

What I suspect will happen, though, is that they'll turf whatever cases they can to civilian courts where they're quite sure the evidence they can actually use will result in a conviction. Where the usage of evidence is more problematic, they'll use the military tribunals.

It's important to note that, after an exceptional amount of pressure, the Bush Administration finally released almost all of the prisoners who were really innocent, so the guys we've got left are almost certainly guilty of something. So in reality this is more an exercise in sentencing than in determining guilt. Thus I'd expect the trials to be mostly concerned about making an assessment about which parts of the evidence can be trusted, and drawing conclusions based upon that.

I keep reading that over and over, every time it seems more bizarre.

almost certainly guilty???

If you cannot produce enough evidence to show someone should be locked up, how can you know he should be locked up?

What have we become? What have we done to our selves?
How is this even remotely acceptable?

You can't prove anything to a 100% certainty. We don't even require 100% certainty in civilian criminal courts. Nobody would ever be convicted. Even those that confessed.

If a domestic shoplifter, drunk driver, or murderer goes free in the U.S., its no big deal in the grand scheme of things. But terrorists? The bar should be FAR lower to keep them locked up. Not just because evidence is harder to obtain in a foreign country.

What the government will pay to deliver drugs is just fucked. I drove 350 round trip miles the other day to deliver 2 syringes of percoset. Someone's insurance had to pay 200 bucks for that, cause it sure as hell wasn't the facility or the pharmacy. I'd assume the patient was on medicare cause they were most likely >75.

I'd say for the 7 of us to deliver 6 times per week(to roughly 25 destinations, give or take 5), it's probably damn close to 20K per month, just to the drivers. The company we contract out of may make at least 50% of that extra.

Basically any kind of serious health care reform is likely to fuck my easy ass dream job, so I'm against any changes to the status quo.

I'm not sure. I'd have to ask my wife as she handles the bills.

molson already addressed this. Obama said that he wouldn't release anyone if they would endanger our national security; in that respect, should the courts have to prove innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt?
I don't think all the outrage is about having the terrorists possibly escape. I believe that most people are upset since the facilities may become targets and they would suffer collateral damage.

Exactly. It's relatively sad that even some administration officials are ranting about no escapes when that has nothing to do with the legitimate concern that most people have.

But the attacks angle is just as silly. We've housed terrorists, mob bosses and gang leaders and there are no modern examples of max and supermax prisons being targets of violent assaults. How exactly would a terrorist organization attack a supermax and towards what goal? If they have the capability to destroy a supermax prison wouldn't it be much more likely that they'd attack a high value, less defended target?

I think the real fear is having terrorists preach to other inmates and create new terrorists, not some physical outside attack.

Right, seems like the wrong reason to realize this is a really bad idea.

In any event, if they are found not guilty, they need to be released where they were picked up.