Re: We Have Chosen?


"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0DL3m.5441$%R2.4488@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"GlennR@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <Gator@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:cAy3m.7622$c82.3044@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gjy3m.13748$Qk7.3541@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Haven't we already made the decision on how important our freedoms are?
It seems to me that answer is, we have decided our safety is much more
important than our freedoms. How else can you explain this desire to
have someone pay for our medical bills?


wow, the great thinker is at it again

I try my best, which is more than I can say about you.

trying isn't good enough, you need to suceed, and in your case that's
impossible because of your ignorance,
simple and feeble mindedness, and bigotry





so, like those 47 million people without health insurance, primarily
children,

Why would a child need health insurance? Who needs health insurance the
most, a child or someone who is much older? Finally, if you are going to
use a number, prove that the number is correct, what is the source of the
number? Who exactly are these 47 million people? But in any event, you
just confirmed what I said in this posting. You are trading freedom for
safety.


Most people would respond by saying : he can't possibly be that fucking
stupid, but then, they haven't
heard you before;

think you're more entitled to health care than a child ? why?, you've lived
and wasted your life,
contributed nothing to society but continue to belive you're entitled to
more than everyone else,
you're the typical republican,hillbilly, and jap,stealing decades of life
from little children so
you can have a few more martinis ?

hey gomer, you have nothing to do all day but whine, I work 2 jobs, you look
it up,
or are you incapable and incompetent, like the rest of the three I
mentioned above ?

how can you be so damn stupid as to say we're giving up freedom for health
care ?
because you're afraid you might have to pay for some of it ?
hey if the rest of us had a choice we would not have paid for your fuckups
in iraq and afghanistan,
or payments to oil companies, or the use of air force one for that worthless
lying hillbilly

so, you would rather see little children and babies suffer from hunger,
cold,poverty, lack of health care, lack
of dental care,warm clothing,education or hope, and you would rather have
them die than
make any finamncial sacrifices to help them ,

that is so typical of the decadent, greedy,selfish, self serving, non-human,
jap culture,
it don't surprise me none, I already know you people, no different than the
hillbillies who
don't mind killing black or arab children, or the conservatives and
republicans who
don't mind killing anyones children as long as they can profit from their
death


INTRODUCTION

An estimated 8.6 million children in the United States lacked health

insurance coverage in 2007. That same year, Congress debated and

passed two pieces of legislation that would have reduced the number

of uninsured children by almost half, covering as many as 4 million
additional

children. President Bush vetoed both bills. Since then, the mounting
national

economic crisis has driven up unemployment rates at a time when working

families are already struggling with the rising cost of everything from
gasoline

to health insurance premiums. When the economy plunges, the number of

uninsured Americans typically increases. This, in turn increases demand for

safety net programs like Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance

Program (CHIP) which together are called Hoosier Healthwise in Indiana.

According to the most recent Census data, Indiana is currently home to as

estimated 131,000 uninsured children.

Just a year ago, states were working to expand coverage in CHIP to finish

the job of covering uninsured children. Since then, the Bush Administration's

opposition to expanding CHIP and the national economic recession have put

new pressure on states to deal with increasing demand for coverage, while

their budgets are facing shortfalls.

This report presents data generated by the U.S. Census Bureau from the
Current

Population Survey (CPS), a national survey of health insurance coverage that

is performed annually. Families USA contracted with the Census Bureau to

provide detailed national and state-level data about health insurance
coverage

for children between the ages of 0 and 18. (For state-level estimates, a
threeyear

data merge [2005-2007] was used to improve data reliability. A detailed

methodology is available upon request.) This report examines these new data

and what they mean for the future of children's health coverage in Indiana
and

around the country.













they are free to suffer and die so that greedy scum like you can continue
to be greedy,selfish, inhumane,
gutless cowards who don't deserve and haven't earned the freedoms that
were bought for you at great cost by others




It is greedy to create a system wheich cannot be sustained, and a system
that will result in costing us more and more money over the long term, and
one that will result in more and more rationing over time.


you can't prove it can't be sustained, it can be, all it takes is higher
taxes,
especiially on the wealthy who are under taxed and over paid


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/070409a.html

July 4, 2009

Wealth Inequality Destroys US Ideals

By Don Monkerud


Editor's Note:

Since the national rise of Ronald Reagan three decades ago, the United
States has been on a deadly course for a Republic, with wealth rapidly
concentrating at the top and average Americans sinking or struggling
to stay afloat.

On the 233rd anniversary of American independence - a war fought for
the equality of all mankind - writer Don Monkerud examines how these
gross economic imbalances threaten that vision:

In June 2009, the U.S. economy saw its second steepest decline in 27
years.

New jobless claims increased, business inventories fell and exports
plunged as bad economic news persisted.

Will the once high-flying American wealth machine continue to produce
the vast inequalities of the past?

Only two years ago, Steve Forbes, CEO of Forbes magazine, declared
2007 "the richest year ever in human history."

During eight years of the Bush Administration, the 400 richest
Americans, who now own more than the bottom 150 million Americans,
increased their net worth by $700 billion.

In 2005, the top one percent claimed 22 percent of the national
income, while the top ten percent took half of the total income, the
largest share since 1928.

In June 2009, the Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Report estimated the
number of the world's wealthiest people declined by 15 percent, the
steepest decline in the report's 13-year history.

The number of millionaires in the U.S. fell by 19 percent to 2.5
million people.

Analysts tell us the economy is being restructured, but how will the
disparities in wealth between the rich and the poor play out?

"The source of wealth has changed over the past 30 years; corporations
have become the engine of inequality in the U.S.," says Sam Pizzigati,
associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington
D.C.

"In the past, wealth came from ownership: Today it comes increasingly
from income."

The highest incomes come from executive pay at top corporations.

In 2007, the ratio of CEO pay to the average paycheck was 344 to one,
lower than the record 525 to one ratio set in 2001, but substantial.

This year's ratio is estimated to decrease to 317 to one.

In the 60s, 70s and 80s, the average ratio fluctuated between 30 and
40 to one.

Over 40 percent of GNP comes from Fortune 500 companies.

According to the World Institute for Development Economics Research,
the 500 largest conglomerates in the U.S. "control over two-thirds of
the business resources, employ two-thirds of the industrial workers,
account for 60 percent of the sales, and collect over 70 percent of
the profits."

Corporations systematically created a wealth gap over the last 30
years.

In 1955, IRS records indicated the 400 richest people in the country
were worth an average $12.6 million, adjusted for inflation.

In 2006, the 400 richest increased their average to $263 million,
representing an epochal shift of wealth upward in the U.S.

In 1955, the richest tier paid an average 51.2 percent of their income
in taxes under a progressive federal income tax that included
loopholes.

By 2006, the richest paid only 17.2 percent of their income in taxes.

In 1955, the proportion of federal income from corporate taxes was 33
percent; by 2003, it decreased to 7.4 percent.

Today, the top taxpayers pay the same percentage of their incomes in
taxes as those making $50,000 to $75,000, although they doubled their
share of total U.S. income.

"Over the past 30 years, the income of the top one percent, adjusted
for inflation, doubled: the top one-tenth of one percent tripled, and
the one-one-hundredth quadrupled," says Pizzigati.

"Meanwhile, the average income of the bottom 90 percent has gone down
slightly. This is a stunning transformation."

Meanwhile, wages for most Americans didn't improve from 1979 to 1998,
and the median male wage in 2000 was below the 1979 level, despite
productivity increases of 44.5 percent.

Between 2002 and 2004, inflation-adjusted median household income
declined $1669 a year.

To make up for lost income, credit card debt soared 315 percent
between 1989 and 2006, representing 138 percent of disposable income
in 2007.

According to Pizzigati, the wealth disparity is the result of
corporations squeezing more profits from workers.

"In the past corporations laid off workers because business was bad,"
Pizzigati says.

"But over the past few decades, downsizing has been a corporate wealth
generating strategy. Today, CEOs don't spend their time making, trying
to make better products: they maneuver to take over other companies,
steal their customers and fire their workers."

Progressive taxation used to prevent the rich from capturing a
disproportionate share of national compensation, and the labor
movement, which represented 35 percent of private sector employees and
today represents 8 percent, once served as a political force to limit
excessive executive pay.

The Reagan backlash cut the top income tax rates, and saw the creation
of right-wing think tanks that spent $30 billion over the past 30
years, propagandizing for deregulation, privatization, and wealth
worship.

Bubble economies over the past 30 years helped CEOs pump up their
income, and efforts to corral their pay are weak and ineffective.

CEO pay may fall during these economic hard times, but disparity isn't
going away.

Without a strong movement for change, the wealth gap will only
increase in this downturn.

"There won't be a restructuring of the economy unless we take on
executive compensation," concludes Pizzigati.

"Outrageously large rewards give executives an incentive to behave
outrageously. If we allow these incentives to continue, we will just
see more of the reckless behavior that has driven the global economy
into the ditch."




take your simple and feeble minded,childish *** and stuff it up your ass

A "feeble mind" is someone who refuses to see what is wrong with the
current system.

the current system is not fair or equitable, a feeble minded person likes it
that way
if he's not on the unfair side


.

Loading