Well, well, well.  Two Republicans caught lying about a Democrat.  How typical.  And so true to form.

The only way these two Repugs are qualified to be in the White House is as paying participants on the White House Tour....

I think HRC is absolutely right.  So let's not hear any nonsense from her about universal government run health care, et al.  Thank you.  Investing in the private sector with proper government oversight is the way to go.

As Paul Krugman pointed out, not only does the US rank behind Europe in the quality of health care (it ranks around 30, compared to some European nations that rank 1 and 2), but the US pays over double double what the Europeans pay. 

We don't have universal health care; we get worse quality and and pay more.  

Yeah I wish that I lived in Europe and had their awesome universal health care.  That way I could wait 7 months for my cancer treatment.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_headline=220-day-cancer-wait-hell%26method=full%26objectid=19639291%26siteid=66633-name_page.html

Great. You posted one area.  The US ranks *behind* Europe, far behind. The US is 30th in the world.

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

WHO Director-General Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland says: "The main message from this report is that the health and well- being of people around the world depend critically on the performance of the health systems that serve them. Yet there is wide variation in performance, even among countries with similar levels of income and health expenditure. It is essential for decision- makers to understand the underlying reasons so that system performance, and hence the health of populations, can be improved."

linky

Those ratings are based on the total percentage of people who end up getting health care rather than the quality of health care. The rating basically shows that health care isn't as easy to get in the U.S. as socialist countries. But as far as the actual quality of health care goes, the U.S. is still one of the best.

God, you just love to make things up! Do you even know what you are talking about?

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

linky

You couldn't possibly be more wrong, more guilty of just making something up to prove your point. Do you notice the first criteria, the "overall level of population health?"  

I am just one of thousands of vets victimized by the VA Hospitals and the VA System.  I used the VA health care system, in 1998 because I had no personal health care coverage.  I had a sprained ankle and knee, which need x-rays.  That day of the injury I was told that I needed a ct-scan, but was denied by the Dr. on call (thought was a Dr. he was a nurse ) it was to expensive. so I didn't have a ct-scan of the knee or ankle.

...

So, now still with the ear infection in extreme pain, I returned to ENT Clinic and was treated with more meds.  I was also told( in my records) that the infection was from the surgery). I kept telling all my primary drs, about the ear problems and they sent me back to the ENT drs. Now it has been months, still not working, I go back to the ENT drs and I'm told that I need tubes, but I need a hearing test before I can have them done. So that day I go to Hearing Clinic and was given an appointment for 1yr out. I went down to the ENT clinic and told the DR about it and he told me

linky

This is just one of many stories.

And how long do you wait HERE for medical care you cant afford if you dont have health insurance like more than 40 million Americans? Yeah, until you DIE. Ever see the movie John Q?

No. If you have an emergency you'll get treated right away. You then have to find a way to pay the bill later on.

No. If you have an emergency you'll get treated right away Rino

The wait can seem unbearable when you need help. Across the country, the average emergency room wait time is now 222 minutes — that's 3 hours, 42 minutes.

Hospitals in Arizona (4 hours, 57 minutes), Maryland (4 hours, 7 minutes), Utah (4 hours, 5 minutes), New York (3 hours, 58 minutes), and Florida (3 hours, 57 minutes) are among the worst, with wait times near or exceeding four hours. 

Right away?

No you get EMERGENCY care to the extent you are stabalized IF it is an emergency. However if what you need is a transplant or expensive ongoing cancer treatments and you cant afford them. You wait and you die.

Bear in mind that this is people waiting for free health care, something that is open to everyone in the UK.  Resources are limited, demand high so sometimes people have to wait, it's not a prefect system but it's far better than what you have over there.

People still have the option to go private for health care if they can afford it and don't want to wait.

Well if you don't have insurance(45 mil to date) seven months is better then nothing.

UK citizens do have the option of taking out medical insurance or joining organisations like BUPA.  Free health care is a right though...

Hmm?  This is a bit of a pickle for Hillary isn't it?  She says the free markets are the driving force behind prosperity, and MMFA wants it clear that is what she meant - so cool, fine, great.

But you're right Bruce, where does that leave universal government run health care?  According to Mrs. Clinton, apparently, if you take her at her word, DOA!

So let's get rid of medicare and the school systems. You can't be for universal health care and also for the free markets? 

Given the dissatisfaction with Americans with our health care system, I don't think Americans are going to fault Hillary for wanting universal health care, if that if she uses that in her platform (which she should, but probably won't).

It's obvious by looking at her stance on the issue that her main beef is not with the care itself, but how we pay for it.

I'm sounding more and more like a broken record on this issue, but the free market has had more than ample opportunity to work its magic and deliver lower insurance premiums, and it has failed. 

Yes, I agree. The magic of the free market! Whenever anyone mentions magic in the 21st century, their argument should be laughed at outright, but unfortunately it is not.

When people talk about the magic and the market, their thinking becomes as confused as some medieval peasant who believes in gobblins. When there is prosperity, that is the result of the free market. But if if things go wrong in the free market system, such as child labor (before the government came in) or lack of health care, that also proves the free market works, because it means that the market will correct itself and everything will be right in the end. It is like arguing with a fundamentalist. 

tommy's setting up his usual strawmen and false choices.  either you go with the present system or you go with "universal government run health care", as he puts it.  maybe there's another way, one that removes the billions that go to insurance companies.  i have heard stories about how much time doctors now have to spend on the phone  getting things approved.  i was witness to it myself about a month ago, when i had to go to a doctor who accepted my insurance plan.  he was fine, but i noticed him on the phone in the hall, between patients, getting approvals.  that seems to be a good system to tommy. 

Forgive me, but after the disastrous mess the government "ran" in dealing with Katrina, among others, I don't trust them running health care either. 

I think Katrina was largely the fault of the Bush administration, the result of what happens when you elect incompetent leaders who have contempt for government.  Medicare is actually a very well-run program. By the way, our high way system seems pretty good, too, so I think it is a false argument that government can't run anything right. 

So the federal government just started to become incompetent since Bush took office?  Ah, I don't think so.   I never said the government does nothing right, I just maintain that they are far too wasteful and poor stewards of our money, not to mention the bloated red tape bureaucracy at every level, it's well known, and long before 2001.

Please don't change arguments. You mentioned Katrina, for the Bush government bears huge responsibility. 

You are just making blanket statements about the waste of government. The highway system is a very good system in this country, and so is medicare.

And as far as waste goes, the so-called free market is costing US more than socialized medicine and delivering less. So what is really wasteful here?  

Please tell me how the Bush administration is responsible for the mess down in NO.  I would love to hear this.  The federal government allotted billions of dollars to an area struck by a natural disaster.  Awful natural disasters happen.  Tough, that is what happens with nature.  He gave the proper funding, and so many down there have misused it.  Do you really think Bush and his admin. is behind everything being rebuilt in NO?  What a joke.  There are city leaders and politicians already there, elected by the people of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana that are perfectly capable of handling the issue, given the funds.  They were given the funds.  Do you want Bush to micromanage everything that takes place there, or should he resume presedential duties as he is supposed to do?  I'm sick of people blaming him for the mess in Katrina.  Have you been down there?  When the people don't even want to rebuild their own house, you can't blame Bush for that.  Many have left because the entire area is a complete and total disaster, and what's the point of rebuilding your home when no one around is rebuilding theirs?  People don't want to live in communities by themselves.  The mayor of NO can shoulder the brunt of their problems.

Yes, that's a nice rant. See Chertoff if you want to know why Bush is responsible.

Also, do you care to add to the thread about why government health care works better than private health care?  

Meh, whatever smitty:

Washington set aside $16.7 billion for Community Development Block Grants, one of the two biggest sources of rebuilding funds, especially for housing. But as of March 2007, only $1 billion -- just 6 percent -- had been spent, almost all of it in Mississippi. Following bad publicity, HUD spent another $3.8 billion on the program between March and July, leaving 70 percent of the funds still unused.

* The other major source of rebuilding help was supposed to be FEMA's Public Assistance Program. But of the $8.2 billion earmarked, only $3.4 billion was meant for nonemergency projects like fixing up schools and hospitals.

* Louisiana officials recently testified that FEMA has also "low-balled" project costs, underestimating the true expenses by a factor of four or five. For example, for 11 Louisiana rebuilding projects, the lowest bids came to $5.5 million -- but FEMA approved only $1.9 million.

[link to southernstudies.org]

Yeah.  Mike Brown

Also rural electrification which the free market would most likely never have accomplished since the short return profits wouldnt have been there to justify it. The government did a spectacular job delivering it.

And yet FEMA worked pretty well under Clinton

You raise a good point... one the conservative posters won't cop to... That is, our gov't has run very, very poorly under this Republican Administration.  Maybe it's all bungling stupidity... maybe it's somewhat intentional. Whatever the reason... Gov't can run well, if ... uh, RUN WELL!

It's intentional. It started with Reagan's strategeic deficits, which was no more than a ploy to gut essential family aid program.

We can't trust people who choke on their contempt for government to manage an effective government.

They took incompetence to levels unseen, no other administration can compare. I think this was due to the Bushies unholy trinity of incompetence, contempt for governmental involvement to assist citizens with much of anything, and a general indifference to people who aren't exactly like them. While the Bushies did nothing to help the Katrina victims heir media surrogates spent the hold disaster chastising the victims for poor and dependent on the government to save them from the man made disaster that was the New Orleans Katrina's experience!

Well, it just goes to show that Republicans are not only telling us that the government can't help people, they're proving it once they get elected.

Would it be too much trouble for you to differentiate between federal career people and they're politically appointed masters.

At FDL today is an article about commercial medical interests ability to waterdown a government program encouraging breast feeding. Those politically appointed people were more concerned about possible business loses than the affect on babies.

Tommy you want to turn it all over to people who have no thought but of near term monitary gain.

Someone smarter than me put it thusly, The most dangerous enemys of capitalism are capitalists. The movers and shakers don't need any competition or a level playing field. The biggest area of interest is how can I best attain an unfair advantage over my competition.

A logical fallacy, just because they failed to do one thing well is not evidence they cannnot do anything well. Our government also created the most efficient and awesome military the world has ever seen by your logic wouldnt that be evidence that it would also create the most awesome and efficient healthcare system the world has ever seen?

And just because they do one thing well, with all the stuff they don't do well, doesn't mean they can be trusted with anymore.

You called America the greatest country in the world in another thread. How come the greatest country in the world can't provide health care like Europe? Why is the quality of our health care inferior, and why do we pay more?

The logical fallacy was still YOURS. I didnt make the argument that because they did one thing well... I said BY YOUR LOGIC. So we are back to YOUR burden of proof that it COULDNT run a health care system well which, since you based your argument on a logical fallacy, is still so far unsupported.

Tommy as you know we discussed earlier that Clinton appointed James Lee Witt to head FEMA and reform it; which he did, and under his competent leadership, FEMA worked well to deal with natural disasters. 

Before this FEMA had been used as a dumping ground to award political pals and performed very poorly; and returned to this when Bush and his cronies got in office.

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/15369.html

You know funnyman you really are very good at this. good job on this thread

May I second that notion?

Help me out here, I'm looking for where she uses the terms "government run" between "universal" and "healthcare".

Universal means the government ensures everyone has health care - since they ensure it, they run it.

They run the healthcare itself?  Or they run the means to pay for it with lower operating costs and no CEO's or shareholders to pay?

With all due respect, I think you will agree that whoever pays for it, runs it. 

I agree, our health care system is a mess, I am not smart enough to figure out a solution, but it needs to dealt with by doctors, hospitals, insurers, and the government, together.  I am just not a proponent of a Canadian type health care system in this country, my opinion.

I am a proponent of the Canada style system. Countries with universal health care rank *higher* than the US, which ranks 37, and the citizens spend much less.

Why should I be against something in which I pay less and get more?  

We disagree.  But I am open to health care plans from the candidates, if they are honestly dealt with and seriously non-partisan in their efforts.  I am actually more open minded to this than before, but it will take much convincing for me to accept more government run ANYTHING!

But we will see.....

Yes, we disagree, but to be honest, the *facts* disagree with you. The US, the richest country on Earth, is ranked 37, and we spend over doubly what Britain spends. 

It isn't just $$, it's quality of health care, timeliness, and overall satisfaction.  I know people from Canada that come here for health care, who aren't too thrilled and have plenty of horror stories - so it's not all peachy there, believe me.

Tommy, please stop with the anecdotal crap. You know people is a statement that can't be proven or disproven.

But you have also completely missed what I wrote. The US is ranked 37th in the quality of the care, not in how much we spend. The study factored in areas such as customer satisfaction, wait time, etc. So the US is behind most (if not all) of the industrial world, and we spend more.

By the way, I believe there are many stories of Americans going to Canada for health care because they can't get it here.  

Crap?  You call them anecdotes, I call it reality.

You can hide behind your statistics all you want, I prefer to look at it beyond that.  

Yes, reality is when you say "I know people who saw ..."

But statistics are something to hide behind! Right, who should I believe, a very thorough report, or someone who says "I know people who have problems...?" 

Reality, by the way, is a logical fallacy. When arguing your point of view, you simply can't say "Well, I am arguing from reality." It is a completely meaningless statement, because of course the person using it will always claim his version is "reality."  

You are free to believe whatever you'd like.  I have been honest about my feelings on this issue, but instead, you call it crap.  So be it.  I am sorry we don't agree on the best vehicle for the best health care in this country,  we will have to agree to disagree.

No, Tommy, I didn't call your beliefs crap. Have a look at the post. I said stop the anecdotal crap. Anecdotes are crap because you can choose any anecdote to prove anything. Moreover, you  can't prove or disprove them when they are on a personal level. So they have no place in an argument.

We obviously disagree, but more importantly, the *facts* disagree with you. The facts show that government run health care provides better service for less. You have not refuted these facts in any way.  

And  I know exactly four people who came from Canada and asked all of them which healthcare system they preferred all four enthusiastically preffered the Canadian system

That isn't necessarily true. Hillary could propose a program whereby only the poores people who couldn't get health care were provided with government health care, and the rest of the people were provided health care through the private sector. In fact, I bet she will propose such a lame solution. 

Hillary could propose a program whereby only the poores people who couldn't get health care were provided with government health care, and the rest of the people were provided health care through the private sector. In fact, I bet she will propose such a lame solution. 

Lame indeed.

And who would be eligible? Whom would be considered "poor"?

Someone single making less than $30,000?

A family of 4 making less than $50,000?

What are the parameters? How will it be decided? And by whom?

And most of the Middle-Class would be expected to buy their own Private Plan, & have their taxes hiked to pay for the Government Plan they wouldn't be participating in?

I dunno Funnyman. Lame indeed.

Yes, we are in agreement. Why shouldn't the middle class have access to reasonable health insurance?

But I don't expect the Democrats to really propose something that would really change the status quo.  

Funnyman,

I'm not a proponent of Universal Government run Health Insurance, BUT if this country goes that route it should cover everyone...otherwise it will become a muddled mess of red tape..IMO.

I noticed you're pretty impressed with the Canadian Health Insurance Plan. I'm gonna go read up about that when I get a chance...but just curious...does it cover everyone, no matter their income?

Yes. Everyone, regardless, has health insurance. Same way in every industrial country except the US. 

Hey Jeter, It would be a great idea to research the other universal health care programs as well. Most western nations have them and they are all a little bit different and are customized. Some countries directly employ physicians and heath care workers and some countries strictly hand the citizen their insurance card and off they go. I think we all Americans should start researching this so when candidates put forward programs we will be in better position to understand the logistics, the costs. etc. ect.. There's a wealth of information out there about the European experience with their programs. Best practices baby! I think it's coming Jeter I think we are getting closer and closer to a national census toward this.

Not lame at all. You are arguing against the very concept based on what the parameters would be. Obviously that isnt set in stone, it is a political consideration that has very little to do with the CONCEPT itself. IF you think the way you are envisioning it would be unfair envision it more fairly. Your argument is like saying you dont want to get your car painted because they MIGHT use inferior paints and it MIGHT look worse than before.

Really? So that means we have an HMO run healthcare right now? Hmmm, who do I want making a decision, since they are RUNNING IT, about my healthcare a bereaucrat with no stake in it or a corporate stooge who thinks his career depends on saving the corporation as much money as possible.

Since government is so efficient and does everything so well, why stop at health care?  Why not computer software, or selling groceries, or cars?  

Slippery slope fallacy. Using that logic I could argue if the government does everything so badly why shouldnt we privitize the military.

Because national defense is in our constitution, not health care.

The constitution talks about providing for the health of the country (or a phrase very similar). So there is nothing unconstitutional about providing universal health care, just like there is nothing unconstitutional about providing park services. 

Besides, the constitution says we have to provide a military. It doesn't prohibit the US from privatizing it.  

It says promote the general welfare, which is not govt. run health care.  And the constitution requires providing for the common defense, which means running the military.  It's not an option to be privatized.

Why is universal health care not providing for the general welfare? And why is privatizing the army not providing for the common defense? 

Find me any constitutional scholar that agrees with your assessments, and we'll go from there.

There is no point in arguing with you this, we will always disagree.

Find me a constitutional scholar that disagrees. 

If you think it is pointless to argue with me, then stop posting. That is your choice.

I just want to point out that the facts dispute your point.  

It also says provide for  the common defense it doesnt say anything about the Air Force or the CIA. Does that mean we should disband them? Or does that mean its  a reasonble interpretation that providing for the common defense is best done WITH an Air Force and a CIA just as it is a reasonable interpretation that providing universal healthcare is promoting the general wellfare?

Our founding fathers were very libertarian in their thinking. They believed in a very small federal government with strong states' rights. It's ridiculous to think that they would have envisioned the federal government running the health care system. They didn't even want the federal government to have an income tax or have anything to do with education. We didn't even get a federal income tax until 1913.

Put away your amazing mind reading powers. They dont exist. Unless you have had a seance you have no more capacity to know what they meant when they said promote the General Welfare than I do. So lets forget about the seance and decide what WE think is appropriate. I think it is a reasonable intepretation of promoting the general welfare to have a universal healthcare. I think it should be a right you have not a commodity you buy like in every OTHER industrial country.

Your post contradicts itself. The founding fathers didn't envision an income tax, yet now we have one. Simply because the founding fathers didn't envision something doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. We have a highway system, which the founding fathers also did not envision. Blacks have full rights, something the founding fathers also didn't seem to envision enough to enshrine in the constitution. 

Oh REALLY? It says they have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happyness, and how do you have a right to LIFE if you cant get access to healthcare. I think it could be argued that the 18,000 or so a year that DIED due to lack of access to healthcare had their right to LIFE violated also what about promoting the general welfare? I say its hard to see how healthcare ISNT part of the general wellfare.

So you're saying that univeral health care is actually a constitutional right?

I think based on the broad principles outlined and the fact we CAN do it, like every other industrial country in the world it SHOULD be a right you have and not a commodity you buy.

Where does anyone argue that government does everything so well? I have argued that universal health care works better, and not only that, I have used facts to back up my argument. 

You can't dispute the facts, Tommy. The US ranks 37th in the world and we spend double (and more in other cases) than other countries spend. We spend more, get less.  

How do we rank in computer software?  Using your logic, if we rank below say Japan, we better get it out of the hands of the private sector, and into governments.

I think we rank # 1 in computer software. But that is a silly argument, and you know it. You are now switching your argument. You argued before that governement was inefficient at providing health care.

The facts show you are wrong. We are ranked 37th in the world and pay more than everyone else. So universal health care works better.  

Silly?  Oh, I get it.  You get to pick and choose which rankings are relevant, is that it?  Your argument is based on worldwide rankings determing whether or not to govt. run something, I am only asking for you to be consistent......but you call is silly, oh well.

Ah, what are you talking about? I don't know what the US is ranked in software. I believe with Bill Gates, we are number 1. I didn't pick and choose.

Stop trying to change the argument. You argued that universal health care is inefficient. The facts show you are wrong.  

Funnypants, you have whipped the pants off topic boy on this thread. But I would be remiss if I didn't point out that smart government investment in technological research and development has spurred the tremendous leaps in the field of computer technology.

Don't forget the huge payments in the form tax breaks and subsidies the public gives to companies.

Yes, you are right. Federal grants to colleges are even a form of corporate welfare for tech companies. Tech companies could never afford the cost of training their employees. They get them trained, at the taxpayers expense. There is nothing wrong with this system, but we should recognize it as a form of government help, instead of pretending hi tech firms do it on their own. 

Lets also not forget the huge amount of research and development done for hi tech industries by the Pentagon another invisible subsidy. We have ALWAYS had socialism for the rich. Conservatives just begin to wail if the government wants to extend help and subsidy to the underpriveleged

Investing in the private sector with proper government oversight is the way to go.

Something that has been sorely lacking since Bush and the neandercons took over.

The U.S. taxpayer already makes large investments in the private sector by providing free education, bank insurance, highways, legal system (to enforce contracts etc.) and energy infrastructure etc.

So it's no leap for working Americans to expect living wages, healthcare and pensions from the pirate sector, uh excuse me, private sector ; )

But I think I know what you mean, it's the oversight that's lacking. Just ask our nation's non-unionized mine workers.

I agree with you Bruce. But, there must be oversight... legitimate oversight.

Oh... so much for trying to respond to the original comment...

If memory served me well, is Kudlow not someone who spouts GOP talking points?

From Wikipedia:

Lawrence (Larry) Kudlow (born August 19, 1947), is an American conservative, supply-side economics enthusiast and television personality. Kudlow currently hosts the TV program Kudlow & Company on CNBC. Kudlow is also the economics editor for National Review (a political magazine) and its online complement, National Review Online. He is also the CEO of his own consulting firm, Kudlow and Company. A syndicated columnist, his articles appear in numerous U.S. newspapers and web sites. He also runs his own blog, Kudlow's Money Politic$. He opposes estate taxes, as well as taxes on dividends and capital gains. Kudlow advocates that employees be compelled to make greater contributions to their pension and medical costs, suggesting that these expenses are an undue burden on corporations. Kudlow defends high executive compensation as a manifestation of market forces and opposes most forms of government regulation. He believes that reducing taxes will increase governmental revenue through expansion of the overall economy. In general, he supports smaller government that interferes less and citizens who take more individual responsibility. He advocates wide ownership of stocks and frequently speaks of a broad "investor class" that includes most Americans. Kudlow has been a harsh critic of corporate corruption at Enron, Worldcom, and other companies

"In general, he supports smaller government..........." 

Oh dear God, he should be run out town on a rail for that GOP talking point, shame on him!!!

Smaller government - them's fightin' words to liberals. 

We have far more things to find wrong with this idiot, Tommy.  He needs to go back to his consulting business and get off the airwaves, if he can't be impartial.

He's never claimed to be impartial.

Doesn't matter.  Anyone who dares breathe smaller government is an "idiot", obviously, and should be taken off the airwaves.

It's a great strategy isn't it?

1) Make a huge hue and cry about how government doesn't work.

2) Get elected.

3) Once in power, prove yourself right by slashing budgets for social programs and infrastructure. Privatize necessary government services like prisons and the military, at many times the cost the government provided them at. Pocket a little for yourself and your cronies.

4) Scratch that--pocket a lot for yourself and your cronies.

5) When the damage becomes apparent, cry: "Government doesn't work! You need to reelect me so I can keep making sure it doesn't work!"

6) Get reelected.

Damn I wish I had that job.

Yes, nice post!

Let me just add that when the Americans stand behind government programs, they work. Americans believe in the military; we have the most powerful military in the world. Americans believe in the highway system; we have a good highways system.  

An even better strategy;

1) Empower government and increase citizenry  dependence through growing federal programs.

2) Tell people they need government, thereby increasing taxes for politicians to gain more power through other people's money.

3) Pander to groups to keep them dependent on government, thereby insuring their election votes.

4) Get re-elected, do it all over again.

Damn, nice job!

What are you talking about? I don't certainly see that happening anywhere I know. 

Check recent Democratic platforms.

Sorry, don't see that at all. I guess I must be hiding behind statistics and facts, though. 

It sort of like the vacuum cleaner door-to-door salesman that walks in and throws dirt on your floor and tells you that you need to buy his vacuum cleaner, to clean up the dirt.  

Can't always see what they're up to if you buy into the pitch. 

What? Did you accidently mispost?

No, not at all.

Oh, now I see. My response is, its more like a bug that flies into your screen and your cat can't get it because of the screen, but it tries anyway. That makes about as much sense as what you posted.

So I guess you are just posting nonsense now?  

It's happening right now, in the state of Delirium.

Sorry, now I see it! Silly me!

It's called corporate welfare and lobbyist. (See Duke Cunningham.)  

I agree.  Small government conservatives have to be the only people on the planet to enter a vocation to prove it doesn't work.  To me, this would be like an athiest going to seminary to preach to people that there is no God.

Seriously, is there another kind of disconnect like this one anywhere in the world?

So, big government liberals don't like small government conservatives to come in there and tell them there is no "god"......got it?

No, you didn't get it. Try again. This time, I suggest you look up any words you don't know in the dictionary.

No, Tommy.  I was not advocating liberals. I was just wondering if there is another position/stance similar to those who either work in or run for something they would like to see dissolved.

If small government conservatives think government does not work, why do they want to be part of the government?

Ask a cop who thinks crime is out of control, so they join the police force to do what they can to reduce it.

Your argument doesn't make any sense.

Cops believe that they can reduce crime, and keep it at a low level, by doing good police work. In other words, they believe in what they're doing.

What would be analogous to anti-government conservatives who claim they're the best people to govern, would be a cop who doesn't think police work reduces crime, who insists that that belief is the reason why he's best qualified to be a cop.

No, you missed the original analogy which I addressed as to why would anyone want to be a part of something that is so inefficient and doesn't work, hence the cop analogy? 

You took my analogy too literally and missed it's basic overall meaning, so yours makes no sense.

Yes, his makes perfect sense.

No I know mine made sense, thanks for weighing in.

No, really you didn't add anything to refute Steve K's point.

Duh, the cop analogy was mine, not his - he missed my point and made his own.......that's his business, but it ain't the one.

I never said the cop analogy wasn't yours. But Steve K's tweaking of that analogy makes more sense than yours. You did nothing to refute Steve K's point, except make a weak, general argument that he missed the analogy, when clearly he didn't. 

No fair, Steve tweaked my analogy and made it his own......it's mine!  Security!!

Difference: The purpose of a police department is to bust criminals and reduce crime.

The purpose of a government is to use resources at their disposal to help the people as much as possible.

Your analogy would make sense if someone joined the police force and said there was no way to stop crime or to make up a quote:

"See, we can't catch criminals."

No, your purpose of government to "help people as much as possible" is the liberal definition of government, which I do not subscribe to, sorry.

The purpose of government is to protect it's citizens from enemies, foreign and domestic, promote the general welfare; meaning provide opportunity for people to do so.

It does not mean fund every social program that liberals offer up.  

Perhaps that is where you and you fellow brethren lost the analogy I was making. 

"The purpose of government is to protect it's citizens from enemies, foreign and domestic, promote the general welfare; meaning provide opportunity for people to do so."---Tommy

I agree, and right now, small government conservatives fund programs that "promote the general welfare" just enough to let them fail and then claim government does not work.  I agree that not every social program offered up should be funded, but I don't understand why small government conservatives want to govern just to point out that government does not work.  Does that make more sense?

"Seriously, is there another kind of disconnect like this one anywhere in the world?"

Well, we had DaDa-ism for a short time, but it too caved under the weight of it's own absurdity.

DaDaism is more a part of the social fabric than you might think. I've often thought of the Neocon stragegy as surealist in nature, but without a sense of humor.