Wrestling with a Leftist

My response to Carol is in italics below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carol
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 3:43 AM

Isn't this a private discussion? Whom else am I writing to?

No. You are writing to the Internet, but they only know you as Carol.


Scientific advisers are responsible for the results.

Not true. Advisors are only responsible to give advice. The person in charge is responsible to accept or reject the advice and is also responsible for the outcome of his decisions.


Unless we want to keep repeating the same mistakes as a country,
regulations need to be enforced, or there is no reason to have them.

Absolutely true!

Glen Beck is about the scariest person I know on talk radio, and
Huckabee is not far behind. Having studied both their backgrounds
carefully and their methods of delivery, they represent the antithesis
of a well-educated person. I have seen videos of the callousness of Mr.
Beck...to what positive end could he possibly be aiming?

Listen carefully to Glenn Beck and Huckabee on television and others on talk radio. They basically saying the same things I am saying and for the same purpose. We believe we understand the bases on which this great country developed, and we hate to see it deteriorate through some misplaced ideologies.

The only way to
improve our collective situation is to work together, use our brains,
and strive with workable plans for a better tomorrow.

Absolutely true!

Excuse me? President Obama put us in horrible debt? Take a look at the
national debt under Bush, Jr. President Obama inherited a nightmare,
that further outlay of capital tried to fix.

Congress and Pres. Bush severely overspent under the Bush Administration. Pres. Obama and Congress magnified the debt problem many fold with the Stimulus Package, TARP, Cash for Clunkers, and a multitude of grants.

I don't see any evidence of
President Obama wanting to run private industry. That is the chat line
of the extreme right, but the evidence of same is lacking. Being our
age, we know what government take-overs represent. We have seen this
especially in Communist countries. The banking and automotive industries
are private corporations...even as stockholders, the government
officials are not running the companies.

When Government puts public money into a private corporation, such as General Motors, receives stock and positions on the Board of Directors, and the President of the United States fires the GM Chief Executive Officer, I consider that running at least a portion of a private industry.


From everything I have read from a wide variety of sources, Americans
want health care reform. And, I read a lot.

Yes. Americans initially wanted health care reform. It was touted as a great program for all. Essentially free, and satisfied the generally compassionate nature of Americans to support the poor and unfortunate. 900 page bills do hide the ball, in spite of Pres. Obama's claim to the contrary. Most people would like to trust government, as you apparently do unequivocally.

As to the election of
President Obama, I honestly don't know how much his skin color entered
into it. Nor, do I think he creates fantasies in his speeches. If you
can think of examples, pitch them to me.

Nor do I on skin color. He does creates fantasies in his speeches, through his verbal flourish and lack of detail. As a youngster, don't you recall sitting around a campfire and listening spellbound to ghost stories? Can you see the similarity and the subtlety? "Taxpayers will not pay one more dime" for healthcare. Does that include no increase in income taxes for anybody? Does that obviate a flat tax on consumer items? "Public healthcare will not cover illegal immigrants". Does that mean that all presently illegal immigrants will be legal by the time the healthcare provisions kick in?


Yes, I have lived through periods where the economy was booming and
benefited accordingly; I have also lived through "busts." We are in one
of the worst "busts" right now. But, it is a combination of
irresponsible businessmen/women and government officials that led us
there. It's time to fix it and start living responsibly as a nation.

I agree wholeheartedly.


We do have a choice in how much is contributed to public money.

Does that mean I can not pay my Federal Income Tax?

It is how your money is allocated all year. If you give money to your church,
you have no control over how they spend it either.

Not true. I have a choice of whether to give my money to my church. If I decide to do so, I can usually specify what it is to be spent on.
When Government takes my money, I have no choice other than to give it. I also have no choice on how it is to be spent, other than through my Congressional Representatives who have continually showed an ability to present a deaf ear.

Socialism is defined as when the producers of goods and services possess both political
power and power over the means of production and distribution. Taken to
the Marxist extreme, which never worked in reality, the proletariat
occupies this position.

Agreed.

President Obama is not running Bank of America
nor General Motors. I think he has enough to do in his present job.


Not completely yet, but he has made a good start, as I have mentioned above. I have not claimed that we are now a complete Marxist state. I have claimed that we are now running headlong in that direction.

Public money is being dispersed through grants in the alternative energy
field, health care, etc. It is intended to be spent on advanced
technological systems that serve to return our economic independence
without damaging the environment. The bail-outs, as you know, were to
prop up the economy to keep it from crashing due to the intricacies of
intertwined businesses.

Irresponsible government recommendations on lending practices in real estate and lack of regulatory enforcement by government was a primary cause of the economic downturn. I don't believe a Stimulus Package and TARP were necessary. In fact, it is said that only 7% of the stimulus money has actually been spent, and the economy is already recovering

In reality, the money is printed out by the
Federal Reserve, against no standard. It is a reserve note. It has not
been confiscated from you. Of course, the more you print, the more the
potential devaluation of the dollar. If you don't print it, we will
probably not recover as a nation. All the money that has ever been
printed is still out there;

The term "reserve note" has no significant meaning. The Federal Reserve prints money as it sees fit, just as you described.. You are also correct in that the more money printed, the lower the value of each dollar. We are apparently not overprinting up to now, because there is actually a decline in cost-of-living items, particularly oil. However, I am concerned that the trillions of dollars of Stimulus Money and probable deficit financing of a Public Option in healthcare, has led to massive debt, for which the interest alone will require extreme taxation or inflation printing.

however, there are some very large corporations,like Haliburton, that aren't pumping their ill-begotten billions back into the economy. Remember where they relocated to! Bob,
who does a public service, is more entitled to the grant money than
most, and he should get as much as he needs to clean up our waste and
used a closed-loop system doing it. Go, Bob! Are you located in Bob's
office?

Please explain the ill begotten billions of Halliburton money, which they are still holding. I am always interested in investing in cash-rich companies. I have looked at Halliburton previously but may have missed something.

If you are a pragmatist, why are some of your comments not concerned
with cause and effect based on needs and results?
If a grant is offered that improves the environment or general health,
it is not stealing to spend it. To make the analogy that it is like
stealing the gold teeth of the dead is bizarre, at best. How you make
that connection is somewhat beyond my logical mindset. Do you write
horror movies?

Sorry that my gold teeth analogy upset your tender emotions. It is difficult for me to give you an example which would be compelling and less picturesque. The fact is that I am the bad an individual sitting here as a pawn to government, with a certain amount of cash. Government is taking my cash, without my agreement, and giving it to various organizations as grants. I don't see that any of the grants benefit me personally, and I have had no choice in whether to give or not. This is socialistic capture. I went through this in the early 60s in Egypt, when government "sequestered" private assets. People who had money before the sequestration didn't have it after the confiscation.

Try running for or keeping your political office if you propose an end
to social security payments.

I agree it would likely be impossible to obtain a public office position on the basis of anti-Social Security campaign platform. Human nature being what it is, people always like free stuff, and do not like to give it up when they have it. Even if it's not free to the recipients and very costly to the payers, the payers always have hope to eventually be recipients. This is a Ponzi scheme on a grand scale, but because it is a government program and the younger generation is always hopeful, there's little possibility for change.

If you have been to court in the past several years, you will notice
justice is not exactly being served. There are too many back-room deals
among lawyers, and judges. It's about money, not justice. Only in a
common-law court would you have a decent chance for equitable treatment.
I cannot imagine going into that foray without lots of bucks in your
pocket. And, if you had the bucks, you could force a settlement outside
of court. What you are defining is the ideal, not how the system really
runs.

I disagree. While I do not work in the court system, I am reasonably close to it. My understanding is that there is very little corruption. The main difficulties with the court system is that it is it has started to be loaded with socialistic/Marxist ideologists. Exorbitant grants for damages in some court cases are the result of juries showing emotional prejudice against government and business. I'm not sure how to correct this in order to obtain more equitably.

The U.S. is not headed for socialized medicine under the current health
reform plan. If an industry is 95% private, it is not run by the government.

The US medical system is not socialized today. It will not be tomorrow. It will not be next week. If health reform becomes law, with institution of a Public Option, most private health insurance will still exist. The question is what will the picture look like a few years down the road. I predict that only one health insurance company will exist. It will be the government Private Option.

Did you miss the part where I said I WORKED in New Zealand and
Australia? I paid the taxes just like anyone else working there. Thus,
the Australians did not pay the medical bills, without any input from
me. That statement you made about being comfortable in leading
Australian citizens to pay my bills was just pure cynicism. Best check
those thoughts at the door, as they are detrimental to yourself and
others whom you are trying to communicate with. Also, with food stamps,
there are specific items that cannot be purchased with these stamps. It
depends on your definition of "exotic" foods.

I did initially miss the part where you said you worked in New Zealand and Australia, but I corrected that in a subsequent writing. Yes. You paid the taxes like everyone else working there and were entitled to the service when you required it. This is no less than the pool operation of a private insurance company, and quite acceptable in my humble, capitalistic judgment. Having initially misjudged the situation, I cannot support my original contention that you were a leech on society by allowing Australians to pay your medical bills. Exotic foods seen purchased with food stamps are high-priced frozen meals, special desserts with guava and other tropical fruits. I buy bunch carrots and chicken on sale to save money.

Again, you are stating an ideal that businesses should be able to stand
on their own feet...yes, in a healthy economy. Not in this one! I have
never witnessed so much personal loss. If there has to be subsidies,
derived from collective premiums, etc., then there has to be.

The world runs on survival of the fittest. If you don't believe this, watch Animal Planet. Well-run businesses are fully aware of upturns and downturns in the business cycle. They prepare for this with adequate reserves. Those businesses which are unable to compete must be allowed to fail, because they have demonstrated ineptitude. Grants and supports of any kind to such businesses only result in development of a mediocrity in capability. This is one of the primary problems in a socialistic regime.

Otherwise, employees of struggling companies will be denied access to health care,
which defeats the concept of reform.

Employees of struggling companies maintain health care benefits as long as the companies still exist. True. When the companies cease to function, because of bankruptcy or other, those employees are out of a job and lose their corporate healthcare. However, consider the fact that while a company's health can be jeopardized by inappropriate management decisions, including the wrong type of business, many times the employees have a significant part in the company's failure. Employees also have an opportunity to depart from the ship early and go with a more viable company. Under extreme circumstances, they can go on to the welfare system. In any event, health care reform has no necessary part in this scenario.

There is no corporation double
taxation unless it is an elective "s" corporation, where losses/profits
pass through to your personal estate.

True. There is no corporate double taxation. There is double taxation for many individuals, who have a combined interest in two or more operations. There's an income tax on profits from their own efforts, whether salary or private business. In addition, if they own stock in a public corporation, profits of that corporation are taxed for a net lower profit availability to the stockholders.

I did not know that was your nephew. However, that $9. an hour is not a
living wage in this country. No, I don't think your nephew should be
paying the $35., which is the employee's share, but I do think he should
be encouraging those employees to get more education!

Nine dollars per hour can be a living wage for some individuals in some parts of the country, which is what I explained in an earlier writing. I'm glad you think that the employees should be paying part of the healthcare premium. This is a capitalistic decision, which I applaud. You can be assured that my nephew continually encourages his people for better education to advance themselves in greater accomplishments for their efforts. Companies hire employees in order to profit from the accomplishments of those employees. The more they can accomplish to the advancement of company profit, the more they are worth, with the justification of higher salaries and benefits. This is completely contrary to a Marxist philosophy.

Your last comment about the spiral into Socialism is an opinion. What is
your alternative to a Public Option? It is not enough to project your
thoughts on what you think must happen. It is your responsibility to
think of better options, if you disagree with the present proposal.


Yes, it is an opinion based on long-term worldwide observations, probably greater your own. There have been several proposals as alternatives to a Public Option (government health insurance). One is to allow private health insurance companies to compete across state lines. Another is to just not have a Public Option and allow private insurance companies to continue to improve their operations in efforts to better compete. Malpractice considerations are also an important factor for high healthcare costs. Doctors should perform responsibly and most do, but unreasonable court decisions have forced them to also pay very high premiums for malpractice insurance and also to protect themselves by ordering many tests, which are costly, but yet not necessary for the health of the patients. This and other things can be part of health care reform, but they should be addressed individually, not as a total package. These are all regulatory matters, which are government responsibility toward justice and fair practice. However there is no room for government in the healthcare business, whether as a supplier of healthcare or supplier of healthcare insurance.