Should Sara Palin be held accountable?

[cookie2008]

Sara Palin did not pull the trigger, that mentally disturbed man did.  Im am so sorry for looking at this topic, because always put the blame on someone else instead of the person that commited the crime.

[MooseMom]

Sara Palin did not pull the trigger, that mentally disturbed man did.  Im am so sorry for looking at this topic, because always put the blame on someone else instead of the person that commited the crime.

If you read the whole thread, I think you'll find that the general consensus is that no, she is not to blame.  Using gun/shooting/target/weapon terms in our political discourse has been around for a long time, but Sarah Palin used these sorts of terms to a great degree and with great success.  She is popular and vocal and is working at being a "king-maker", and when you put yourself out there like she has, it makes it harder to duck criticism.  It goes with the territory, unfortunately.  If she wants to continue to be a high-profile political personality, she's going to have to take the rough with the smooth.  President Obama can certainly attest to that.  It may be unfair, but that's the way it is in American politics today...a way that she helped to create.

It would be foolish to just walk away from this tragedy, saying "Only the killer is to blame" without taking the opportunity to look at things that might have been done to prevent this from happening.  Sure, you can throw up your hands and say, "Oh, nothing could have stopped this."  Well, an awful lot of people saw that this guy was a walking time bomb, and he was able to buy a gun and ammunition, so perhaps something COULD have been done to prevent it.  It's not about apportioning blame, rather, it's about trying to understand what happened and why, and how this young man could have been stopped before he killed so many people.  It never hurts to be a bit introspective.

[KarenInWA]

No, Palin is not responsible for the shootings.  However..... in light of that, her map with the crosshairs targeting named congresspeople (including Ms. Giffords, the victim, and who stated that Palin's doing that could have consequences) complete with the gun lingo obviously did not go unnoticed.  Given that, she had an opportunity to address it in a mature way, renounce any and all rhetoric that is like that (and on BOTH sides, I might add) and actually proven herself an intelligent leader.  Instead, she did the opposite, layed low for a few days, then came out with her long, 8-minute speech that did have some good points, but instead was overtaken by her use of "blood libel" and "oh woe is me" language.  Crazy, deranged man is completely and totallly responsible, but with that, he also brought to light all of the craziness going on in our politics today.  If he had done his shooting at a non-political event, we would not be having this discussion.

KarenInWA

[Bill Peckham]

Hemodoc, I am still unclear as to which liberties and freedoms the Tea Party movement is so frightened of losing.  I agree with you in that we are not as free as we think we are.  I can water my lawn in summer only on odd numbered days.  If there are three or more inches of snow, there are certain places I cannot park.  I cannot hang my laundry out to dry.  My husband couldn't buy me a cold remedy without showing a photo ID.  You can't drink alcohol until you are 21, but you can buy a gun.  I can't sunbathe nude.  My stepson can't watch certain movies.  I have to use certain colored bins when I put out my recycling.  I have to have a prescription for each of the 10 meds I take.  I couldn't see a renal dietician until my nephrologist referred me.  When I put out my garden refuse, it has to be stacked in a certain way.  I have to have a license to drive.  I have to take a test to get a license.  I have to get my car inspected. 

I am not sure I understand the Tea Party's antipathy toward government.  How do you define "big government"?  By the size of the budget?  The debt?  If we do not like the government we have, we can replace it.  We can vote people in and we can vote people out.  I don't know why government has to be labelled "the enemy" if we, as a democratic people, can vote in whomever we want and can make whatever laws we want.  What concerns me is not so much "big government" but, rather, "big corporations" which may help to create a bigger government than we want or need.  The reason I have to get a prescription from a doctor is not because Congress is interested in my med list but, rather, because this is what the big pharmaceutical companies lobbied for.  I am not convinced that "government" wants to be that involved in our lives because I am not sure that "government" cares that much about our lives in the first place.  If your definition of "big government" is government contorted by big corporate interests and by Wall Street's desire for unfettered control of American monetary policy, then I'm right there with you.

Many of those restrictions you rightly list MM are local or like driving a car hard to credit a freedom based alternative (but once you give in to the man and get a license having a car is very freeing). If you wanted to you could live out in Wyoming and spend your days neckid and burning your trash out back but if you want live in a city then you and your neighbors can make the rules.

There are many ways we are more free than any other people in history - free to live from Nome to Key West, to communicate with anyone in the world at any time. We can't go to Cuba or N Korea but that doesn't really come up much in my day to  day but if it was up to me we would have changed our Cuba policy a long time ago but that isn't what the right is talking about either. So yeah, what freedoms are under threat from legislation passed in the last two years?

[Bill Peckham]

Sara Palin did not pull the trigger, that mentally disturbed man did.  Im am so sorry for looking at this topic, because always put the blame on someone else instead of the person that commited the crime.

If you read the whole thread, I think you'll find that the general consensus is that no, she is not to blame.  Using gun/shooting/target/weapon terms in our political discourse has been around for a long time, but Sarah Palin used these sorts of terms to a great degree and with great success.  She is popular and vocal and is working at being a "king-maker", and when you put yourself out there like she has, it makes it harder to duck criticism.  It goes with the territory, unfortunately.  If she wants to continue to be a high-profile political personality, she's going to have to take the rough with the smooth.  President Obama can certainly attest to that.  It may be unfair, but that's the way it is in American politics today...a way that she helped to create.

It would be foolish to just walk away from this tragedy, saying "Only the killer is to blame" without taking the opportunity to look at things that might have been done to prevent this from happening.  Sure, you can throw up your hands and say, "Oh, nothing could have stopped this."  Well, an awful lot of people saw that this guy was a walking time bomb, and he was able to buy a gun and ammunition, so perhaps something COULD have been done to prevent it.  It's not about apportioning blame, rather, it's about trying to understand what happened and why, and how this young man could have been stopped before he killed so many people.  It never hurts to be a bit introspective.

Can someone show me where the "Lamestream" media blamed Palin? I'm sure bloggers did, but the highest profile person to say there could be violence because of the cross hairs was Gifford months ago. Of course its an issue but it isn't a new issue, Giffords talked about it and was acting on in her role as a Representative leading up to the shooting. How hard is it to say I regret my choice of words? This thread posses a question and to large degree asking the question is what has set off those on the right. That's what is hard to understand - of course Palin's map was brought up in the context of the shooting. I mean of course! Yet Peter, the question itself has you angrier than I've ever known you to be - just the question. How is that explained?

[BigSky]

Can someone show me where the "Lamestream" media blamed Palin? I'm sure bloggers did, but the highest profile person to say there could be violence because of the cross hairs was Gifford months ago. Of course its an issue but it isn't a new issue, Giffords talked about it and was acting on in her role as a Representative leading up to the shooting. How hard is it to say I regret my choice of words? This thread posses a question and to large degree asking the question is what has set off those on the right. That's what is hard to understand - of course Palin's map was brought up in the context of the shooting. I mean of course! Yet Peter, the question itself has you angrier than I've ever known you to be - just the question. How is that explained?

CNN

[Bill Peckham]

Wow. Just wow.


Wouldn't you think that before using the term "Blood Libel' in this context the person who writes Sarah Palin's stuff would have Googled the term?

Why,? the very fact the the liberal media and liberal pundits did make false accusations  and insinuations using the  blood of those involved with this tragedy.  Now the liberal media and liberal pundits want to make a stink over a term that labels them perfectly to what they tried to do.

By bringing it up she refudiates (the lamestream spell check doesn't think that's a word) her own argument that words have no responsibility for the actions they inspire. Jews rightly see blood libel as a problem because it can create an environment where everyone wants to kill the Jews. So I guess thanks for the example but I thought Palin was trying to make the opposite argument.

Can someone show me where the "Lamestream" media blamed Palin? I'm sure bloggers did, but the highest profile person to say there could be violence because of the cross hairs was Gifford months ago. Of course its an issue but it isn't a new issue, Giffords talked about it and was acting on in her role as a Representative leading up to the shooting. How hard is it to say I regret my choice of words? This thread posses a question and to large degree asking the question is what has set off those on the right. That's what is hard to understand - of course Palin's map was brought up in the context of the shooting. I mean of course! Yet Peter, the question itself has you angrier than I've ever known you to be - just the question. How is that explained?

CNN

That isn't really a link. What did they do ask the question?

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, I am still unclear as to which liberties and freedoms the Tea Party movement is so frightened of losing.  I agree with you in that we are not as free as we think we are.  I can water my lawn in summer only on odd numbered days.  If there are three or more inches of snow, there are certain places I cannot park.  I cannot hang my laundry out to dry.  My husband couldn't buy me a cold remedy without showing a photo ID.  You can't drink alcohol until you are 21, but you can buy a gun.  I can't sunbathe nude.  My stepson can't watch certain movies.  I have to use certain colored bins when I put out my recycling.  I have to have a prescription for each of the 10 meds I take.  I couldn't see a renal dietician until my nephrologist referred me.  When I put out my garden refuse, it has to be stacked in a certain way.  I have to have a license to drive.  I have to take a test to get a license.  I have to get my car inspected. 

I am not sure I understand the Tea Party's antipathy toward government.  How do you define "big government"?  By the size of the budget?  The debt?  If we do not like the government we have, we can replace it.  We can vote people in and we can vote people out.  I don't know why government has to be labelled "the enemy" if we, as a democratic people, can vote in whomever we want and can make whatever laws we want.  What concerns me is not so much "big government" but, rather, "big corporations" which may help to create a bigger government than we want or need.  The reason I have to get a prescription from a doctor is not because Congress is interested in my med list but, rather, because this is what the big pharmaceutical companies lobbied for.  I am not convinced that "government" wants to be that involved in our lives because I am not sure that "government" cares that much about our lives in the first place.  If your definition of "big government" is government contorted by big corporate interests and by Wall Street's desire for unfettered control of American monetary policy, then I'm right there with you.

Many of those restrictions you rightly list MM are local or like driving a car hard to credit a freedom based alternative (but once you give in to the man and get a license having a car is very freeing). If you wanted to you could live out in Wyoming and spend your days neckid and burning your trash out back but if you want live in a city then you and your neighbors can make the rules.

There are many ways we are more free than any other people in history - free to live from Nome to Key West, to communicate with anyone in the world at any time. We can't go to Cuba or N Korea but that doesn't really come up much in my day to  day but if it was up to me we would have changed our Cuba policy a long time ago but that isn't what the right is talking about either. So yeah, what freedoms are under threat from legislation passed in the last two years?

It goes back much longer than just the last two years.  Let's start with the Patriot Act and the 2007 Warner Defense Bill over turning Posse Commitatis which the Supreme Court over turned a year later.  Taking over the banking, mortgage, student loans, auto and many other industries is complete anathema to our manner of government for the last two hundred years.

I live most of the time in CA and let's not even get going on the regulations and taxation with those regulations.  Yet, with all of these laws and regulations, are we a more civil and safe society?  I think not, that comes from the personal responsibilities of individuals, a concept that has made this nation a great and unique nation that we are rapidly losing.  But for sake of argument, let's just look at 60% of the economy now under government control as an issue of great concern to many people.

[Hemodoc]

Wow. Just wow.


Wouldn't you think that before using the term "Blood Libel' in this context the person who writes Sarah Palin's stuff would have Googled the term?

Why,? the very fact the the liberal media and liberal pundits did make false accusations  and insinuations using the  blood of those involved with this tragedy.  Now the liberal media and liberal pundits want to make a stink over a term that labels them perfectly to what they tried to do.

By bringing it up she refudiates (the lamestream spell check doesn't think that's a word) her own argument that words have no responsibility for the actions they inspire. Jews rightly see blood libel as a problem because it can create an environment where everyone wants to kill the Jews. So I guess thanks for the example but I thought Palin was trying to make the opposite argument.

Can someone show me where the "Lamestream" media blamed Palin? I'm sure bloggers did, but the highest profile person to say there could be violence because of the cross hairs was Gifford months ago. Of course its an issue but it isn't a new issue, Giffords talked about it and was acting on in her role as a Representative leading up to the shooting. How hard is it to say I regret my choice of words? This thread posses a question and to large degree asking the question is what has set off those on the right. That's what is hard to understand - of course Palin's map was brought up in the context of the shooting. I mean of course! Yet Peter, the question itself has you angrier than I've ever known you to be - just the question. How is that explained?

CNN

That isn't really a link. What did they do ask the question?

I wasn't happy at all with the speech of Sarah Palin today.  She should have stopped her speech half way through and ended without bringing up any of her own personal difficulties with the entire incident and taken the high road.  It was not a time to defend or unfortunately as she did, stir up more controversy with a highly charged term.  No one will remember anything she said except those two words.  Unfortunately, to be an effective leader, you have to be able to deliver the statesman approach when the chips are down.  Quite simply, she didn't help herself at all today.  The great leaders of the past have always been able to pull off the right speech at the right time, even Nixon with his Checkers speech would have to be right up there on that list.  Palin simply didn't reduce the heat, she turned it up a notch.

[Bill Peckham]

Hemodoc, I am still unclear as to which liberties and freedoms the Tea Party movement is so frightened of losing.  I agree with you in that we are not as free as we think we are.  I can water my lawn in summer only on odd numbered days.  If there are three or more inches of snow, there are certain places I cannot park.  I cannot hang my laundry out to dry.  My husband couldn't buy me a cold remedy without showing a photo ID.  You can't drink alcohol until you are 21, but you can buy a gun.  I can't sunbathe nude.  My stepson can't watch certain movies.  I have to use certain colored bins when I put out my recycling.  I have to have a prescription for each of the 10 meds I take.  I couldn't see a renal dietician until my nephrologist referred me.  When I put out my garden refuse, it has to be stacked in a certain way.  I have to have a license to drive.  I have to take a test to get a license.  I have to get my car inspected. 

I am not sure I understand the Tea Party's antipathy toward government.  How do you define "big government"?  By the size of the budget?  The debt?  If we do not like the government we have, we can replace it.  We can vote people in and we can vote people out.  I don't know why government has to be labelled "the enemy" if we, as a democratic people, can vote in whomever we want and can make whatever laws we want.  What concerns me is not so much "big government" but, rather, "big corporations" which may help to create a bigger government than we want or need.  The reason I have to get a prescription from a doctor is not because Congress is interested in my med list but, rather, because this is what the big pharmaceutical companies lobbied for.  I am not convinced that "government" wants to be that involved in our lives because I am not sure that "government" cares that much about our lives in the first place.  If your definition of "big government" is government contorted by big corporate interests and by Wall Street's desire for unfettered control of American monetary policy, then I'm right there with you.

Many of those restrictions you rightly list MM are local or like driving a car hard to credit a freedom based alternative (but once you give in to the man and get a license having a car is very freeing). If you wanted to you could live out in Wyoming and spend your days neckid and burning your trash out back but if you want live in a city then you and your neighbors can make the rules.

There are many ways we are more free than any other people in history - free to live from Nome to Key West, to communicate with anyone in the world at any time. We can't go to Cuba or N Korea but that doesn't really come up much in my day to  day but if it was up to me we would have changed our Cuba policy a long time ago but that isn't what the right is talking about either. So yeah, what freedoms are under threat from legislation passed in the last two years?

It goes back much longer than just the last two years.  Let's start with the Patriot Act and the 2007 Warner Defense Bill over turning Posse Commitatis which the Supreme Court over turned a year later.  Taking over the banking, mortgage, student loans, auto and many other industries is complete anathema to our manner of government for the last two hundred years.

I live most of the time in CA and let's not even get going on the regulations and taxation with those regulations.  Yet, with all of these laws and regulations, are we a more civil and safe society?  I think not, that comes from the personal responsibilities of individuals, a concept that has made this nation a great and unique nation that we are rapidly losing.  But for sake of argument, let's just look at 60% of the economy now under government control as an issue of great concern to many people.

Take over? Under government control?

Banking. We just had a financial meltdown that manifested under the laissez-faire approach constructed by Greenspan at the Fed and Republicans running all branches of government. Right? A 500 trillion -  trillion with a T - derivatives market made a lot of people a lot of money but it was a scam. An unregulated market turned a person's signiture into a mortgage baked securities. A criminal scam. Today, due to the legislation that made its way through Congress (it is important to make note that the President does not write the legislation he can choose to sign or not sign or veto. The legislation has to get 60 votes in the Senate thus it reflects in its details, its choices, the biases of swing senators - Lincoln, Nelson, Collins, Brown, et al) this scam had light shined on it and a hundred other ways the system failed have been addressed in a way that got the votes of Brown, Collins and Nelson. Is it really true to say the government has taken over banking? or the mortgage industry? To a degree that was unneeded? And hasn't the federal government always had a key role in regulating banking and mortgages?

What value were private banks bringing to student loan transactions? Why did we need to pay banks to serve as middlemen in transactions that are primarily conducted via computers. Computers have made many service providers obsolete - just ask travel agents.

The auto industry? In what way does the government control the auto industry? There is a company called GM, it still exists because of federal intervention but the old big three are not the industry and the government isn't "controlling" auto production at GM. GM's bailout saved an industry and thousands of jobs, Ford announced they're hiring 7,000 people this year. For putting up money we have a chance to get back, entire regions have avoided a local depression. In an era that has seen pallets of money, literal pallets of money, being shipped to the twin Asian land wars, that is money well spent. But a waste of money or smart investment, it can not be fairly described as the government controlling the auto industry.

I assume healthcare is part of the 60%. The feds finance over half the healthcare delivered in this country. The legislation only increased that in the sense that people who were relying on ERs now might be on Medicaid but that's good. No question Medicare has a lot of rules but isn't that good? What would dialysis look like if government took a laissez-faire approach? No thanks. I appreciate Medicare's influence on the provision of dialysis. I think Medicare's involvement in the provision of dialysis has been a positive. The absence of regulation would have been worse.

[Hemodoc]

Bill, I don't believe we will come to a meeting of the minds as far as politics.  We will just have to stick to dialysis related issues which we seem to have at least  99% agreement or maybe something of that sort.

By the way, Ford didn't take the government bailout.  Why isn't GM hiring 7000?

I wish you the best in all things Bill as always, but we just will have to agree to disagree on politics.

God bless,

Peter

[Bill Peckham]

Bill, I don't believe we will come to a meeting of the minds as far as politics.  We will just have to stick to dialysis related issues which we seem to have at least  99% agreement or maybe something of that sort.

By the way, Ford didn't take the government bailout.  Why isn't GM hiring 7000?

I wish you the best in all things Bill as always, but we just will have to agree to disagree on politics.

God bless,

Peter

I'm not asking you to agree with me I'm asking you in what way has the government taken over the auto industry? I'm asking you to explain the word choice. I gave my account of the specific industries you mentioned to say that by my account those words are not accurate. I think the tone of this thread has generally been very good. Why is this uncomfortable to talk about?

The part suppliers support all manufactures if GM went it would have impacted all three of the legacy manufactuers. GM announced they were hiring 1,000s as recently as last month, the year is young.

[Hemodoc]

Bill, I don't believe we will come to a meeting of the minds as far as politics.  We will just have to stick to dialysis related issues which we seem to have at least  99% agreement or maybe something of that sort.

By the way, Ford didn't take the government bailout.  Why isn't GM hiring 7000?

I wish you the best in all things Bill as always, but we just will have to agree to disagree on politics.

God bless,

Peter

I'm not asking you to agree with me I'm asking you in what way has the government taken over the auto industry? I'm asking you to explain the word choice. I gave my account of the specific industries you mentioned to say that by my account those words are not accurate. I think the tone of this thread has generally been very good. Why is this uncomfortable to talk about?

The part suppliers support all manufactures if GM went it would have impacted all three of the legacy manufactuers. GM announced they were hiring 1,000s as recently as last month, the year is young.

Bill, looking at the example oversees of government owned/controlled industries and the indebtedness as the result of a socialized government society should be fair warning to us in the US.  Many nations are now once again privatizing their industries and going away from a system that the US is embracing headlong.  I believe it is a failed philosophy of government.

I would further point out that many of the things that led to the housing meltdown occurred with Democrat support, especially that of Barney Frank and Senator Dodd. It was Roosevelt that gave us Fannie and Freddy in the first place, taken off the government budget by under Johnson, empowered in 1978 by Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act,  Clinton encouraging the sub prime mortgages in the early 1990s despite warnings from the Republican congress.  So to call this just a Republican issue underlies the decades it took to come together in the perfect storm it was and still is. It is a mess starting back with Roosevelt in the 1930's that we are reaping today.

Bad loans are simply bad loans and pushing them onto the banking industry that we have now just taken over smacks of government tyranny to me.  The banks were forced into bad loans under threat of civil rights litigation, and now the government controls them anyway.  The fact that it was across multiple administrations D or R does not mitigate the impact that this imparts and loss of respect and trust in these government entities.  It was the government regulations that brought this about.  The Sarbanes/Oxley act led to perverted stock market assessments that contributed greatly to this crises by speculators driving the stock market down with the mark to market accounting rules that still have not been suspended.

So I ask, what part of government is it that I should trust?  Much of this entire mess is a manufactured crises  by our banking, accounting and stock market regulations that has now led to the government taking over private industry to save us from financial doom.  What part of that equation should I be pleased with?  I would go back even further to the Federal reserve banking act of 1913 placing private bank in control of our entire economy.

Most people do not understand that America does not own the Fed and that it is not a government institution.  I had one of my patients that worked at the LA Fed and she couldn't recall why she is not covered as Federal employee for benefits.  I had to explain to a person that worked at the Fed that she was not working for the Federal Government, but instead for a private bank that tells our government what to do.   You mentioned Greenspan, I would point out that he remained through both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations.  It is not a simply or situation at all. Both parties are complicit with these regulations and oversight going all the way back to Roosevelt.

[Bill Peckham]

Wow. Just wow.


Wouldn't you think that before using the term "Blood Libel' in this context the person who writes Sarah Palin's stuff would have Googled the term?

Why,? the very fact the the liberal media and liberal pundits did make false accusations  and insinuations using the  blood of those involved with this tragedy.  Now the liberal media and liberal pundits want to make a stink over a term that labels them perfectly to what they tried to do.

By bringing it up she refudiates (the lamestream spell check doesn't think that's a word) her own argument that words have no responsibility for the actions they inspire. Jews rightly see blood libel as a problem because it can create an environment where everyone wants to kill the Jews. So I guess thanks for the example but I thought Palin was trying to make the opposite argument.

Can someone show me where the "Lamestream" media blamed Palin? I'm sure bloggers did, but the highest profile person to say there could be violence because of the cross hairs was Gifford months ago. Of course its an issue but it isn't a new issue, Giffords talked about it and was acting on in her role as a Representative leading up to the shooting. How hard is it to say I regret my choice of words? This thread posses a question and to large degree asking the question is what has set off those on the right. That's what is hard to understand - of course Palin's map was brought up in the context of the shooting. I mean of course! Yet Peter, the question itself has you angrier than I've ever known you to be - just the question. How is that explained?

CNN

That isn't really a link. What did they do ask the question?

I wasn't happy at all with the speech of Sarah Palin today.  She should have stopped her speech half way through and ended without bringing up any of her own personal difficulties with the entire incident and taken the high road.  It was not a time to defend or unfortunately as she did, stir up more controversy with a highly charged term.  No one will remember anything she said except those two words.  Unfortunately, to be an effective leader, you have to be able to deliver the statesman approach when the chips are down.  Quite simply, she didn't help herself at all today.  The great leaders of the past have always been able to pull off the right speech at the right time, even Nixon with his Checkers speech would have to be right up there on that list.  Palin simply didn't reduce the heat, she turned it up a notch.

I think an important part of her speech (why give it today in the first place?) that I haven't heard comment about and is relevant tothis discussion, was at the 4:15 mark when she lauds our founder's genus for "devising a system that allows us to settle disagreements in civil ways". I don't think she was trying to be funny, I think many people on the right do not view the constitution in light of the Civil War but I think you have to. I think you have to view the work the founders did as leading inexorably to a civil war or disunion. As with the rest of this thread you can't say Madison caused 600,000 deaths between 1861 and 1865 but the Constitution, as it was constructed, was flawed.


The men who wrote the Constitution were flawed men that left future generations a far greater debt to pay than anything that has been created in this century. The document's genus is that it allows people to govern ourselves. Govern ourselves. We need to govern ourselves and that is exactly what happened during the 111th Congress.

Bill, I don't believe we will come to a meeting of the minds as far as politics.  We will just have to stick to dialysis related issues which we seem to have at least  99% agreement or maybe something of that sort.

By the way, Ford didn't take the government bailout.  Why isn't GM hiring 7000?

I wish you the best in all things Bill as always, but we just will have to agree to disagree on politics.

God bless,

Peter

I'm not asking you to agree with me I'm asking you in what way has the government taken over the auto industry? I'm asking you to explain the word choice. I gave my account of the specific industries you mentioned to say that by my account those words are not accurate. I think the tone of this thread has generally been very good. Why is this uncomfortable to talk about?

The part suppliers support all manufactures if GM went it would have impacted all three of the legacy manufactuers. GM announced they were hiring 1,000s as recently as last month, the year is young.

Bill, looking at the example oversees of government owned/controlled industries and the indebtedness as the result of a socialized government society should be fair warning to us in the US.  Many nations are now once again privatizing their industries and going away from a system that the US is embracing headlong.  I believe it is a failed philosophy of government.

I would further point out that many of the things that led to the housing meltdown occurred with Democrat support, especially that of Barney Frank and Senator Dodd. It was Roosevelt that gave us Fannie and Freddy in the first place, taken off the government budget by under Johnson, empowered in 1978 by Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act,  Clinton encouraging the sub prime mortgages in the early 1990s despite warnings from the Republican congress.  So to call this just a Republican issue underlies the decades it took to come together in the perfect storm it was and still is. It is a mess starting back with Roosevelt in the 1930's that we are reaping today.

Bad loans are simply bad loans and pushing them onto the banking industry that we have now just taken over smacks of government tyranny to me.  The banks were forced into bad loans under threat of civil rights litigation, and now the government controls them anyway.  The fact that it was across multiple administrations D or R does not mitigate the impact that this imparts and loss of respect and trust in these government entities.  It was the government regulations that brought this about.  The Sarbanes/Oxley act led to perverted stock market assessments that contributed greatly to this crises by speculators driving the stock market down with the mark to market accounting rules that still have not been suspended.

So I ask, what part of government is it that I should trust?  Much of this entire mess is a manufactured crises  by our banking, accounting and stock market regulations that has now led to the government taking over private industry to save us from financial doom.  What part of that equation should I be pleased with?  I would go back even further to the Federal reserve banking act of 1913 placing private bank in control of our entire economy.

Most people do not understand that America does not own the Fed and that it is not a government institution.  I had one of my patients that worked at the LA Fed and she couldn't recall why she is not covered as Federal employee for benefits.  I had to explain to a person that worked at the Fed that she was not working for the Federal Government, but instead for a private bank that tells our government what to do.   You mentioned Greenspan, I would point out that he remained through both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations.  It is not a simply or situation at all. Both parties are complicit with these regulations and oversight going all the way back to Roosevelt.

It was under Madison that the First National Bank didn't have its charter renewed (thanks Wikipedia) but the subsequent National Banks were created because their absence was worse. The 1913 act was a response to the devastating bank panics that plagued the US for decades. Panics are very costly, one of the great assets of this country in the post WWII period of the 20th century was our well regulated finance sector but if we want that asset back we'll need to reearn it.


What is the alternative National Bank model - the US Federal Reserve is private/public blend but the part that sets policy is on the public side. Ben Bernake is a federal employee.


Edited to add: You haven't addressed where the evidence of this take over can be seen, saying our current condition is socialistic, if true, does justify using the term but in what way is the federal government controlling the means of production? What decisions has the government forced on GM? What freedom would you have today if the 111th Congress had passed no legislative changes?

And the finance system didn't crash based on the transaction of an individual getting a mortgage. The system crashed because that turd of a mortgage was then used in the expanded derivatives market - you can see it happen in 2002 - for bets to be made. I could bet the turd was a golden nugget and you could bet it was a turd and then others could bet on our bets and that mortgage has now multiplied into a giant nest on bets - those bets were called derivatives and that multiplier effect is why Iceland is broke, there is no Bear Sterns, Lehman, etc and why the federal government owns AIG or whatever it is called. We could have handles millions of forclosures if there wasn't a derivatives market based on them.

[MooseMom]

Bill, looking at the example oversees of government owned/controlled industries and the indebtedness as the result of a socialized government society should be fair warning to us in the US.  Many nations are now once again privatizing their industries and going away from a system that the US is embracing headlong.  I believe it is a failed philosophy of government.

I don't think this is true.  The UK embarked on privatization of major industries back when Thatcher was Prime Minister.  It was revolutary at the time.  Surely you remember the unrest, particularly surrounding coal.  The privatization of British Rail was cataclysmic and ultimately completely ineffective.  The only thing "socialized" is the National Health Service which the British consider to be sacrosanct.  That said, many people in Britain also have private medical insurance.  When I lived there, I had private medical insurance (BUPA) through my employer.  The idea was to go private for acute maladies and NHS for chronic conditions.  British Airways is a private company unlike what most people here think.

The collapse of the Irish economy was due to the same real estate disaster we saw here in the US.

I am not entirely sure what Americans mean when they talk about "socialized government."   Could someone define that for me?  Thanks.

[Hemodoc]

Wow. Just wow.


Wouldn't you think that before using the term "Blood Libel' in this context the person who writes Sarah Palin's stuff would have Googled the term?

Why,? the very fact the the liberal media and liberal pundits did make false accusations  and insinuations using the  blood of those involved with this tragedy.  Now the liberal media and liberal pundits want to make a stink over a term that labels them perfectly to what they tried to do.

By bringing it up she refudiates (the lamestream spell check doesn't think that's a word) her own argument that words have no responsibility for the actions they inspire. Jews rightly see blood libel as a problem because it can create an environment where everyone wants to kill the Jews. So I guess thanks for the example but I thought Palin was trying to make the opposite argument.

Can someone show me where the "Lamestream" media blamed Palin? I'm sure bloggers did, but the highest profile person to say there could be violence because of the cross hairs was Gifford months ago. Of course its an issue but it isn't a new issue, Giffords talked about it and was acting on in her role as a Representative leading up to the shooting. How hard is it to say I regret my choice of words? This thread posses a question and to large degree asking the question is what has set off those on the right. That's what is hard to understand - of course Palin's map was brought up in the context of the shooting. I mean of course! Yet Peter, the question itself has you angrier than I've ever known you to be - just the question. How is that explained?

CNN

That isn't really a link. What did they do ask the question?

I wasn't happy at all with the speech of Sarah Palin today.  She should have stopped her speech half way through and ended without bringing up any of her own personal difficulties with the entire incident and taken the high road.  It was not a time to defend or unfortunately as she did, stir up more controversy with a highly charged term.  No one will remember anything she said except those two words.  Unfortunately, to be an effective leader, you have to be able to deliver the statesman approach when the chips are down.  Quite simply, she didn't help herself at all today.  The great leaders of the past have always been able to pull off the right speech at the right time, even Nixon with his Checkers speech would have to be right up there on that list.  Palin simply didn't reduce the heat, she turned it up a notch.

I think an important part of her speech (why give it today in the first place?) that I haven't heard comment about and is relevant tothis discussion, was at the 4:15 mark when she lauds our founder's genus for "devising a system that allows us to settle disagreements in civil ways". I don't think she was trying to be funny, I think many people on the right do not view the constitution in light of the Civil War but I think you have to. I think you have to view the work the founders did as leading inexorably to a civil war or disunion. As with the rest of this thread you can't say Madison caused 600,000 deaths between 1861 and 1865 but the Constitution, as it was constructed, was flawed.


The men who wrote the Constitution were flawed men that left future generations a far greater debt to pay than anything that has been created in this century. The document's genus is that it allows people to govern ourselves. Govern ourselves. We need to govern ourselves and that is exactly what happened during the 111th Congress.

Bill, I don't believe we will come to a meeting of the minds as far as politics.  We will just have to stick to dialysis related issues which we seem to have at least  99% agreement or maybe something of that sort.

By the way, Ford didn't take the government bailout.  Why isn't GM hiring 7000?

I wish you the best in all things Bill as always, but we just will have to agree to disagree on politics.

God bless,

Peter

I'm not asking you to agree with me I'm asking you in what way has the government taken over the auto industry? I'm asking you to explain the word choice. I gave my account of the specific industries you mentioned to say that by my account those words are not accurate. I think the tone of this thread has generally been very good. Why is this uncomfortable to talk about?

The part suppliers support all manufactures if GM went it would have impacted all three of the legacy manufactuers. GM announced they were hiring 1,000s as recently as last month, the year is young.

Bill, looking at the example oversees of government owned/controlled industries and the indebtedness as the result of a socialized government society should be fair warning to us in the US.  Many nations are now once again privatizing their industries and going away from a system that the US is embracing headlong.  I believe it is a failed philosophy of government.

I would further point out that many of the things that led to the housing meltdown occurred with Democrat support, especially that of Barney Frank and Senator Dodd. It was Roosevelt that gave us Fannie and Freddy in the first place, taken off the government budget by under Johnson, empowered in 1978 by Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act,  Clinton encouraging the sub prime mortgages in the early 1990s despite warnings from the Republican congress.  So to call this just a Republican issue underlies the decades it took to come together in the perfect storm it was and still is. It is a mess starting back with Roosevelt in the 1930's that we are reaping today.

Bad loans are simply bad loans and pushing them onto the banking industry that we have now just taken over smacks of government tyranny to me.  The banks were forced into bad loans under threat of civil rights litigation, and now the government controls them anyway.  The fact that it was across multiple administrations D or R does not mitigate the impact that this imparts and loss of respect and trust in these government entities.  It was the government regulations that brought this about.  The Sarbanes/Oxley act led to perverted stock market assessments that contributed greatly to this crises by speculators driving the stock market down with the mark to market accounting rules that still have not been suspended.

So I ask, what part of government is it that I should trust?  Much of this entire mess is a manufactured crises  by our banking, accounting and stock market regulations that has now led to the government taking over private industry to save us from financial doom.  What part of that equation should I be pleased with?  I would go back even further to the Federal reserve banking act of 1913 placing private bank in control of our entire economy.

Most people do not understand that America does not own the Fed and that it is not a government institution.  I had one of my patients that worked at the LA Fed and she couldn't recall why she is not covered as Federal employee for benefits.  I had to explain to a person that worked at the Fed that she was not working for the Federal Government, but instead for a private bank that tells our government what to do.   You mentioned Greenspan, I would point out that he remained through both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations.  It is not a simply or situation at all. Both parties are complicit with these regulations and oversight going all the way back to Roosevelt.

It was under Madison that the First National Bank didn't have its charter renewed (thanks Wikipedia) but the subsequent National Banks were created because their absence was worse. The 1913 act was a response to the devastating bank panics that plagued the US for decades. Panics are very costly, one of the great assets of this country in the post WWII period of the 20th century was our well regulated finance sector but if we want that asset back we'll need to reearn it.


What is the alternative National Bank model - the US Federal Reserve is private/public blend but the part that sets policy is on the public side. Ben Bernake is a federal employee.


Edited to add: You haven't addressed where the evidence of this take over can be seen, saying our current condition is socialistic does justify using the term. In what way is the federal government controlling the mens of production? What decisions has the government forced on GM? What freedom would you have today if the 111th Congress had passed no legislative changes?


And the finance system didn't crash based on the transaction of an individual getting a mortgage. The system crashed because that turd of a mortgage was then used in the expanded derivatives market - you can see it happen in 2002 - for bets to be made. I could bet the turd was a golden nugget and you could bet it was a turd and then others could bet on our bets and that mortgage has now multiplied into a giant nest on bets - those bets were called derivatives and that multiplier effect is why Iceland is broke, there is no Bear Sterns, Lehman, etc and why the federal government owns AIG or whatever it is called. We could have handles millions of forclosures if there wasn't a derivatives market based on them.

Bill, you are missing a bit of history that actually is quite relevant to the discussion at hand, that of Andrew Jackson who got rid of the National Bank which did not emerge again until 1913 under Wilson who also gave us the income tax as well, thank you very much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War

BTW, the 112th congress is set to start reversing much of what the 111th congress did to America that the majority didn't appreciate in the last election.

In the November 2, 2010 elections, the Republicans gained the majority in the House of Representatives, while the Democrats kept their Senate majority, although reduced from the previous Congress.[2] This is the first Congress in which the House and Senate have opposing majorities since the 107th Congress of 2001-2003 and the first elected that way since the 99th Congress of 1985-1987. In this Congress, the House of Representatives has the largest number of Republican members, 242, since the 80th Congress of 1947-1949.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress

Not trying to be argumentative Bill, well I guess I don't have to try to be, but Americans in general cherish independence and self reliance as a virtue.  Most of us just want the opportunity to get up in the morning and seek our own employment and provide for our own families.  Most of us unless are not looking to the government to solve our problems that we just wish to solve for ourselves without undo government interference.

We are straying quite a ways from the original post, but I didn't think that Palin helped herself today and came off sounding angry, a quick lose, lose situation for any politician who must rise above all circumstances.  The blood libel phrase is all that will be remembered today.  I didn't see Obama's speech, but from what I heard, he turned up as a statesman.  If that is true, he trumped Palin and that is what we would expect of a national leader to do in the situation.  He is after all the president for all people in this nation, not just those that like him.  Nevertheless, I don't think I will be voting for him in 2012.

[Bill Peckham]

Bill, you are missing a bit of history that actually is quite relevant to the discussion at hand, that of Andrew Jackson who got rid of the National Bank which did not emerge again until 1913 under Wilson who also gave us the income tax as well, thank you very much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War

BTW, the 112th congress is set to start reversing much of what the 111th congress did to America that the majority didn't appreciate in the last election.

In the November 2, 2010 elections, the Republicans gained the majority in the House of Representatives, while the Democrats kept their Senate majority, although reduced from the previous Congress.[2] This is the first Congress in which the House and Senate have opposing majorities since the 107th Congress of 2001-2003 and the first elected that way since the 99th Congress of 1985-1987. In this Congress, the House of Representatives has the largest number of Republican members, 242, since the 80th Congress of 1947-1949.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress

Not trying to be argumentative Bill, well I guess I don't have to try to be, but Americans in general cherish independence and self reliance as a virtue.  Most of us just want the opportunity to get up in the morning and seek our own employment and provide for our own families.  Most of us unless are not looking to the government to solve our problems that we just wish to solve for ourselves without undo government interference.

We are straying quite a ways from the original post, but I didn't think that Palin helped herself today and came off sounding angry, a quick lose, lose situation for any politician who must rise above all circumstances.  The blood libel phrase is all that will be remembered today.  I didn't see Obama's speech, but from what I heard, he turned up as a statesman.  If that is true, he trumped Palin and that is what we would expect of a national leader to do in the situation.  He is after all the president for all people in this nation, not just those that like him.  Nevertheless, I don't think I will be voting for him in 2012.

There are a number of National Bank iterations but Wikipedia says Jackson Kiboshed the Second, Madison the First which was constituted in 1791. All this history is interesting but you can't seem to give an example of evidence that what you say is going on is going on ... so where's the beef?


Really the 112th Congress? Why would anything get passed by 60 Senators that repealed anything let alone get signed by the President. I think I gave a realist view of the importance of the 58th through 62 Senator, you're telling me the 112th is going to repeal something passed last session ... how?


Edited to add: And don't you think the Founders left future generations a huge debt to pay?

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, what do you see as the things that the 112th congress will reverse?  Which things did not most Americans appreciate?
I know the Republicans will work first on repealing the healthcare reform bill.  Are there any elements of it that you see should be kept?  What will the Republicans want to replace it with?

You are right..most of us just want to be left alone to provide for our families and live our lives without interference from either government or big corporate influences on our government.  I don't see what is peculiarly "conservative" about that.  The role of the government has always been a topic for debate, but I do wonder if now their main purpose is to regulate big business so that consumers are treated fairly and our country is protected against cavalier practices (like big oil companies ignoring drilling regulations.  Government shouldn't HAVE to regulate such things, but since companies seem to work with less and less care, our waters are fouled and unique cultures are being destroyed.)

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, what do you see as the things that the 112th congress will reverse?  Which things did not most Americans appreciate?
I know the Republicans will work first on repealing the healthcare reform bill.  Are there any elements of it that you see should be kept?  What will the Republicans want to replace it with?

You are right..most of us just want to be left alone to provide for our families and live our lives without interference from either government or big corporate influences on our government.  I don't see what is peculiarly "conservative" about that.  The role of the government has always been a topic for debate, but I do wonder if now their main purpose is to regulate big business so that consumers are treated fairly and our country is protected against cavalier practices (like big oil companies ignoring drilling regulations.  Government shouldn't HAVE to regulate such things, but since companies seem to work with less and less care, our waters are fouled and unique cultures are being destroyed.)

That is covered under anti-trust legislation for over a hundred years ago that the dialysis industry is almost completely exempted.

[Hemodoc]

Bill, you are missing a bit of history that actually is quite relevant to the discussion at hand, that of Andrew Jackson who got rid of the National Bank which did not emerge again until 1913 under Wilson who also gave us the income tax as well, thank you very much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War

BTW, the 112th congress is set to start reversing much of what the 111th congress did to America that the majority didn't appreciate in the last election.

In the November 2, 2010 elections, the Republicans gained the majority in the House of Representatives, while the Democrats kept their Senate majority, although reduced from the previous Congress.[2] This is the first Congress in which the House and Senate have opposing majorities since the 107th Congress of 2001-2003 and the first elected that way since the 99th Congress of 1985-1987. In this Congress, the House of Representatives has the largest number of Republican members, 242, since the 80th Congress of 1947-1949.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress

Not trying to be argumentative Bill, well I guess I don't have to try to be, but Americans in general cherish independence and self reliance as a virtue.  Most of us just want the opportunity to get up in the morning and seek our own employment and provide for our own families.  Most of us unless are not looking to the government to solve our problems that we just wish to solve for ourselves without undo government interference.

We are straying quite a ways from the original post, but I didn't think that Palin helped herself today and came off sounding angry, a quick lose, lose situation for any politician who must rise above all circumstances.  The blood libel phrase is all that will be remembered today.  I didn't see Obama's speech, but from what I heard, he turned up as a statesman.  If that is true, he trumped Palin and that is what we would expect of a national leader to do in the situation.  He is after all the president for all people in this nation, not just those that like him.  Nevertheless, I don't think I will be voting for him in 2012.

There are a number of National Bank iterations but Wikipedia says Jackson Kiboshed the Second, Madison the First which was constituted in 1791. All this history is interesting but you can't seem to give an example of evidence that what you say is going on is going on ... so where's the beef?


Really the 112th Congress? Why would anything get passed by 60 Senators that repealed anything let alone get signed by the President. I think I gave a realist view of the importance of the 58th through 62 Senator, you're telling me the 112th is going to repeal something passed last session ... how?


Edited to add: And don't you think the Founders left future generations a huge debt to pay?

Obviously the senate is not as strong for the democrats as it was during the last two years.  We will have to wait and see what is going to happen, but Obama will not be able to just do as he pleases for the last two years.

I am at a loss why you think that the founders left us a debt? Isn't it past our bed times?

[Hemodoc]

Bill, what about Illinois with a 66% increased state tax?

Maybe some one should tell Rich to turn the lights out after every one else leaves.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=238113&catid=3

[Bill Peckham]

I am at a loss why you think that the founders left us a debt? Isn't it past our bed times?

The Founder's slavery work around was not sustainable, the Founders weren't able to come to grips with the disconnect between their ideals and political reality so they left the question of slavery in the hands of the states but they knew it was going to be a problem and indeed it was - we had a civil war about it.


Palin and I think the right generally imagine the Constitution as a pristine unflawed document which I think is wrong. Palin's statement in the speech is wrong that the Founders gave us the tools to solve our problems peaceably - slavery could not be solved within the confines of the constitution, that's the debt. The Founders left future generations, their grandkids, to solve a problem they could not. The Civil War is a rather large event to gloss over.


This is where I part ways with calls to "go back to" the Constitution. I think we need to keep the Constitution we have, as amended. I am not interested in going back to before the 13th, 14th, 17th amendments.

[Bill Peckham]

Bill, what about Illinois with a 66% increased state tax?

Maybe some one should tell Rich to turn the lights out after every one else leaves.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=238113&catid=3

What about it? Paying two more percent of your income to the state would suck but at least you can walk along Chicago's beautiful waterfront to try and find some perspective. I doubt loosing use of two percent of a person's income is going to cause a mass migration to Indiana.

[paul.karen]

We should have NO increases in taxs.  We the people regular joes didnt spend the money we didnt have.  Instead of raising taxs on regualr people why not stop spending on things that arnt needed.  Cut costs stop spending.  But liberals want more spending and if it means raisning taxs well that sucks but so what take a walk along the waterfront??   Why cut spending when we can just raise taxs and life will go on.

How much is to much?  Shoudl the govt. take 40% of my check?   60%  80%?

[BigSky]

The Founder's slavery work around was not sustainable, the Founders weren't able to come to grips with the disconnect between their ideals and political reality so they left the question of slavery in the hands of the states but they knew it was going to be a problem and indeed it was - we had a civil war about it.


Palin and I think the right generally imagine the Constitution as a pristine unflawed document which I think is wrong. Palin's statement in the speech is wrong that the Founders gave us the tools to solve our problems peaceably - slavery could not be solved within the confines of the constitution, that's the debt. The Founders left future generations, their grandkids, to solve a problem they could not. The Civil War is a rather large event to gloss over.


This is where I part ways with calls to "go back to" the Constitution. I think we need to keep the Constitution we have, as amended. I am not interested in going back to before the 13th, 14th, 17th amendments.

The right views the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.  That changes are to be done with the tools left to make those changes, via amendments, not through ordinary laws.