Well, the IRS isn't popular for basically selfish reasons. Social security is popular because they give rather than take, but it's all part of the same system.
Health Care Bill Debate
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
"The government" - we - are already paying for it. The US taxpayer is already paying enough for high-end European level "socialized" medical care for the entire US population, through taxes already being levied to pay for medical care.madanth said:
On top of that, they are buying private medical insurance that in most cases - by "most cases" I mean a statistical majority of the privately insured - does not deliver that high a level of paid-for care.
It's the dumbest, flat out stupidest, situation reasonably imaginable. It's almost impossible to exaggerate the sheer folly of the setup.
Last edited:
Exactly, who said the government is going to pay for it?
I remember my dad's interaction with the IRS and our insurance companies. Never had a problem with the IRS and never didn't have a problem with the insurance company. Only part of our insurance that their is no problem with is medicare.
It's getting harder to take you seriously
This is one of those things, sir, that compels me to doubt your good faith.
A series of laughable fearmongering threads based on sketchy sources and unsupported claims.
What, exactly, do you object to? I mean, aside from the idea that people should be able to afford healthcare, or that Obama or any other Democrat is worth your decent consideration?
Think back to when you posted the Tax Club advert against healthcare. People would be penalized if they tried to go without healthcare. It was a tax burden spot, remember?
Nobody, sir, is surprised by the proposition that the IRS would have some role in health care reform.
Nobody.
Period.
The Washington Examiner is a newspaper with a heavily-conservative editorial page, is owned by Qwest co-founder Philip Anschutz (who also owns The Weekly Standard, and its political coverage used to be headed by Bill Sammon—formerly of the conservative Washington Times, author of several pro-Bush books, and acted as an administration shill, softballing the President at difficult moments in press conferences in order to take the heat off.
It's not a reputable newspaper, sir.
Given the Examiner's history and character, I would suggest that it might be incumbent upon you to show us what, in the legislation, validates your haughty rolling of the eyes:
Goddess grant! You mean the IRS is going to participate in the financial end of federal revenue and spending programs? The horror!
Oh, oh, oh. I know. We could create a whole new federal agency to oversee the whole program instead of dividing its parts between the relevant bureaucracies. Oh, right. Bigger government. Wait, wait, wait. I know. We could put the whole thing in the hands of a deliberately underfunded minor agency incapable of keeping up with demand. You know, like we did with the banks. That worked well.
Oh, right, right. Silly me. I forgot. The only acceptable outcome for you is to do nothing. After all, this is America, the land of the rich and the home of the privileged.
Keep coming out with these petty, ill-informed threads, sir. An opinion article from a news source well-known for its political biases just isn't a good starting point. Time after time you come up with these ignorant, nearly paranoid complaints and then try to beat your chest or roll your eyes, or otherwise show us all how wise and cool you are.
How about this? It would be really cool if you would show us the wisdom of giving us a break from this crap.
Or maybe I'm being too harsh. This behavior may be something that is beyond your control. And, you know, we liberals will always make some adjustments for and give some consideration to those difficult behaviors you just can't help.
Madanthonywayne said:
Wow. This will really cause Americans to embrace his plan. There's nothing Americans love more than the IRS.
This is one of those things, sir, that compels me to doubt your good faith.
A series of laughable fearmongering threads based on sketchy sources and unsupported claims.
What, exactly, do you object to? I mean, aside from the idea that people should be able to afford healthcare, or that Obama or any other Democrat is worth your decent consideration?
Think back to when you posted the Tax Club advert against healthcare. People would be penalized if they tried to go without healthcare. It was a tax burden spot, remember?
Nobody, sir, is surprised by the proposition that the IRS would have some role in health care reform.
Nobody.
Period.
The Washington Examiner is a newspaper with a heavily-conservative editorial page, is owned by Qwest co-founder Philip Anschutz (who also owns The Weekly Standard, and its political coverage used to be headed by Bill Sammon—formerly of the conservative Washington Times, author of several pro-Bush books, and acted as an administration shill, softballing the President at difficult moments in press conferences in order to take the heat off.
It's not a reputable newspaper, sir.
Given the Examiner's history and character, I would suggest that it might be incumbent upon you to show us what, in the legislation, validates your haughty rolling of the eyes:
Goddess grant! You mean the IRS is going to participate in the financial end of federal revenue and spending programs? The horror!
Oh, oh, oh. I know. We could create a whole new federal agency to oversee the whole program instead of dividing its parts between the relevant bureaucracies. Oh, right. Bigger government. Wait, wait, wait. I know. We could put the whole thing in the hands of a deliberately underfunded minor agency incapable of keeping up with demand. You know, like we did with the banks. That worked well.
Oh, right, right. Silly me. I forgot. The only acceptable outcome for you is to do nothing. After all, this is America, the land of the rich and the home of the privileged.
Keep coming out with these petty, ill-informed threads, sir. An opinion article from a news source well-known for its political biases just isn't a good starting point. Time after time you come up with these ignorant, nearly paranoid complaints and then try to beat your chest or roll your eyes, or otherwise show us all how wise and cool you are.
How about this? It would be really cool if you would show us the wisdom of giving us a break from this crap.
Or maybe I'm being too harsh. This behavior may be something that is beyond your control. And, you know, we liberals will always make some adjustments for and give some consideration to those difficult behaviors you just can't help.
Once you think about it, it's not surprising that the IRS would be involved in this kind of set up. But, nevertheless, when I saw the article, I was surprised.
How does the paper's reputation have any bearing on a story that you claim absolutely no one was surprised by?
How is this thread "ill informed" or ignorant? What facts are in dispute? I never said I was outraged by IRS involvement. I just said that it might not be the best PR move. I also thought it was an interesting story bringing to light some of the inner workings of the healthcare plan being discussed.
If you look at the title of the thread, you will notice that it is not supported by the OP content. There is nothing about the IRS "administering" any of the half dozen health care plans currently proposed (none of them by Obama btw). Neither is the OP link's actual argument content supported by the few and misrepresented facts it includes.madanth said:
This is the common state of affairs with every thread you have started having anything to do with the current Federal administration. Slow learner, or what is the problem?
The only visible "PR move" here is your spamming of this forum with yet more ridiculous wingnut agitprop. After the first five or six of these ravings were dispatched by some small application of sense and observation, why didn't you find yourself a more reliable and less embarrassing source of alarming information?madanth said:
The problem so far
Of course you were. I can only reiterate what I said earlier:
Now, I'm very much accustomed to people not paying attention to what I post, even when they want to tell me what's wrong with it. But you seem to be forgetting what you have posted.
We come back to good faith again, so I will ask the hard question: Are you really that naîve?
Now, what that means is that I don't think you're completely ignorant of a long tradition among your conservative fellows of complaining about "liberal media bias". Nor do I think you're unfamiliar with organizations like CNS, FOX News, and even the Washington Examiner, who deliberately skew their news to a conservative political causes in response to this "liberal media bias" they've never been able to demonstrate.
Or, perhaps, you really have missed all that.
The problem, of course, comes if we consider the primary alternative, e.g., that you are aware, and are just trying to bullshit people anyway.
See, even FOX has their moments of objective reporting. I once saw a couple minutes on FOX News in which they took us to the midwest to show us some farmers struggling to rescue threatened livestock in the middle of a flood. They did a fine job, and even showed themselves as market leaders for human interest in the domestic natural disaster sector. Post-Katrina, of course, but that's just nitpicking. The point is that even FOX has its moments in which its obvious biases don't show through. A paper like the Washington Examiner can have those moments, too.
But what you presented isn't an informative news article. It's an editorial. And you presented it to us, what, to crack a joke and roll your eyes about your chosen political foes?
Editorials do not report facts. They opine about facts. And as I would think someone as well-read as you should be aware, those articles don't always represent the facts according to one's understanding or expectations. Even if this point escapes you in daily life, it is a low-key, slowburn issue that gets discussed at Sciforums.
So what we have to do when reading opinion articles is understand the perspective they offer and attempt to comprehend and validate the assertions of fact upon which the advice or outlook is based.
Joe, for instance, pointed out that, "if you read the bill, most people will have no additional touchpoints with the IRS than what they have today". How much of the bill will he have to present and dissect in order to prove that inherent negative? And would you trust his interpretation of the bill?
The result of such issues is something that The Daily Show has been poking at for at least five years:
Just because two people offer conflicting assertions of reality doesn't mean that each is equally true or false. Is this a new concept to you? I don't think so.
So just because an opinion piece in a newspaper widely recognized for its conservative political bias alleges a fact about its chosen political foe does not make that allegation true.
Can you—
—show us where in the bill that the "healthcare reforms being debated right now envision a system largely administered by the IRS"?
It's not that York's article is not without legitimate points for consideration, but look at how it opens and closes:
I think one of the reasons certain concerns aren't being discussed—e.g., role of the IRS, information-sharing between agencies, &c.—is because of those very town hall protesters that want to waste everyone's time screaming about Hitler and showing off their guns.
So, let's think about the IRS "implementing and enforcing national health care".
From that very basic outline, we might project that the IRS will handle one of three major components in the health care outlook, which falls a bit short of they system being "largely administered by the IRS", or the "the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care".
One can certainly make the argument that aside from front-line medical care, the largest portion of this system in terms of labor and hours will be the IRS, or whatever bureaucracy handles the money issues. After all, the private insurers have a lot of overhead tied up in their own bureaucracies. Remember, also, that your private insurance premiums pay for various services from your provider, including the one where they task teams to find ways to deny you coverage when you need care. The $15,000 they might save by cutting you through recission is worth more than your life. But, hey, as long as you're fine with paying for that, go ahead. That's sort of the point.
The IRS bureaucracy won't be so focused on finding ways to screw you. Their job will be to enforce the law, not find ways to exploit it for profit.
Basically what we have here, then, is another myopic scare-job offered in lieu of anything more substantive.
The "facts" in dispute are the characterizations offered both by you and the Washington Examiner in its representation of the health care bills. And this is a pattern you've shown more and more apparently in the last year. I've always been dubious about your outlook—at one point last year, I found an old printout from one of our first discussions, and even then I found your characterizations of fact questionable—but lately you seem to have come a bit unhinged, as if the spectre of an Obama presidency has compelled you to throw your sanity to the wind and hope for the best.
In this context, to consider another of Joe's points, I was looking past the conflict of interest he suggests, but it is fairly apparent. In the wake of WE&P reforms that have seen a number of threads consolidated for overlap or duplication, you've continued to present focused, overlapping criticisms of health care reform in a number of individual topics. There was the Canadian health system thread, which overlooked the fact that the model we're developing looks more Swiss than anything else. Or the IHS thread, in which you preferred to ignore the fact of longstanding racism in the United States that has resulted in the abrogation of the vast majority of federal treaties struck with the tribes and, as it emerged during the Clinton administration, the theft, misappropriation, or mismanagement of over a half-trillion dollars; apparently, such factors have nothing to do with poor results at IHS—it can only be the fact of federal administration, and people's attitudes toward the injuns over th'years have nothin' t'do widdit.
Time and again, you bring us these agit-prop threads, and in each one of them is at least one glaring omission, oversight, distortion, or exaggeration at least. Which isn't necessarily problematic, as nobody is perfect. But the appeals to emotion, the rolled eyes, the stock criticism, are all so deeply invested in the problematic characterization. You're flinging fallacies all over the place
Remember the Kristol thread of mine someone folded into a larger health care thread? I don't object to it being merged, that's not my point. Rather, I was simply trying to make a point about what your propaganda threads are worth. There is considerable substance in the Kristol interview, just as there are issues York raises that are worth discussing. But when you aim for the cheap, histrionic score, you're doing yourself and everyone else a disservice.
My apologies if you think I'm being hard on you, but more subtle options have failed.
Think of it this way: If we had been having this conversation over a beer in a tavern, the response you might expect to one of these propaganda distortions is, "Fuck that." And soon enough, it will be here, too. Because this is bullshit, sir. I mean, it's all well and good enough if this is your personal focus, but you're only underscoring the issue. For people to respond to this sort of crap honestly violates the rules. That is, we've made so many concessions for the people who can't tell the difference that it would break the rules to call this kind of behavior—or its perpetrator—by its name.
_____________________
Notes:
Stewart, Jon and Rob Corddry. "Kerry Controversy". The Daily Show. Comedy Central, New York. August 23, 2004. TheDailyShow.com. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2004/kerry-controversy
Gitlin, Todd. "The NewsHour with Rob Corddry". Talking Points Memo Cafe. June 4, 2006. TPMCafe.TalkingPointsMemo.com. September 3, 2009. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2006/06/04/the_newshour_with_rob_corddry/
York, Byron. "Health care reform means more power for the IRS". Washington Examiner. September 2, 2009. WashingtonExaminer.com. September 3, 2009. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...rm-means-more-power-for-the-IRS-56781377.html
See Also:
National Institute of Standards and Technology. http://www.nist.gov/index.html
Madanthonywayne said:
Of course you were. I can only reiterate what I said earlier:
Think back to when you posted the Tax Club advert against healthcare. People would be penalized if they tried to go without healthcare. It was a tax burden spot, remember?
Nobody, sir, is surprised by the proposition that the IRS would have some role in health care reform.
Nobody, sir, is surprised by the proposition that the IRS would have some role in health care reform.
Now, I'm very much accustomed to people not paying attention to what I post, even when they want to tell me what's wrong with it. But you seem to be forgetting what you have posted.
We come back to good faith again, so I will ask the hard question: Are you really that naîve?
Now, what that means is that I don't think you're completely ignorant of a long tradition among your conservative fellows of complaining about "liberal media bias". Nor do I think you're unfamiliar with organizations like CNS, FOX News, and even the Washington Examiner, who deliberately skew their news to a conservative political causes in response to this "liberal media bias" they've never been able to demonstrate.
Or, perhaps, you really have missed all that.
The problem, of course, comes if we consider the primary alternative, e.g., that you are aware, and are just trying to bullshit people anyway.
See, even FOX has their moments of objective reporting. I once saw a couple minutes on FOX News in which they took us to the midwest to show us some farmers struggling to rescue threatened livestock in the middle of a flood. They did a fine job, and even showed themselves as market leaders for human interest in the domestic natural disaster sector. Post-Katrina, of course, but that's just nitpicking. The point is that even FOX has its moments in which its obvious biases don't show through. A paper like the Washington Examiner can have those moments, too.
But what you presented isn't an informative news article. It's an editorial. And you presented it to us, what, to crack a joke and roll your eyes about your chosen political foes?
Editorials do not report facts. They opine about facts. And as I would think someone as well-read as you should be aware, those articles don't always represent the facts according to one's understanding or expectations. Even if this point escapes you in daily life, it is a low-key, slowburn issue that gets discussed at Sciforums.
So what we have to do when reading opinion articles is understand the perspective they offer and attempt to comprehend and validate the assertions of fact upon which the advice or outlook is based.
Joe, for instance, pointed out that, "if you read the bill, most people will have no additional touchpoints with the IRS than what they have today". How much of the bill will he have to present and dissect in order to prove that inherent negative? And would you trust his interpretation of the bill?
The result of such issues is something that The Daily Show has been poking at for at least five years:
JON STEWART: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the US military, and haven't been disputed for 35 years?
ROB CORDDRY: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.
STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.
CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontrovertible fact is one side of the story.
(Transcript via Talking Points Memo)
ROB CORDDRY: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.
STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.
CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontrovertible fact is one side of the story.
(Transcript via Talking Points Memo)
Just because two people offer conflicting assertions of reality doesn't mean that each is equally true or false. Is this a new concept to you? I don't think so.
So just because an opinion piece in a newspaper widely recognized for its conservative political bias alleges a fact about its chosen political foe does not make that allegation true.
Can you—
—show us where in the bill that the "healthcare reforms being debated right now envision a system largely administered by the IRS"?
It's not that York's article is not without legitimate points for consideration, but look at how it opens and closes:
There's been a lot of discussion about the new and powerful federal agencies that would be created by the passage of a national health care bill. The Health Choices Administration, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, the Health Insurance Exchange — there are dozens in all.
But if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service ....
.... Finally, there is a third concern, more fundamental than questions of whether the IRS can handle the job: Should the IRS be involved in health care enforcement in the first place? As seen in the town halls across the country in August, many Americans are concerned about the coercive nature of the proposed national health care system. Handing the IRS the power to monitor every American's place in the system worries them even more.
Backers of the Democratic bills are betting that the handouts involved — giving people money to buy health insurance — will outweigh concerns about privacy and coercive government. Perhaps. But before Congress makes any decision on national health care, voters should know just what it will involve.
But if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service ....
.... Finally, there is a third concern, more fundamental than questions of whether the IRS can handle the job: Should the IRS be involved in health care enforcement in the first place? As seen in the town halls across the country in August, many Americans are concerned about the coercive nature of the proposed national health care system. Handing the IRS the power to monitor every American's place in the system worries them even more.
Backers of the Democratic bills are betting that the handouts involved — giving people money to buy health insurance — will outweigh concerns about privacy and coercive government. Perhaps. But before Congress makes any decision on national health care, voters should know just what it will involve.
I think one of the reasons certain concerns aren't being discussed—e.g., role of the IRS, information-sharing between agencies, &c.—is because of those very town hall protesters that want to waste everyone's time screaming about Hitler and showing off their guns.
So, let's think about the IRS "implementing and enforcing national health care".
• Medical care standards: A very important part of any health plan is its standards. At the federal level, this should probably fall under DHHS. Or, perhaps, we're going to build that into the new bureaucracy instead.
• Treatment care decisions: These should be made by doctors and patients, as I think we're all aware. But while conservatives worry about government bureaucrats interfering in those decisions, they seem to want to avoid discussion of the private bureaucracies in which treatment care decisions are made by accountants.
• Revenue and spending policies: Hmm. You know, I once heard about this area health inspector who went on to work for the USDA; a friend of mine was in line to replace her in the local inspection bureaucracy. People said she could walk into a facility and actually smell the damn E. coli. I have no idea what E. coli smells like, but what people are apparently referring to is that she could very quickly and accurately root out problems in kitchens, storage, service, and dining facilities. Presuming she's still with the USDA, why don't we put her in charge of the money end of this operation? What's that? Finance isn't her forte? Well, what does that matter? Oh, we should probably have someone who understands macro-scale economic devices and relationships handling that part? Ah. Good point. So who, exactly, is that? Maybe NIST? They're very good with standards. Perhaps some former CIA personnel? They're great with information. Well, okay, they're supposed to be. How far down the list before we come to the IRS and say, "Well, they do handle a lot of money, interpret insane policies as best they can, and handle, literally, hundreds of millions of accounts each year."
• Treatment care decisions: These should be made by doctors and patients, as I think we're all aware. But while conservatives worry about government bureaucrats interfering in those decisions, they seem to want to avoid discussion of the private bureaucracies in which treatment care decisions are made by accountants.
• Revenue and spending policies: Hmm. You know, I once heard about this area health inspector who went on to work for the USDA; a friend of mine was in line to replace her in the local inspection bureaucracy. People said she could walk into a facility and actually smell the damn E. coli. I have no idea what E. coli smells like, but what people are apparently referring to is that she could very quickly and accurately root out problems in kitchens, storage, service, and dining facilities. Presuming she's still with the USDA, why don't we put her in charge of the money end of this operation? What's that? Finance isn't her forte? Well, what does that matter? Oh, we should probably have someone who understands macro-scale economic devices and relationships handling that part? Ah. Good point. So who, exactly, is that? Maybe NIST? They're very good with standards. Perhaps some former CIA personnel? They're great with information. Well, okay, they're supposed to be. How far down the list before we come to the IRS and say, "Well, they do handle a lot of money, interpret insane policies as best they can, and handle, literally, hundreds of millions of accounts each year."
From that very basic outline, we might project that the IRS will handle one of three major components in the health care outlook, which falls a bit short of they system being "largely administered by the IRS", or the "the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care".
One can certainly make the argument that aside from front-line medical care, the largest portion of this system in terms of labor and hours will be the IRS, or whatever bureaucracy handles the money issues. After all, the private insurers have a lot of overhead tied up in their own bureaucracies. Remember, also, that your private insurance premiums pay for various services from your provider, including the one where they task teams to find ways to deny you coverage when you need care. The $15,000 they might save by cutting you through recission is worth more than your life. But, hey, as long as you're fine with paying for that, go ahead. That's sort of the point.
The IRS bureaucracy won't be so focused on finding ways to screw you. Their job will be to enforce the law, not find ways to exploit it for profit.
Basically what we have here, then, is another myopic scare-job offered in lieu of anything more substantive.
The "facts" in dispute are the characterizations offered both by you and the Washington Examiner in its representation of the health care bills. And this is a pattern you've shown more and more apparently in the last year. I've always been dubious about your outlook—at one point last year, I found an old printout from one of our first discussions, and even then I found your characterizations of fact questionable—but lately you seem to have come a bit unhinged, as if the spectre of an Obama presidency has compelled you to throw your sanity to the wind and hope for the best.
In this context, to consider another of Joe's points, I was looking past the conflict of interest he suggests, but it is fairly apparent. In the wake of WE&P reforms that have seen a number of threads consolidated for overlap or duplication, you've continued to present focused, overlapping criticisms of health care reform in a number of individual topics. There was the Canadian health system thread, which overlooked the fact that the model we're developing looks more Swiss than anything else. Or the IHS thread, in which you preferred to ignore the fact of longstanding racism in the United States that has resulted in the abrogation of the vast majority of federal treaties struck with the tribes and, as it emerged during the Clinton administration, the theft, misappropriation, or mismanagement of over a half-trillion dollars; apparently, such factors have nothing to do with poor results at IHS—it can only be the fact of federal administration, and people's attitudes toward the injuns over th'years have nothin' t'do widdit.
Time and again, you bring us these agit-prop threads, and in each one of them is at least one glaring omission, oversight, distortion, or exaggeration at least. Which isn't necessarily problematic, as nobody is perfect. But the appeals to emotion, the rolled eyes, the stock criticism, are all so deeply invested in the problematic characterization. You're flinging fallacies all over the place
Remember the Kristol thread of mine someone folded into a larger health care thread? I don't object to it being merged, that's not my point. Rather, I was simply trying to make a point about what your propaganda threads are worth. There is considerable substance in the Kristol interview, just as there are issues York raises that are worth discussing. But when you aim for the cheap, histrionic score, you're doing yourself and everyone else a disservice.
My apologies if you think I'm being hard on you, but more subtle options have failed.
Think of it this way: If we had been having this conversation over a beer in a tavern, the response you might expect to one of these propaganda distortions is, "Fuck that." And soon enough, it will be here, too. Because this is bullshit, sir. I mean, it's all well and good enough if this is your personal focus, but you're only underscoring the issue. For people to respond to this sort of crap honestly violates the rules. That is, we've made so many concessions for the people who can't tell the difference that it would break the rules to call this kind of behavior—or its perpetrator—by its name.
_____________________
Notes:
Stewart, Jon and Rob Corddry. "Kerry Controversy". The Daily Show. Comedy Central, New York. August 23, 2004. TheDailyShow.com. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2004/kerry-controversy
Gitlin, Todd. "The NewsHour with Rob Corddry". Talking Points Memo Cafe. June 4, 2006. TPMCafe.TalkingPointsMemo.com. September 3, 2009. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2006/06/04/the_newshour_with_rob_corddry/
York, Byron. "Health care reform means more power for the IRS". Washington Examiner. September 2, 2009. WashingtonExaminer.com. September 3, 2009. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...rm-means-more-power-for-the-IRS-56781377.html
See Also:
National Institute of Standards and Technology. http://www.nist.gov/index.html
Last edited:
Honestly, I've never heard of "CNS". I just checked it out and, of course, I'd be a bit suspicious of articles on the "conservative news service". The Washington Examiner? Don't know much about it. When it comes to newspapers, I'm familiar with all the ones from Chicago and various parts of Indiana (meaning familiar with their editorial policy and any apparant bias). On a national level, I'm familiar with the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA today.
I get most of my news from the Chicago Trib, NPR, my local AM radio station (WOWO), and the Wall Street Journal. On the internet, I'll often come across links to various news sources I'm not familiar with. The Washington Examiner being one such source. As I said, if I came across an article on "the conservative news service", I'd take it with a grain of salt. But the "Washington Examiner" raises no such obvious red flags. You might notice that I did cap off the thread title with a question mark, which indicated that I was uncertain about the accuracy of the story.
Damn. You're really pissed off about the emoticon. And people wonder why I rarely use them.
I certainly would not disagree. However, you and I seem to approach a discussion differently. If I come across an article that raises some interesting point, I see no problem with creating a thread on it and opening it up for discussion. If it turns out that the source is bad, the viewpoint presented is full of shit, or the whole story is made up, great. We've revealed the truth. You seem to expect that any post should be researched with multiple sources prior to posting and hold the poster personally responsible for any misrepresentations in said article as if we were the author and were defending it before a Phd commitee.
Perhaps. But I believe that the Obama adminstration simply tried to do too much too fast and has many in this country scared shitless. I see it every day. I get elderly patients coming in wanting to get their cataracts removed ASAP before Obama takes away their Medicare. I hear housewifes talking about pulling their kids out of school because they don't want them exposed to any indoctrination by Obama. Believe me, I certainly don't start such conversations or encourage them. I don't want to piss any patients off or get them all worked up. I end up having to defend Obama and assure them that he's not going to take away their medicare. Yet they keep complaining and worrying.
Obama has lost a lot of credibility with the public. We let him ram thru a near trillion dollar stimulus package that no one had read and yet the economy continues its decline. Not to mention TARP. We have deficits so high that people are debating whether the US government will default on the loans or allow hyperinflation. The wars in Afghanistan seems to be going badly. We still have a bunch of troops in Iraq.
In ahort, people are pissed. People are scared They elected this guy who promised the world and, guess what? He can't deliver. His honeymoon is over. The people, or at least many of them, no longer trust him to do whatever he wants. They want to know the details. They don't want some 1000 page law that no one has read passed in the middle of the night or over summer vacation.
As I said, when you stop and think about it, you can see why they'd use the IRS for a system such as this. But it was an implication I hadn't considered. You mentioned my earlier bitching about taxes going up to pay for the healthcare. Of course I was aware of that. But I hadn't considered that the IRS would also gain access to my medical data and get to decide if my coverage was adequate.
Healthcare is a major issue right now. When I come across some new article bringing to light some aspect of the topic that hasn't been discussed, I see no problem with starting a new thread on it. If the discussion soon degenerates into the same old crap, I'd then probably merge the thread with an existing one., or dispose of it some other way. I'd treat anyone else's threads the same way. Clearly there's some judgment involved there, and I appreciate any input if it appears I'm being biased or impartial in my merging or closing of threads.
I think a discussion of the healthcare system in other countries is a seperate discussion from a discussion of the politics of "ObamaCare". In fact, such a thread sounds like a good idea. One in which the various healthcare systems around the world could be discussed and the various advantages/disadvantages pointed out. If you know a lot about that issue, why don't you start a thread on it?
As to the IHS, the point was that in a government run system, assets are allocated politically. If you happen to belong to an unpopular or weak group (such as the Indians), you may be in trouble under such a system. Look at our public schools. Is funding for them spread equally? Do minorities do well under our system of publically funded schools?
Even the VA, despite veterans being one of the most popular groups in the country, suffers from underfunding and occasional scandals. I did an internship at a VA. We did the best we could, but the patients had extremely long waits and often were treated by doctors with little experience (such as myself, at the time).
The soft hands of innocence
I stand corrected. I had thought you cited them recently in one of your agit-prop threads, but I was wrong. You were just echoing another conservative interest group (to which CNS is peripherally related) as if they were reputable.
As a general rule of thumb, I think it's helpful to have some understanding of the sources we cite.
I call bullshit, as that uncertainty was certainly not reflected in the content of your actual post.
It's not the emoticon, sir. Then again, I'm accustomed to you missing the point this way.
The problem is that you go out of your way to post these thought-free, idiotic propaganda threads in which your outrage, quaking fear, or sarcastic criticism is heavily invested in misrepresentation.
An important difference is that I prefer an accurate source.
Yes, it's far easier to have other people point it out than figure it out yourself.
Oh, quit with the pathetic melodrama. All I expect is that posts and the members who post them have something resembling a clue about reality. I know, it's such a horrible burden to place on people who just want someplace to go where they can be completely full of shit without anyone being so rude as to point out the problem.
As I said before: Inaccuracy isn't necessarily problematic, as nobody is perfect.
But when it's time after time after time, over and over and over and over again? Eventually people are going to come to understand that you're not making innocent mistakes.
The Obama administration moved too fast? If you check the conventional wisdom right now—and, yes, I know it's dangerous to trust CW—Obama hasn't done nearly enough in the health care argument. We're not even to "Obamacare" yet. This is still a Congressional disaster. But your focus on Obama is telling. I mean, you've been so busy making up shit you can't even fault him for the mistakes he's actually made.
Oh, yes. So let me get this straight. Some patient comes into your office all in a panic about something that isn't true, that they heard from someone who is trying desperately to stop Obama from doing anything as president, and it's Obama's fault.
And people wonder why I rarely trust Republicans.
Yes. I'm amused by that bit. So the work hard and stay in school message that was the societal standard of the Reagan years is now evil socialism.
Two things there. First, given your absolute hatred of Obama, as reflected in your thoroughly disgusting and inaccurate propaganda threads, that must be an ... uh ... "interesting" defense of the president.
Secondly, let's think of it this way. Say I happen to be in your neighborhood one day and meet you. Someone sees us talking and asks, "Do you know him?" And I say, "Yeah, that's Mad Anthony. He's a child molester." Now, perhaps you might have friends that will, in later days, defend your name and tell your neighbors you're not a child molester. And that's good. But here's the question: Is it your fault that people believe lies about you?
Tell me, sir, how is it Obama's fault that some customer of yours believes a half-wit liar screaming at a town hall or over FOX News?
I mean, you tell us you defend Obama against misinformation. Yet you still hold Obama responsible for the problem?
Some liberals, actually, would agree with you. Obama should have given the Barney Frank treatment to the teabaggers from the get-go. Oh, right, but that would be undignified, wouldn't it? Just like responding to a half-wit, two-ton radio host gasbag stirring millions of vapid morons to frenzy was undignified.
Which may be the first time a president has ever lost credibility for doing nothing.
So, your proposition, then, was to let the economy collapse? Or, at best, to stutter, falter, lay off a bunch of workers, pick up again in a few years, hire a few people back, and then break again, so that we can do nothing, so the economy can either collapse or else stutter, falter, lay off a bunch of workers, pick up again in a few years, hire a few people back, and then break again, so that we can do nothing ....
We've been headed that way for years.
Yet we come back to the old joke: A Republican will tell you what is wrong with government. And then he will get elected and prove it. We're in this mess because of conservatives.
You guys want to be useful for once? Then try putting a sincere effort into health reform. Cost and civil liberties are two areas where conservatives could be very helpful. Or maybe you could put your lucrative brains to pulling some financial wizardry on behalf of the nation in order to make sure the bailout works. But, no. That's simply not an option for conservatives, is it? Because you're all keeping one eye on the scoreboard. It's more important to you what party letter comes after the name and the office, isn't it? Because this isn't about the society or the nation. This isn't about people. This is only about yourselves, about money and power, and the ability to dominate people—because as we see with conservative social policy, the only equality is supremacy.
There were some conservatives who voiced concerns about the costs of war and the proposed Social Security swindle. Man, that $800b loan from China to pour into the hands of investment wizards? Sounds like a great idea now, doesn't it? But it wasn't Republicans that killed that idea. They were helpful. But it was Democrats in a rare show of spine because their constituents weren't going to let them off the hook for that one.
Right now, the only remotely substantive debate on health care is taking place between Democratic Party factions. Republicans need to get in the game and make themselves useful instead of holding out in hopes of a 2010 election bonanza. (I mean, really. Just think for a minute about all the attack adverts you're writing for the Democrats.)
The war in Afghanistan is a problem. It's too bad the former president—the one who sent troops in—didn't put a sincere effort into it. Perhaps we could have made history and won there. Or, more realistically, maybe we wouldn't have made such a mess of it.
As to Iraq, you have a point. Back during the campaign, when Obama was pushing a timetable and John McCain was resisting the proposition, you were shouting at the television screen, weren't you, that neither of them would get out of Iraq fast enough.
To the other, we're seven months in. We have an endpoint in sight. And, yes, it's all Obama's fault that he's not Mickey freaking Mouse in Fantasia, and can't create a million brooms to clean everything up now.
Of course he can't deliver. But listen to yourself, man. What president ever did? We might as well say that Kennedy failed because he died before we got to the moon.
If people were pissed about something substantive and real, that would be one thing. But we've heard nothing but paranoid noise and bluster from our happy ignoramus faction since before the election. His honeymoon may be over, but that's only because he woke up with a mob trying to gang-rape his bride.
They never did.
We're seven months in. We're at the point that we're supposed to start getting the details.
And yet a lot of people were pissed at Congress for not having a bill before the summer recess.
You hadn't considered fraud control?
The same old crap? Well, I would wonder what the hell you expect when you post the same old crap.
But more to the point, there is the repetition and overlap. That's more what the concern is about. It has the appearance of squelching other discussions in order to run the ones you post, instead.
Let's try this as a simple dialogue:
What you're failing to account for, sir, is the difference between principle and practice. For instance—
—actually sounds like a decent and noble principle, one of many you claim from time to time. However, it isn't reflected in practice, is it?
Well, see, that's the thing. I recognize that other parts of your political platform would perpetuate racism in society, but if you eliminate or reduce that aspect of the corruption, it's one less thing to deal with.
Ah. And there we go. Because the schools and the Veterans' Administration I'll put at the feet of conservatives. Because that funding problem ties directly back to fiscal conservatism. I've heard decades' worth of stories about bad teachers and doctors, but one thing that sticks with me nearly twenty years later is a story I read about the schools in Baltimore in the '80s, in Life magazine, I think. I mean, they were hiring people without degrees, throwing them into short training sessions, and placing them in classrooms. Why on earth would anyone do this? Well, aside from not being able to afford real teachers.
There is a principle about arguing before the Supreme Court. If you have gained by something in certain ways, you can't argue against it. In this case, I would apply a similar notion to suggest that you guys dug this hole, so quit whining because we all fell in.
Democrats aren't nickel-and-dimers, except when they're trying to be "bipartisan".
Madanthonywayne said:
I stand corrected. I had thought you cited them recently in one of your agit-prop threads, but I was wrong. You were just echoing another conservative interest group (to which CNS is peripherally related) as if they were reputable.
As a general rule of thumb, I think it's helpful to have some understanding of the sources we cite.
I call bullshit, as that uncertainty was certainly not reflected in the content of your actual post.
It's not the emoticon, sir. Then again, I'm accustomed to you missing the point this way.
The problem is that you go out of your way to post these thought-free, idiotic propaganda threads in which your outrage, quaking fear, or sarcastic criticism is heavily invested in misrepresentation.
An important difference is that I prefer an accurate source.
Yes, it's far easier to have other people point it out than figure it out yourself.
Oh, quit with the pathetic melodrama. All I expect is that posts and the members who post them have something resembling a clue about reality. I know, it's such a horrible burden to place on people who just want someplace to go where they can be completely full of shit without anyone being so rude as to point out the problem.
As I said before: Inaccuracy isn't necessarily problematic, as nobody is perfect.
But when it's time after time after time, over and over and over and over again? Eventually people are going to come to understand that you're not making innocent mistakes.
The Obama administration moved too fast? If you check the conventional wisdom right now—and, yes, I know it's dangerous to trust CW—Obama hasn't done nearly enough in the health care argument. We're not even to "Obamacare" yet. This is still a Congressional disaster. But your focus on Obama is telling. I mean, you've been so busy making up shit you can't even fault him for the mistakes he's actually made.
Oh, yes. So let me get this straight. Some patient comes into your office all in a panic about something that isn't true, that they heard from someone who is trying desperately to stop Obama from doing anything as president, and it's Obama's fault.
And people wonder why I rarely trust Republicans.
Yes. I'm amused by that bit. So the work hard and stay in school message that was the societal standard of the Reagan years is now evil socialism.
Two things there. First, given your absolute hatred of Obama, as reflected in your thoroughly disgusting and inaccurate propaganda threads, that must be an ... uh ... "interesting" defense of the president.
Secondly, let's think of it this way. Say I happen to be in your neighborhood one day and meet you. Someone sees us talking and asks, "Do you know him?" And I say, "Yeah, that's Mad Anthony. He's a child molester." Now, perhaps you might have friends that will, in later days, defend your name and tell your neighbors you're not a child molester. And that's good. But here's the question: Is it your fault that people believe lies about you?
Tell me, sir, how is it Obama's fault that some customer of yours believes a half-wit liar screaming at a town hall or over FOX News?
I mean, you tell us you defend Obama against misinformation. Yet you still hold Obama responsible for the problem?
Some liberals, actually, would agree with you. Obama should have given the Barney Frank treatment to the teabaggers from the get-go. Oh, right, but that would be undignified, wouldn't it? Just like responding to a half-wit, two-ton radio host gasbag stirring millions of vapid morons to frenzy was undignified.
Which may be the first time a president has ever lost credibility for doing nothing.
So, your proposition, then, was to let the economy collapse? Or, at best, to stutter, falter, lay off a bunch of workers, pick up again in a few years, hire a few people back, and then break again, so that we can do nothing, so the economy can either collapse or else stutter, falter, lay off a bunch of workers, pick up again in a few years, hire a few people back, and then break again, so that we can do nothing ....
We've been headed that way for years.
Yet we come back to the old joke: A Republican will tell you what is wrong with government. And then he will get elected and prove it. We're in this mess because of conservatives.
You guys want to be useful for once? Then try putting a sincere effort into health reform. Cost and civil liberties are two areas where conservatives could be very helpful. Or maybe you could put your lucrative brains to pulling some financial wizardry on behalf of the nation in order to make sure the bailout works. But, no. That's simply not an option for conservatives, is it? Because you're all keeping one eye on the scoreboard. It's more important to you what party letter comes after the name and the office, isn't it? Because this isn't about the society or the nation. This isn't about people. This is only about yourselves, about money and power, and the ability to dominate people—because as we see with conservative social policy, the only equality is supremacy.
There were some conservatives who voiced concerns about the costs of war and the proposed Social Security swindle. Man, that $800b loan from China to pour into the hands of investment wizards? Sounds like a great idea now, doesn't it? But it wasn't Republicans that killed that idea. They were helpful. But it was Democrats in a rare show of spine because their constituents weren't going to let them off the hook for that one.
Right now, the only remotely substantive debate on health care is taking place between Democratic Party factions. Republicans need to get in the game and make themselves useful instead of holding out in hopes of a 2010 election bonanza. (I mean, really. Just think for a minute about all the attack adverts you're writing for the Democrats.)
The war in Afghanistan is a problem. It's too bad the former president—the one who sent troops in—didn't put a sincere effort into it. Perhaps we could have made history and won there. Or, more realistically, maybe we wouldn't have made such a mess of it.
As to Iraq, you have a point. Back during the campaign, when Obama was pushing a timetable and John McCain was resisting the proposition, you were shouting at the television screen, weren't you, that neither of them would get out of Iraq fast enough.
To the other, we're seven months in. We have an endpoint in sight. And, yes, it's all Obama's fault that he's not Mickey freaking Mouse in Fantasia, and can't create a million brooms to clean everything up now.
Of course he can't deliver. But listen to yourself, man. What president ever did? We might as well say that Kennedy failed because he died before we got to the moon.
If people were pissed about something substantive and real, that would be one thing. But we've heard nothing but paranoid noise and bluster from our happy ignoramus faction since before the election. His honeymoon may be over, but that's only because he woke up with a mob trying to gang-rape his bride.
They never did.
We're seven months in. We're at the point that we're supposed to start getting the details.
And yet a lot of people were pissed at Congress for not having a bill before the summer recess.
You hadn't considered fraud control?
The same old crap? Well, I would wonder what the hell you expect when you post the same old crap.
But more to the point, there is the repetition and overlap. That's more what the concern is about. It has the appearance of squelching other discussions in order to run the ones you post, instead.
Let's try this as a simple dialogue:
MAW: The Canadian health system is imploding!
T: And?
MAW: It shows how government-run health care is a bad idea. It's why we shouldn't do it in the first place!
T: Good thing we're not building a Canadian model.
MAW: The IHS is a disaster!
T: And?
MAW: It shows how government-run healthcare is a bad idea. It's why we shouldn't do it in the first place.
T: True. Racism certainly didn't corrupt the government's administration of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The government could have stolen anyone's half-trillion dollars and nobody would have cared.
By the way, did you hear about Bill Kristol on The Daily Show claiming that American government-run health care is first-class?
MAW: (folds Kristol thread into other discussion after only a few posts)
T: And?
MAW: It shows how government-run health care is a bad idea. It's why we shouldn't do it in the first place!
T: Good thing we're not building a Canadian model.
MAW: The IHS is a disaster!
T: And?
MAW: It shows how government-run healthcare is a bad idea. It's why we shouldn't do it in the first place.
T: True. Racism certainly didn't corrupt the government's administration of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The government could have stolen anyone's half-trillion dollars and nobody would have cared.
By the way, did you hear about Bill Kristol on The Daily Show claiming that American government-run health care is first-class?
MAW: (folds Kristol thread into other discussion after only a few posts)
What you're failing to account for, sir, is the difference between principle and practice. For instance—
Healthcare is a major issue right now. When I come across some new article bringing to light some aspect of the topic that hasn't been discussed, I see no problem with starting a new thread on it ....
.... I think a discussion of the healthcare system in other countries is a seperate discussion from a discussion of the politics of "ObamaCare". In fact, such a thread sounds like a good idea.
.... I think a discussion of the healthcare system in other countries is a seperate discussion from a discussion of the politics of "ObamaCare". In fact, such a thread sounds like a good idea.
—actually sounds like a decent and noble principle, one of many you claim from time to time. However, it isn't reflected in practice, is it?
Well, see, that's the thing. I recognize that other parts of your political platform would perpetuate racism in society, but if you eliminate or reduce that aspect of the corruption, it's one less thing to deal with.
Ah. And there we go. Because the schools and the Veterans' Administration I'll put at the feet of conservatives. Because that funding problem ties directly back to fiscal conservatism. I've heard decades' worth of stories about bad teachers and doctors, but one thing that sticks with me nearly twenty years later is a story I read about the schools in Baltimore in the '80s, in Life magazine, I think. I mean, they were hiring people without degrees, throwing them into short training sessions, and placing them in classrooms. Why on earth would anyone do this? Well, aside from not being able to afford real teachers.
There is a principle about arguing before the Supreme Court. If you have gained by something in certain ways, you can't argue against it. In this case, I would apply a similar notion to suggest that you guys dug this hole, so quit whining because we all fell in.
Democrats aren't nickel-and-dimers, except when they're trying to be "bipartisan".
Who?madanth said:
Mostly people who listen to the kind of garbage you spam this forum with, complete with its dishonest titles and disreputable sources and clueless arguments. You can't blame Obama for people being clueless and frightened by wingnut fantasies that you help spread.
There are plenty of people who don't like Obama's approach to health care, who find this spineless embarrassment of Democrats (the Republicans are a lost ball) once again betraying their constituency angering and objectionable, who aren't scared. Why not? They reason and consider, think and remember. They have some idea of how we got here, and where we should go if we can. Try a little reality - it can be a comfort, or at least a foothold.
Minor points
Most of whom are liberals. Not that you're not aware of this; I just thought it worth noting specifically.
Well pointed, sir.
They're hoping people really are that stupid. Or, perhaps, they actually believe people are that stupid. Barnum, sir. Barnum.
Iceaura said:
Most of whom are liberals. Not that you're not aware of this; I just thought it worth noting specifically.
Well pointed, sir.
They're hoping people really are that stupid. Or, perhaps, they actually believe people are that stupid. Barnum, sir. Barnum.
Pardon my digression, but I couldn't help notice this.
And how, Mr. Tiassa, would you suggest the former president (don't confuse this with support or non support for a specific president) should put that sincere effort into it?
Startraveler
Registered Senior Member
I understand the impulse to avoid too much clutter with numerous threads about what is ostensibly one topic (however multifaceted) but isn't merging everything into a 30-page thread a little much?
To what are you referring to?
If this is true joe, then explain this statement found directly in the bill: Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation.
Source
Good, keep laughing, because you cannot honestly refute the truth. All you can do do is to continue what you have always done...continue to demonstrate that old Communist, Marxist truism.
"A lie told often enough becomes truth" Vladimir Lenin
Carry forward your Republicans totalitarian principals Commrade Buffalo Roam.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
joe are you in that much trouble, and getting your but whipped so badly in the debate by John T., that you have to jump back 499 post and try and change the focus, of the current debate, jesus what a loser.
Your only 499 post out of date, and such desperation, to have to go that far back for cover.
Yes, joe, you keep telling lies, a student of Lenin, or just another democrat quick study.
Run for cover joe, your six is exposed.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
This is not assertion, it is language and intent from the house passed bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:
Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation.
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.
Or how about this, talk about meaningless double government speak;
(3) TRANSITION FOR CHIP- In the case of a child described in section 202(d)(2), the Commissioner shall establish rules under which the family income of the child is deemed to be no greater than the family income of the child as most recently determined before Y1 by the State under title XXI of the Social Security Act.
Really people the Federals have broken every program they have ever implemented, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, they took the money and spent it on further schemes that are now broke, and what do we have in the Social Security Trust Fund? IOU's, promissory government bonds, that have no value because the treasury is broke, at a minimum $14+ Trillion dollars of national debt, forget about the fiction of deficits, it is still national debt, and the Nation is Broke, and the Federals in Washington broke it when they trashed the Constitution, and the Supreme Court didn't defend the Constitution Section 1, Article 8, and allowed the Federal Government to exceed the limits of it's Constitutional Authority.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:
Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation.
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.
Or how about this, talk about meaningless double government speak;
(3) TRANSITION FOR CHIP- In the case of a child described in section 202(d)(2), the Commissioner shall establish rules under which the family income of the child is deemed to be no greater than the family income of the child as most recently determined before Y1 by the State under title XXI of the Social Security Act.
Really people the Federals have broken every program they have ever implemented, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, they took the money and spent it on further schemes that are now broke, and what do we have in the Social Security Trust Fund? IOU's, promissory government bonds, that have no value because the treasury is broke, at a minimum $14+ Trillion dollars of national debt, forget about the fiction of deficits, it is still national debt, and the Nation is Broke, and the Federals in Washington broke it when they trashed the Constitution, and the Supreme Court didn't defend the Constitution Section 1, Article 8, and allowed the Federal Government to exceed the limits of it's Constitutional Authority.
I would have thought that obvious
We shouldn't have gone to Iraq.
The killed and wounded in Iraq—that is, the officially reported killed and wounded—is a greater number than the total U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan at the end of the former administration.
Tells us something about the former president's focus.
John T. Galt said:
We shouldn't have gone to Iraq.
The killed and wounded in Iraq—that is, the officially reported killed and wounded—is a greater number than the total U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan at the end of the former administration.
Tells us something about the former president's focus.