Jackson Free Press

And they're off. The Associated Press reports:

Sen. Barack Obama, bidding to become the nation's first black president, swept to victory in the Iowa caucuses Thursday night over Hillary Clinton and a high-powered Democratic field. Mike Huckabee rode a wave of support from evangelical Christians to win the opening round among Republicans in the 2008 campaign for the White House.

Previous Commentsshow

And all three of those choices are terrible....

LawClerk

Jan 3 2008

Yup. None of these are good choices.

Cliff Cargill

Jan 3 2008

Huckabee would not be a bad candidate if he wasn't a nanny stater thinking that it is the Government's job to help everyone. Didn't Dole win Iowa?

LawClerk

Jan 3 2008

Watching Obama right now... Sounds like he is going to take us further into Socialism than Hillary would. Healthcare for everyone! Punish companies that send jobs overseas! Jeez... I gotta crazy idea, why not make it more attractive to companies to keep jobs here? (Psst... raising minimum wages, mandating healthcare, etc.. are counterproductive)

LawClerk

Jan 3 2008

It just hit me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if Obama doesn't get the nomination in the end, he still made history by being the first black presidential candidate to win the Iowa caucus. That's quite an accomplishment. I bet Oprah's turning somersaults right now.

LatashaWillis

Jan 3 2008

Nice... Just spoke about this being "Freedom's Cause!" Well, nothing says freedom like the Government doing everything. Jeez. Hopefully he'll do the Dean Scream now!

LawClerk

Jan 3 2008

Biden and Dodd dropped out... Don't know much about Dodd, but I did get a chance to meet and speak to Biden, and he was pretty terrible too. Everything he said, he said with a smile and the nastiest passive aggressiveness that I've seen.

LawClerk

Jan 3 2008

Listening to Roland Martin on CNN - said this is the first time that Iowa has ever elected a black candidate to anything. Wow, had no idea. LC, you may have not liked Obama's speech, but at least he wasn't saying "Democrat" over and over again like Clinton. Like nails on a chalkboard. I'm an independent, and I DETEST partisan politics.

LatashaWillis

Jan 3 2008

I missed Clinton's... I'll have to catch it on the net. It doesn't surprise me that Obama won. Seriously, look at the candidates. You have Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. The other candidates are pretty bad. From those three, you have Clinton, who is further left than Hugo Chavez. Then you have Edwards, who pretends to be a "little" guy, but has a house that's about 5 times the size of any house you or I will own. Then you have Obama. He's NOT Clinton, or Edwards. And, add in the fact that it will be a *first* kinda thing, and that excites people... As far as message goes, is he *really* that different from Clinton? I'm not asking that rhetorically. I really don't know. Everything I hear from them on the debates is like they are reading from the same teleprompter. Please tell me I'm wrong!

LawClerk

Jan 3 2008

Obama & Huckabee won alot of votes during the speeches they gave tonight. I can't say that about any other candidate whose speech was on the news.

herman

Jan 3 2008

LC, there are some similarities between Obama and Clinton, but they don't agree on everything. Their views on universal healthcare and foreign policy are different, but I don't remember specifics right now.

LatashaWillis

Jan 3 2008

Hillary's also a bit more hawkish on war. She supported a resolution on taking military action against Iran if they were developing nuclear weapons. Now that recent intelligence reports said otherwise, that's another mess that she would've allowed for us to get into.

golden eagle

Jan 3 2008

LawClerk and LW Seriously, keep pushing every conservative point. Everything is socialism, Hugo Chavez.... Have you seen Hilary's record? She is a moderate/conservative democrat. As for Biden, Law Clerk, I am pretty sure you met him at the same crawfish boil that I did. He was not passive aggressive and as a matter a fact one of the Young Republican Lawyers from MC stated "Wow if he runs he could get some votes, he is pretty close to being my kind of conservative" and he was an OFFICER of the Young Republicans club of MC law. Biden advocated tort reform, lower taxes and less invasive government. Sound Left wing to you? Seriously. Get some perspective. Not everything is what talk radio tells you. I was hoping law school would teach some to read, interpret and think. This is no longer the case if LawClerk is a real attorney There is more to spitting out partisan "facts". At some point you should evaluate beliefs, look into the record, and make an informed decision. Again and hopefully base this on SOME rational belief. Hilary is FAR more moderate than the right wants to proclaim, and Huckabee, while courting Evangelical Christians is VERY liberal in fiscal policies

AGamm627

Jan 4 2008

I was thinking in Huckabee they were voting for the person most likely to irritate the mainstream media liberals for the next year or so... So far, I'm voting Cthulhu.

Ironghost

Jan 4 2008

So far, I'm voting Cthulhu. I hear he's got a great campaign slogan: "Why settle for a lesser evil?"

Jeff Lucas

Jan 4 2008

LawClerk and LW Seriously, keep pushing every conservative point. Everything is socialism, Hugo Chavez.... Who, me? I didn't. I thought you knew I was a centrist.

LatashaWillis

Jan 4 2008

Maybe Agamma is confused??? And, if it looks like socialism, I'm going to call it socialism. Law school does teach one to read and interpret, and if you *read* what Hillary wants to do, and interpret it the way she apparently wants us to, it's going to lead us hardcore into a socialistic society. If you choose to ignore this, it's ok. That's your prerogative.

LawClerk

Jan 4 2008

I gotta leave the office for a while, but will be back to take on all dissenters. I aver all three Democrats would make an excellent president. That socialism argument is dense beyond measure and explanation. Even the republicans running for president know it doesn't make any sense and aren't using it. Democrats don't expect to win the south. I know Obama can never win the south because he doesn't have the complexion for the protection or connection. If Canada, Europe and other so-called great and very civilized countries have universal health care, why are nuts here so opposed to it. Selfishness, self interest, hatred of the poor and less fortunate have to be the answers. Litter me while I'm away but I'll be back.

Ray Carter

Jan 4 2008

AGamm, I looked back at my comments to see what made you think I was conservative, and I think this part may have thrown you off: LC, you may have not liked Obama's speech, but at least he wasn't saying "Democrat" over and over again like Clinton. Like nails on a chalkboard. I'm an independent, and I DETEST partisan politics. Is that what did it? Clinton was my second choice for President because I felt she would look out for the average Joe, but I feel she is too focused on Democrats being in control. I wish the two-party system was dismantled. As far as healthcare is concerned, something needs to be done. When I had to leave a job for health reasons and started over by doing temp work, I had no health coverage. I was on medication, and I had to depend on samples in the doctor's office to get by. I didn't qualify for Medicaid because I wasn't pregnant and didn't have kids. I thought I would try to find a healthcare policy online, but the policies I could afford had $10,000 deductibles. I used to go to the ER when I got sick, but I stopped when someone told me abut the county clinic's sliding fee scale, and I started going there. I was thankful for them, but there were times when I felt like I was being looked down on by the staff because I didn't have insurance.

LatashaWillis

Jan 4 2008

No Ray. "Selfishness, self interest, hatred of the poor and less fortunate have to be the answers." Selfishness? What entitles someone else to the product of MY labor? Because you can't afford something automatically means I have to give it to you? Nice try, but no. Who hates the poor? Who is to blame for them being poor? Is it just their bad luck? Is it because they don't want to work? Is it because they have been fed instead of taught how to feed themselves? Listen to how Clinton, Obama, and Edwards speak of the businesses that employ people and actually do something for society. They spew venom towards them. I swear, I don't think they will be happy until we go to Government for everything. Why just stop at healthcare Ray? Why not lawyers for free! Why not cars and transportation for everyone? What about food? Hell, it's hard to afford gas nowadays. Free gas too. Don't worry that we can't pay for it. You're entitled. Go right ahead.

LawClerk

Jan 4 2008

"As for Biden, Law Clerk, I am pretty sure you met him at the same crawfish boil that I did. He was not passive aggressive and as a matter a fact one of the Young Republican Lawyers from MC stated "Wow if he runs he could get some votes, he is pretty close to being my kind of conservative" and he was an OFFICER of the Young Republicans club of MC law. Biden advocated tort reform, lower taxes and less invasive government. Sound Left wing to you?" Biden also advocated open borders, and gun bans. Sounds conservative to you? And just because some kid from the young republicans says he would get "some votes" you take that as the end-all be-all? Ha. And I'm the one that needs perspective!? You are too funny.

LawClerk

Jan 4 2008

Hey Law Clerk And I quote you........"Watching Obama right now... Sounds like he is going to take us further into Socialism than Hillary would. Healthcare for everyone! Punish companies that send jobs overseas! Jeez... I gotta crazy idea, why not make it more attractive to companies to keep jobs here? (Psst... raising minimum wages, mandating healthcare, etc.. are counterproductive)" You know Law Clerk, now that you've put it that way I agree that you're right. Why shouldn't we reward greedy capitalists, who by the way want ALL the money, with suspending those socialistic concepts of health care, a working wage, health and safety rules, wage and hour laws, etc. I agree with you and the republicans that the role of government is to make it possible for the fewest number people to control most, if not all, of the economic, social and politcal capital in our country, no not just the country, THE ENTIRE WORLD!. Hey, I'll say it...lets bring back slavery! No minimum wage, no health and safety laws, no health care....on second thought we might need a little health care so our worker/consumers will have the strength to well..work and consume. But health care is so expensive. HHHHmmmm...I've got it! bring back share cropping! You do remember how that works. The worker/consumers work for wages but you mandate that they purchase from your company stores all of the resources thay need to work, and you charge them exorbitant prices for their purchases and you charge even more exorbitant interest for credit. Better yet, you sell them things that they don't need, can't afford and on the good days you sell them things that don't even exist! Hey this is even better than having a license to steal! You do remember this system don't you? It's still around you know. Its name has changed over the years. Some of those earlier, post "Jim Crow Era" names were : the Savings and Loan Crisis, the Junk Bond Crisis, "The Enron vs California Energy Crisis", the "You've Bounced a $1.36 check ....$50.00 dollars please Crisis", The Secondary Market Home Mortgage Crisis" and that humdinger of them all, "The Iraq (we can't seem to find that plane load of cash we sent last week) War Crisis". Hey baby, a license to steal by any other name smells just as sweet ......especially when it's tax free! Down with Obama, Hillary, Edwards and all their kith, kin and ilk! This message brought to you by the corporate subsidy near you!

FrankMickens

Jan 4 2008

Casual Observer, you're brillant. I can't even add anything!

Ray Carter

Jan 4 2008

Universal healthcare is not simply a handout and calling it socialism is an oversimplification and a red herring. After all, the entire concept of insurance is something of a collectivist system, just one where someone is making profits and, in order to do so, a number of health needs go unmet. The problem with healthcare in general is that it's a cost-control business vs. a growth business. It's the same argument I make against privatizing ambulance service -- all you can do to increase profitability as a private ambulance company is raise rates on ratepayers (often through government intervention), cut the quality of services or hit people with the ambulance. It's not a growth-oriented business model, it's a cost-control model, and those can be effectively run by governments if the government has the incentive to do so. (Note the difference between a private ambulance company and a private bus company, which might take advantage of municipal subsidies, but then do other things to increase rider-ship such as managing routes well, adding amenities to the buses, running late routes to catch partygoers, etc.) The truth is that a strong contingent of the Fortune 500 supports some kind of universal healthcare, even if it's not a single-payer system, because the private insurance-based healthcare system that we currently have is extremely expensive and disconcertingly inefficient, particularly when compared to healthcare systems in other nations. While there may be a pure-play "conservative" argument in the healthcare sphere, I'm hard-pressed to believe that argument would logically support the current insurance-based, collective-risk system that we currently have, as it's already pretty much privatized communism. Instead, the "conservative" view might be that all medicine should be pay-as-you-go, which would at least be a tad more consistent, if brutish. ;-) My view is that governments can and should assume certain roles in the public interest, particularly when the "business" that the government is in both "promotes the general welfare" and happens to be a business where the private entities profitability is not found in growth and innovation, but in cost-management, rate increases and/or controlling overhead. That's an oversimplification, but I think it's, in a general sense, the reason that larger corporations are swinging around to universal healthcare...they know that the cost-benefit of the current system doesn't work, the costs can't be controlled, the industry heaves to-and-fro based on outside factors such as Big Insurance's investments and the state of the securities markets in general, losses in other insurance areas, etc., and, of course, the general sentiment among a majority of American's that the system is broken.

Todd Stauffer

Jan 4 2008

Law Clerk has shown on many occasions that he hasn't a clue what "socialism" is. This is leftover rhetoric from the unintelligent days when white folks in Mississippi labeled as "communists" anybody who wanted to overturn Jim Crow laws. We're smarter than that these days, so try a new trick.

DonnaLadd

Jan 4 2008

iTodd, thanks for the well thought out response. Anytime the Government gets involved in something, it gives me pause. Perhaps my calling universal healthcare socialism is indeed an oversimplification. However, it's one more step to socialism that I cannot take. The one thing I think you fail to mention is that Government is responsible for the current mess of healthcare as it is. They have mandated that people that cannot pay be treated. Someone has to pay for that. The hospital cannot stay in business treating people for free. No one in their right mind believes an Aspirin costs $75. But, the hospital has to recoup costs somewhere. People with insurance are paying for it. The insurance companies then pass that cost along to the insureds with higher premiums. Those who can pay, do, and those who can't afford the premiums obviously don't. Which then leads to less treatment (or less preventive treatments and more emergency type treatments). If the Government would get out, and I mean completely out of the healthcare system, we would see an immediate drop in premiums, vastly cheaper drugs, and a system that would just "work." There is no way on earth that we, as a nation, can pay for universal healthcare.

LawClerk

Jan 4 2008

Thanks Ladd. Would you like to clue me in then? What's your definition?

LawClerk

Jan 4 2008

Lawclerk why don't we just kill the poor and underprivileged people or refuse to treat when sick and unable to pay for medical care and let them die out? Then get rid of government controls/regulations of all kinds. Do you really trust a business person - a capitalist - by and large, a greedy and selfish bastard to do right by the people on his own accord. If we (the population) can't get the government to do as we wish with all the controls we have in place, including the vote, do you think we can trust Worldcom, Enron, AT&T, Wal-Mart, utilities companies, gas companies, and the likes to do the right thing by the citizens. There has to be some governmental controls and interference. What is your real name LawClerk? I need to make sure I don't accidentally vote for you to run any damn thing on this earth.

Ray Carter

Jan 4 2008

LC, *I* don't have a definition of "socialism." The dictionary can handle that without my help. Hint: It has something to do with the government owning the means of production.

DonnaLadd

Jan 4 2008

Great commentary, Casual Observer and iTodd. It sickens me that we say we can't afford to provide health coverage for all of our citizens, yet we're spending $4.5 BILLION A WEEK to fund a war built on lies and deception. As Casual Observer points out, I guess Law Clerk also hates that kind of *corporathat welfare*. Oh yes, Law Clerk's rhetorical questions are more telling than even he knows.

Kacy

Jan 4 2008

"Do you really trust a business person - a capitalist - by and large, a greedy and selfish b****** to do right by the people on his own accord." Yep. I do. It's ok ya'll. Jump on me, attack me, it's all good. I know that people attack someone when they can't argue their own point. No big deal. And Kacy, if you would ask instead of assume, I would tell you. I am not against any corporate welfare. If a corporation (such as the Gates foundation) wants to spend money and help, that is how it should be. Churches, private entities, etc, would do more to help than Government *ever* could or would. "Hint: It has something to do with the government owning the means of production." And Ladd, when the Government pays billions of dollars in subsidies to say, Farms, who do *you* think owns the production? Come on. Think.

LawClerk

Jan 4 2008

Lawclerk, I think history has shown we couldn't trust big business in the past to do right by the people without some government controls and regualtions. Has something recently happened to give us reasons to trust them now? If a hospital will charge $75.00 for a aspirin, you mean to tell me you would trust them?

Ray Carter

Jan 4 2008

Don't you people making this fear of socialism argument realize that such things as the free public education most of us get, the Medicare that most of us will get, and the Social Security that all of us hope to get are all based on SOCIALIST principles? So, by your logic, we should just get rid of all those gov't "hand-outs", right? It's economically impossible to have a thriving society that is absent of some degree of socialism. in fact, from an economic standpoint, there is no such thing as socialism, its a political term. Providing healthcare for all citizens is part of the reason Canada's dollar has surpassed our dollar in value. Most personal bankruptcies in this country are from hospital bills. Eliminate huge hospital bills, and watch the kind of boost this economy will get.

eyerah

Jan 4 2008

LawClerk, I talk to people like you all the time that seem to be living in the world of Rush quotes and do very little research for themselves. Conservatives claim to hate social welfare while promoting corporate welfare which is many times larger. I am an entreprenuer myself, but that does not blind me to the fact that a lot of corporations and individuals take advantage of the population. An individual has no say so as to his/her medical cost, the price of gas, etc. Without government regulation, we would be eating processed rat on a regular basis. Just because a company employees people does not mean that their net effect on society is negative. Enron employed a lot of people, but destroyed a lot of people's lives as well. I have learned over the years that conservatives are not really against the government giving people money, they just want those people to be them. Look how quickly Charles Barbour dropped the mantra of Conservatives not wanting government set-a-sides for minorities. As soon as he realized he could use his wife, who is from Guatemala, to qualify for million dollar minority grants, he went for it. All the socialism talk is just a regurgitation of Talk Radio. Does anyone think our healthcare system is free market? What about oil, gas or energy. We have no choices there and are at the mercy of corportations.

Goldenae

Jan 4 2008

Good point Eyerah. Returning or changing the subject. It will be interesting to see what happens in New Hampshire. Iowa is a bit different because you have that secondary vote. If your candidate of choice didn't get a certain percentage then your vote went to a second choice candidate. Richardson and Kucinich told their people to pick Obama as their secondary candidate. Things will be more straight ahead in New Hampshire. Still I can't help but feel pretty good about a black man winning in a state that is 95 percent white That's a big deal in the US of A. By contrast the country of his father's birth(Kenya) is currently struggling to have a sound Democracy. One side of the world takes a step forward and another takes a step back...or maybe they are both moving forward.

msgrits

Jan 4 2008

"Providing healthcare for all citizens is part of the reason Canada's dollar has surpassed our dollar in value" Do you have a cite to that or is that your opinion? The reason our dollar is tanking is not because we don't provide healthcare. It's because our value is based on NOTHING. NOTHING! You should do more research on our currency. It used to be backed by silver and gold. When I said that we should go back to that standard, Ladd thought it was funny. Real funny now, eh? Our oil, gas, and energy is so regulated by the Government that it can't be free market. If the government would stop regulating it, you would be amazed at how cheap our energy would be. Do some research rather than listen to the Democratic party. You want cheap gas? Drill in Anwar or the Gulf of Mexico. You want cheap electricity? Build a nuclear plant. Build a windfarm! But, no. The environmentalists don't want wind farms because the windmills kill birds. No nuclear plants because of the waste. No drilling because of the.... whatever. Yes. We should get rid of government handouts, bailouts and any other whatever-out. Nothing gives you the right to take something that doesn't belong to you. Even if there is a law saying that you can do it. "If a hospital will charge $75.00 for a aspirin, you mean to tell me you would trust them?" Ray, the policies of handouts are what makes them have to charge $75.00 for an aspirin. If 9 out of 10 people don't pay for something, the last 1 person has to. And, well, it makes everything more expensive.

LawClerk

Jan 4 2008

Lawclerk, I had no idea you hated birds, too. What have they done to you? They eat out of the woods or do you pay for their air, food, gas, shelter and electricity too? Why are you so filled with hatred of the living? You need Jesus!

Ray Carter

Jan 4 2008

lawclerk, do you think Dick Cheney was having secret meetings with energy company execs because they wanted to come up with ways of lowering Americans' energy costs? I do not think anyone is jumping you because we can not argue our own points. I can make my points by pointing out how erroneous yours look to me. We could drill in Anwar, the Gulf of Mexico and on the moon if they found oil there and gas would keep going up. No one in their right mind thinks that Bush and Cheney have not worked this country for their advantage and the advantage of their friends. Conservatives think that the more you boost up the rich, the better it is for everyone. I do not believe that. Conservative policies just increase the gap between the haves and have nots. Whatever trickles down is like a drop of water hitting a red hot skillet.

Goldenae

Jan 5 2008

President Obama. Well, he just might become president. We could do a lot worse. I like that he now says the first think he will do when president is get the joint chiefs of staff together and start the ball rolling to end the occupation of Iraq and begin regional diplomacy. Someone (some millions) are going to have to keep him accountable to that promise. He has quite consistently voted to fund the war. There is one candidate who did vote against starting the war and has consistently voted not to fund it. He and Edwards and Dodd and Clinton and Biden all voted for war funds for Iran also. We need to talk him out of that. He and the others, except one, voted for the patriot act and for its renewal. I hope we can interest him in the personal liberties that our founders died for and get him to drop his support for these horrid laws. He supports dumping nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada like all the other candidates except one. He supports the death penalty – like all the other candidates except the one I keep referring to and Gravel. He won’t ditch NAFTA or the WTO, there is only one candidate willing to do that. Like nearly all the other candidates, his healthcare plan has a nice place in it for the insurance profiteers. There is one candidate that promotes a non-profit health care plan that thinks keeping people healthy should be what health care is about, but all the others think it should be about making money. And like all the other candidates he takes money from corporations. I wonder what the corporations think they are buying? There is just one candidate that doesn’t take corporate money. After 40 years of supporting candidates that were electable, just not as evil as the alternatives, I want the remainder of my life to not be so wasted. If we don’t believe in, live in and work toward our highest aspirations, how would we ever expect to reach them? “We need to understand the connection between peace and the environment. We know that life on our planet is threatened by the twin threats of global warring and global warming. They are linked, and we have to understand that as we cognize the world as being interconnected and interdependent, we know that resource wars are passe and that the focus on sustainability will create peace.” --Dennis Kucinich, the one candidate that has my support

luke

Jan 6 2008

Do you think that the criticism of Obama would be the same if he had genetically taken the skin color and hair texture of his mother?????? LawClerk's argument is the same that I have heard for years: from Ross Barnette to Ronald Regan: From George Wallace to Haley Barbour. This thing is hinged on racism. "Poor" is relevant. Millions of Americans are one pay-check from poverty. Just remember that so many of the "new-poor" were contributors to the government that they now expect and deserve some kind of assistance from. LawClerk gives an argument laced with such a mean spirit, in my opinion. Remedy for LawClerk seems to be picking yourself up by your own boot straps. Laws of physics disproved this years ago. I just can't forget the fact that Blacks were brought to this country without boots or strings and stacked 12 deep. It has only been 40 years in MS since blacks could even get a job in a department store. The only job (professional) was teaching school. I don't know the age of this blogger; however, it is apparent that he either doesn't know or doesn't care about the history of how blacks and some other poor people of the world made it to this position of need. No one sat down one day and decided to be poor.

justjess

Jan 7 2008

Nice speech Luke..I like Kucinich...and he's only 2 percentage points ahead of ME in the latest polls. And Im hoping to gain on him in New Hampshire

Kamikaze

Jan 7 2008

Justjess, the scrutiny would probably be worse if he looked white, but people knew he had a black father. Think about it, we live in a culture where if a white lady has a baby by a black man, that is a black baby. If the father is white, mother black, baby is black. So, society looks at it almost as if it is an infection or something. Obama looks black, so people know up front how they feel about him. If he looked white, they would treat him like he was intentionally hiding something. Back in the day, folks did not "pass" just cause they looked white, they tried to live as white people. Once they got found out, they were hated by both sides. I am a light skinned black guy with two black parents and I can tell you that you get it from both sides. People assume you want to be white cause you look light and whites that do not like black people, still dont like you. Let me go back to something I read above by LawClerk. How can the very people who complain about welfare complain about a mandate in the minimum wage? It seems like some people want wages to be keep so low that people can barely exist. Have any of the people complaining about healthcare actually seen what healthcare cost these days? No one can afford it. And Cliff, the Republican Party is hurting for candidates this year. Obama seems to be a much better thinker than Fred Thompson and a lot less baggage than the others.

Goldenae

Jan 7 2008

Weneed to dscover Lwclerk true identity before he becomes governor or president and put us back in the fields. Who are you Lawclerk?

Ray Carter

Jan 7 2008

You are right Goldenae. I had forgotten the blood formula that equals black. We have people in this agency who really need to retire because of health problems; not bad enough for a disability. They continue to work to keep their insurance benefits. The average policy for a family is $800.00/mo. America has spent and continue to spend trillions yearly on foreign aide but, complain about the poor and elderly here in this country.

justjess

Jan 7 2008

You know, if we really go by that one-drop rule, we probably had five or six black presidents already.

LatashaWillis

Jan 7 2008

Justjess, that is a point that I make. When you have a country that is down on its knees, needs to be built or rebuilt, do Conservatives go in with Conservative policies? No, never. When it is an international problem, they realize that their policies will not work. The very things that they claim are terrible ideas here are the first things they start doing in countries like Iraq.

Goldenae

Jan 7 2008

"The reason our dollar is tanking is not because we don't provide healthcare. It's because our value is based on NOTHING okay, law clerk. let me explain this to you in terms you can understand. first off, i never said that not providing healthcare is the reason our dollar is tanking. i said providing healthcare is PART of the reason Canada's dollar is worth more right now. dont' twist my words. now, with regards to our currency's value tanking because it's not backed by anything, the value (or power) of a country's currency is a direct reflection of the perceived stability of said country's economy (credit) and it's rate of growth. Part of the proverbial equation rests on the citizens' abilities to produce and consume at a rate on par with or ahead of inflation. unfortunately, we haven't been able to create enough credit because we are running a tremendous deficit, both governmental and personal. Personal bankruptcies, in particular, hurt our rate of growth terribly. since most personal bankruptcies are caused by unaffordable medical bills, we should look at revamping our system to either cover everyone or drastically reduce the costs. that wouldn't solve the currency problem, but it would help a lot. so, in your own words, "you should do more research on our currency."

eyerah

Jan 7 2008