Name calling and hate don't make for much of a position.

"The thing that's most amazing about the Fox News argument -- that health care is free under Obama and therefore we'll all pay for these new policies where before there was no cost -- is that uninsured people enter the health care system much more ill than they would have with preventive care and everyone else pays for it in higher medical costs. So if you're uninsured neighbor goes to the hospital and gets charity care, you pay for it when you go. That's basic economics and it's reality."

But Make, thats long term thinking. And long term thinking is clearly un-american and is a threat to "freedom." Why should we build sustainable buildings when we won't see the financial return the day it is built? Why should we celebrate a bill that doesn't help everyone that already have student loans, when the alternative is to keep the middlemen in place? Most of us didn't even know they were middlemen before this anyway, and ignorance surely was bliss. I mean, why invest in preventive care, especially in others, if that means more change out of my pocket now? Clearly "democracy" is a simple commodity that is easily quantifiable by the percentage of taxation and the flow of tax revenue towards services that are directed at me at this moment. I mean why ponder the complexities and intricacies of what democracy can mean in these times... when I can simply generalize, dehumanize, and negatively label anything that may involve change out of my pocket now?

...

Did I take that sarcasm thing a bit too far?

uhhh, if they were getting preventive care, they would have been in the 'health care system'

What am I actually surprised about is that few, if any, have made the argument that "charity care" under the current system is not paid by the federal government at this time.

Emergency hospital services are paid for by local and state governments out of the general fund (and by non-general-funds funds) that are made up primarily by real estate taxes. Despite the fact that many businesses find other taxes (gross receipts and sales tax) to be burdensome, the majority of state budgets still come from property tax.

So, when someone racks up a large hospital bill due to an emergency medical intervention... the expense is placed on the shoulders of the agency directly responsible for your general well-being.

Primarily the reason I say "direct" is because federal policies generally mean crap because often the policies passed by the federal government really have no profound impact on the quality of life. Your city government on the other hand pretty much controls every aspect of you life through codes, comprehensive plans and ordinances.

In states like Florida, Texas, California and New York the health department can eat up as much as 15-30% of the budget. In New York, the state budget is a total $133,000,000,000 of which the state pays out roughly $14,000,000,000 is Medicaid payments. If they could reduce payments by even 20%, $2,800,000,000 dollars is a lot of money for any state.

That $2.8 bil could provide a lot of public housing, a lot of roads, a lot of investment for business, a lot of parking garages and all the things that generally effect your life on a day-to-day basis.

I'm not discounting the federal government's power... I'm just pointing out that falling off your bike everytime you hit that 8-inch high curb or cussing everytime you run over a pothole is more relevant to your life than some obscure policy an appropriations commission enacts.

Also... the bit about the "Founding Fathers" was to shed some light that they aren't some noble god-like men who granted us a wonderful life by "giving their life" for freedom.

Inalienable rights, citizenship, a constitution (or magna carta) is a pretty noble idea. But they are not new ideas. They are certainly not original or were they things that never existed.

But the whole freedom and glory thing is a sale point. It sounds good. Does it work? Who does it work for?

The reality of the Revolution is selfishness and contempt. They disposed one government and replaced it with another. And the government they replaced it with genuinely lacks accountability on those in power. There is the impeachment process but that's never been successfully implemented on any notable scale other than a few events.

The concept of accountability is important because our current system assigns no real blame on representatives and does not make them directly liable for their actions. Ineffectiveness and corruption in government is a de facto responsibility of the people who will those individuals into power. Therefore, in democracy, the only people left to blame are the people themselves.

The foundation of this country was essentially stripping the status quo of power to institute a new status quo. While it greatly reduced exclusivity, it shifted from tradition and status to money and status.

Without a system of nobility or class, anyone with a dime could exercise power over their peers without any justification other than popularity or "market reach."

So, if you want to talk conspiracy theories here... tell me how silversmiths, whiskey distillers, tobacco farmers, cotton farmers, hemp (marijuana) farmers, lawyers abd bankers created a country that appealed to protestant puritanical Christians without being hypocrites? Does anyone not see the irony in this?

The government of today is NOT the government of the Founding Fathers. It is not by the people, for the people, much less of the people any longer.

montagneux your entire argument is off base because your premise is cracked and flawed.

Read the books I suggested earlier, and the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and Magna Carta, it will help you to understand what I mean because you will be able to go to the source instead of relying on phony baloney interpretations of those with their own interests at stake.

And it seems you seem to think that the Founders and those who like what they did somehow think that the Consitution wasn't based on several layers of precedent, in some cases 1,000s of years deep. Please don't make the asinine mistake of projecting the values of "progressives" onto those of traditionalists (like in this case that anything that isn't disconnected from the past is entriely irrelevant).

Modernists and so called "progressives consistently make this mistake of trying to reinvent the whell. If you read and understand the perspective of Authentic American Hisotyr you will quickly understand that the context within which economic and social policy was made is very, very deep and there is abosultely no desire or attempt on the FOunders part to cast aside (or "deconstruct") history. In fact, precedent was their first priority, just as empirical evidence logically is the basis for establishing fact in the first place.

And one more thing more important than all the rest: As you read through the original documents, notice how integral a belief in God and an Eternal Creator was to the intentions of the Founders, esp. Washington and Jefferson and all of the colonists in general.

"The government of today is NOT the government of the Founding Fathers."

- nor can it be nor should it be.

The USA of the Founding Fathers (note: no Mothers) was a nation of 13 states, covering less than 1/20 of the current size of the USA and less than 2.5 million people. This is a nation (and necessary government) representing less than 1/100 of the current situation.

The Constitution of the Founding Fathers accepted slavery and the non-representation of women.

The Constitution (along with the Declaration of Independence) were written by different individuals, who themselves had different interpretations of what was meant by these documents. if you don't understand and accept this, then you are not only ignorant of history, but in denial of the circumstances of the origin of the the USA.

Ever time you use the word "All" you show your ignorance and lack of a knowledge of history.

Every day its like the 1970s all over I swear. Loser drop outs and drugged up hippies used to say the same sort of thing, that the country was founded by racist old white men who just didnt want to pay their fair share of taxes. Next you will be backing a bloated federal program for caulking your windows....wait, lol

Right on 2 step.

Damned hippies all over again...except this time they are running the schools these days and are out and out communists.

As far as the retarded, tired old argument of "racist old white men" I say to all these overgrown, still writhing in immaturity hippies: IF YOU STILL HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT THAT THE BLACK MAN IS BETTER OFF BECAUSE HE INHERITED A LIVING SITUATION WHERE THE FACT IS HE HASN'T BEEN IN SALVERY FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS, AND BESIDES THE BLACKS THAT WERE SLAVES HAD IT BETTER THAN THEY WOULD HAVE HAD IT IN AFRICA ANYWAYS:

THEN MOVE YOUR POT SMOKING, DOPE INJECTING SORRY BUTTS OUT OF THIS LAND. Go setup a teepee in Papa New Guninea or any number of "third world" paradises you can choose to call home.

AND STOP TRYING TO DESTROY THE ONE PLACE that has sincerely made opportunites to the the black man available to them.

AND THE SAME GOES FOR WOMEN, TOO.

Take your poor assumptions regarding the West's supposed "maltreatment" of women to any single village in Africa or the muslim middle east and try your hippie ideas out there. THe Christian West has actually been the most sympathetic to the delusional motivations of the hippies and mental rejects over the past two centuries, ironically enough.

obiwan -

While I admire your passion and tenacity I am concerned about your mental health. Have you been to a doctor? You seem to go a litle too far over the top sometimes thus weakening your position. The excitability could be a sign of mania. A little restraint can go a long way with these hippies.

Jefferson et. al. were humanists in the renaissance tradition. while they, like others, believed in upholding the moral code of the church for philosophical reasons, what they believed is far different than what most evangelicals believe today (no one in the 18th century would recognize the current evangelical movement). we may see the document as being very religious in today's context - but it was extraordinarily "progressive" for that time (the idea that you can have a leader of a country who wasn't divinely appointed by God, but elected by man, was very radical).

However - cultures change - ideas change... society changes. I don't know if things are better today than they were back then. we've lost some meaningful things in order to gain others - it's sad when we lose things - but the simple fact is we cannot go back to the way things were. the only thing we can do now is try to make things better with where we are now.

I'd much rather have this debate - what can we do with what we've got? how can we move forward? this is more productive instead of passing blame and getting angry about the loss of something that may or may not have existed.

Passing blame and calling up down and black white is a great way to rev up those ratings on FOX and keep the militia vote.

Passing blame and calling up down and black white is a great way to rev up those ratings on FOX and keep the militia vote.

anyway - back to the topic - from what I understand all this bill does is cut out the middle man, students won't see much of a change, except the government saves money (they say something like $61 over the next decade). losing jobs in the private industry isn't that great - but the fed does need to shore up its bottom line.

I'm sure that the Loyalists in the COlonists time thought that their "mental health" had expired. Opposing sides always think the other is crazy.

Shoot- otherwise billions of people wouldn't have flung themselves into the path of bullets and swords to prove their points...and I reckon that the current polarization at some time in the future be it 10, 50, or hundreds of years into the future will be no different.

One person's freedom is another slavery. Its the one battle that has been going on at least since the beginning of man's time.

Call me schizophrenic but I guess it is crazy enough these days to believe that..."the more things change...the more they stay the same" and "same poop. different color."

Based on his fruits of lying, abortion, stealing money from the masses, and many other crimes against humanity including continuing the overseas wars, Obango is obviously not the Messiah. And even a crazy person can see that.

Kenobi... you are not being very clear anymore. I sense you are going back and forth. As far as the white and black thing and the founding fathers, I suggest 2 books: Lies My teacher Told Me by James Loewen and A Peoples History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

Montagneux... now you are making sense. The irony and hipocracy in this country is comparable in size to the corruption that has overtaken Mexico hahahaha.

Toaster... good change in subject and dead on about Jefferson (which seems Texas eliminated him from the text books hahaha). As far as working with what we have. Before that I think we are going to have some serious decluttering to do. Next thing we need to work on is a real education reform. Anything below the 12th grade is embarrasing in academic level. Charter Schools won't work because not everyone can afford them. And this Bill is a good idea but it's just not enough.

The more I think about it... the better it sounds to have a semi-socialist agenda in providing "essentials" while making money the old capitalist way (regulated properly off course). Less war for sure and taxing the really rich (1 million+/year) a lot more instead of the middle class would also help.

toaster, it is my understinding that the federal student loan program is hiring some private loan companies to service the loans in order to help mitigate job losses. of course that doesn't sit well with the private loan industry as they will still lose the interest profits off the loans and will cut jobs as its profitability is cut significantly, but really since when was it the responsibility of the federal government to pad corporate profits at the expense of the american people, i.e. student borrowers? it's a good law, but sadly, did not go far enough to address many of the larger economic problems associated with student debt.

"from what I understand all this bill does is cut out the middle man, students won't see much of a change, except the government saves money"

Huh? $40B out of $61B towards higher education is a pretty big piece of the pie. And some of you might have missed the part about the current funding gap for the pell grant, and how without this bill, the max would've been around $2100 per student per year instead of the ~$5400 currently. And sure, it would've been ideal to help those that already have loans, but have you thought about how feasible that might be?

Look is really simple. Lets cut all the hockus pockus. 9 letters, 2 words:

SHELL GAME

"According to Texas Freedom Network, a group that opposes many of the changes put in place by the Board of Education, the original curriculum asked students to "explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present."

That emphasis did not sit well with board member Cynthia Dunbar, who, during Friday's meeting, explained the rationale for changing it. "The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based," Dunbar said.

The new standard, passed at the meeting in a 10-5 vote, now reads, "Explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone.""

Revisionist history!

According to USA Today, the board also voted to strike the word "democratic" from references to the U.S. form of government, replacing it with the term "constitutional republic." Texas textbooks will contain references to "laws of nature and nature's God" in passages that discuss major political ideas.

The board decided to use the words "free enterprise" when describing the U.S. economic system rather than words such as "capitalism," "capitalist" and "free market," which it deemed to have a negative connotation.

Serving 4.7 million students, Texas accounts for a large percentage of the textbook market, and the new standards may influence what is taught in the rest of the country.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Texas... teaching shit since 2010!

Actually Unicorn the changes that you indicate that Tx is making are way more technically accurate descriptions of both the government as designed and also the economic model as originally designed.

But then again, why bother? I'm preaching to a bunch of semi-retarded, technically incompetent wanna-be architects.

I'll just get an earful of gawfaws and cursings hurled my way for trying to "enlighten" the hopelessly dark, cavernous minds of all you dimwitted communists.

during and immediately after the writing of the original constitution, there were many contentious disagreements amongst the "founding fathers" - which ultimately produced the first set of revisions called the bill of rights. A lot of people were very unhappy and we're still playing out some of the same disagreements today. that original group was far from homogeneous in their beliefs and the constitution is far from divine scripture.

Texas seems to be taking a more Hamiltonian perspective... who, by the way, both Adams and Jefferson loathed. IMO, it's perfectly fine to present different perspectives on the founding principals of our country, however what they've done is clearly politically motivated. I'm of the belief that all interpretations of history are politically motivated (including Zinn), and any statement that ends with: "that's what this particular dead-guy intended" has to be taken with a giant grain of salt. my own statements included. none of us are devoid of ideology.

personally, I have no problem if someone presents themselves as a Hamiltonian "free-market" supporter - it's contending that one's view is the only correct view that causes one to lose credibility. If you seek to be persuasive in your argument, you must first realize and acknowledge that your opponent's views are valid and you could potentially be wrong but are taking a particular stance on the subject anyway. There's a difference between beliefs and truth - no one knows the truth - and if you are Christian - then you'd understand that only God knows the truth.

unless you believe yourself to be messianic - of course, then you'd believe that you alone speak the truth. So - are you the second coming of Christ? if you aren't willing to make this claim, then you must accept that you could be wrong like the rest of us.

and this isn't just aimed at one person, btw...

I AM THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST.



AND I AM MADE OF RAINBOWS.

I'm beginning to think semi-retarded was an understatement.