This is really mind blowing!

[sanfran22]

Lobbyists are the worst creatures on earth.

I think I would agree with you...yikes!!! Except I'd add progressives in the as well, lol;)
Business and gov't should work independent of each other. Free market should exist and gov't should only step in with grievances.

[Wickabee]

I think I would agree with you...yikes!!! Except I'd add progressives in the as well, lol;)

As long as you add conservatives in there as well. You see, if the world were only progressive, we would spiral out of control constantly changing for the sake of change. If the world were nothing but conservatives, we would still be debating if humanity should start using fire. Both sides are necessary for a functioning society.

Business and gov't should work independent of each other. Free market should exist and gov't should only step in with grievances.

I don't agree with that. The businesses have their lobbyists too. The other factor that's been pretty true, when you compare Canada to the US, is that the regulations in the US are virtually non-existent when compared to Canada, especially in the banking industry. Now look at how each country has weathered the last 5 years.

Regulation isn't a bad thing, but when it's controlled by two parties who disagree because they're supposed to, it becomes a muddled mess and is detrimental. That's stupid regulation and judging anything by the stupidest example will not get you a good view of what it really is.

[centrehice]

Like tpeichel, I agree with his take. The government is leaning toward listening to the rich, when you listen to the rich, they inevitably get the cream from the cow, and the middle class and poor are left to fight over the skim milk.

Whenever the reality model that this guy has shown becomes the reality of the remainder of 90+ %, then you are merely steps from revolution. The fact that portions of the elected government feels that they are too big to fail as it is, is really worrisome.

In terms of answering to the statements of those typed above that say "Then you aren't working hard enough". There was once a time in the USA where that statement was absolutely correct. But since about 1998-2,000 all the hard work in the world will not allow you to break into the top 10% of wealth, it will only get you to the point of being the highest tax payer.

Remember this. The more the top 2% get, the more difficult it is for the bottom 90% to achieve the wealth anywhere near 90%-98% of those wealthy left.

The vey rich take steps to insure that only their own kind become like them, so hard work becomes a moot point, as the control and wealth is only passed on as the top 2% direct it to be passed on.

Nobody wants socialism, and nobody wants 75% of all Americans at minimum wage. This society as it is continued to be allowed to exist will have 75% of all Americans working either only part time, or at minimum wage by 2050, unless something is done.

[tpeichel]

Like tpeichel, I agree with his take. The government is leaning toward listening to the rich, when you listen to the rich, they inevitably get the cream from the cow, and the middle class and poor are left to fight over the skim milk.

Whenever the reality model that this guy has shown becomes the reality of the remainder of 90+ %, then you are merely steps from revolution. The fact that portions of the elected government feels that they are too big to fail as it is, is really worrisome.

In terms of answering to the statements of those typed above that say "Then you aren't working hard enough". There was once a time in the USA where that statement was absolutely correct. But since about 1998-2,000 all the hard work in the world will not allow you to break into the top 10% of wealth, it will only get you to the point of being the highest tax payer.

Remember this. The more the top 2% get, the more difficult it is for the bottom 90% to achieve the wealth anywhere near 90%-98% of those wealthy left.

The vey rich take steps to insure that only their own kind become like them, so hard work becomes a moot point, as the control and wealth is only passed on as the top 2% direct it to be passed on.

Nobody wants socialism, and nobody wants 75% of all Americans at minimum wage. This society as it is continued to be allowed to exist will have 75% of all Americans working either only part time, or at minimum wage by 2050, unless something is done.

What is the solution though? The Democrats got their ideal candidate who seemed to have the influence and charisma to take on the nexus of Washington DC and big business, instead he has embraced it. The Republicans had their chance when they controlled Congress and the Executive branch for six years and they chose to continue with business as usual.

The only way I see to change the current dynamics is to get the power out of Washington DC and get it back in the hands of states and individuals where it should be, but I don't think the vast majority of the current Republican and Democratic politicians want that to happen because they like it the way it is.

[Wickabee]

What is the solution though? The Democrats got their ideal candidate who seemed to have the influence and charisma to take on the nexus of Washington DC and big business, instead he has embraced it. The Republicans had their chance when they controlled Congress and the Executive branch for six years and they chose to continue with business as usual.

The only way I see to change the current dynamics is to get the power out of Washington DC and get it back in the hands of states and individuals where it should be, but I don't think the vast majority of the current Republican and Democratic politicians want that to happen because they like it the way it is.

Or get a viable third party in there. I've watched my province devolve from three viable parties to two. With three each party needs any given other party to take on the third at any given time on any given issue. As such, the lines of communication are always open between all parties except the farthest left and farthest right, who don't talk to each other. At least with a third party, you have a middle man, so there's always at least an indirect line of communication between all parties.

With two parties, it's like a marriage between two people who hate each other but can't divorce. It's horrible.

[centrehice]

The States can seize power by first doing what was done in MA. Develop as close to a single payer network of health care as you can establish. Payouts based on dollar for dollar cost.

Itemized - a la carte item billing to be completely eliminated.

Allow each State to develop it's own model of single payer system that works for them, and only them.

Obama, by allowing the Insurance Companies, some latitude only creates havoc, as every Insurance Company by one years time of me writing this text will have increased premiums on all those by 100%.

Obama cannot develop a system of Health Care base on the way it is running now without policing Insurance Companies, and stop them from financially raping payers like they are all set up to do in the new year.

People have no idea that their Health Care is about to rise to levels of 125% more, or they are about to become Part-Time Employees because employers are not about to pay 100% more to cover their employees.

After that, I have no idea what to do, because any positive change comes in America, somebody screams Socialism. You cannot continue to act as though you live in 1860. It simply cannot be done.

[duane1969]

Or get a viable third party in there. I've watched my province devolve from three viable parties to two. With three each party needs any given other party to take on the third at any given time on any given issue. As such, the lines of communication are always open between all parties except the farthest left and farthest right, who don't talk to each other. At least with a third party, you have a middle man, so there's always at least an indirect line of communication between all parties.

With two parties, it's like a marriage between two people who hate each other but can't divorce. It's horrible.

We have the worst two party system that is possible to have. Not only are they both alike, but they are both like pitbulls when a third party arises. Any 3rd party that looks like it might take hold is attacked and torn down as quickly as possible.

[Wickabee]

We have the worst two party system that is possible to have. Not only are they both alike, but they are both like pitbulls when a third party arises. Any 3rd party that looks like it might take hold is attacked and torn down as quickly as possible.

But in the end, the people decide if a party is viable or not, so the people listening to the established parties too much is really at the root of the problem.

[tpeichel]

The States can seize power by first doing what was done in MA. Develop as close to a single payer network of health care as you can establish. Payouts based on dollar for dollar cost.

Itemized - a la carte item billing to be completely eliminated.

Allow each State to develop it's own model of single payer system that works for them, and only them.

Obama, by allowing the Insurance Companies, some latitude only creates havoc, as every Insurance Company by one years time of me writing this text will have increased premiums on all those by 100%.

Obama cannot develop a system of Health Care base on the way it is running now without policing Insurance Companies, and stop them from financially raping payers like they are all set up to do in the new year.

People have no idea that their Health Care is about to rise to levels of 125% more, or they are about to become Part-Time Employees because employers are not about to pay 100% more to cover their employees.

After that, I have no idea what to do, because any positive change comes in America, somebody screams Socialism. You cannot continue to act as though you live in 1860. It simply cannot be done.

Providing freedom and rewarding individuals for hard work and ingenuity has been what makes America great, so I disagree with your assumption that continuing on a path to a greater and greater distribution of resources is going to put America back on that path to greatness.

If you said to leave healthcare decisions up to individual states than I would agree with you, but your assumption that all states would have single payer would require a top down approach orchestrated from the Federal level. Or did you mean something else?

[Wickabee]

Providing freedom and rewarding individuals for hard work and ingenuity has been what makes America great, so I disagree with your assumption that continuing on a path to a greater and greater distribution of resources is going to put America back on that path to greatness.

If you said to leave healthcare decisions up to individual states than I would agree with you, but your assumption that all states would have single payer would require a top down approach orchestrated from the Federal level. Or did you mean something else?

Hard work is worthless when the people who are there to reward it, the wealthy, are hellbent on staying "on top" by any means necessary...such as taking a government bailout and then suing that same government.