patrick.net

Well, debt is not all bad, but revolving debt is all bad. Using long-term debt to meet short-term needs is extremely bad.

Their philosophy is, if I have to pay for something by borrowing, then I shouldn’t buy, it is beyond my affordability.

I do not agree with the American debt culture, but this philosophy is a bit over-restrictive IMO. We can discuss further on this.

StanMan, last post was dead on. I don't know the thoughts are so hard to capture for many.

I"m going to start a new thread . . .

Notes to Escaped from DC, from earlier in this thread -

"Tsusiat wrote . . .
“It’s easy to pull stuff off the internet from some right wing think tank.”

I quote a Canadian Supreme Court decision from Summer 05 and you accuse me of cherry picking information?"

You don't understand the context of that decision or its actual implications. Go read some more.

"You asked me what I meant by the U.S. subsidizing your medicine . . .

When Phizer develops a new drug that wouldn’t exist without it’s capitalist motivation, it sets a price of X$ in the U.S.. Because the Canadian government will only pay Phizer .6X for the drug, the net effect is the subsidation of Canadian drug costs by U.S. consumers."

What are you talking about - it is Phizer who agrees to sell at that price! That's called market economics, and if a customer, no matter how large or small, says I can afford to pay x and the seller agrees, they are probably not doing it as a loss leader!

"in 2003 the average Canadian waited more than four months for treatment by a specialist once the referral was made by a general practitioner.

A simple MRI requires, on average, a three-month wait in Canada."

Well, let's see, the reason for those waits is that people from all walks of life have access to the medical system. The fact rich people can afford to jump the line and go elsewhere is no reason to switch systems unless you are a millionaire!

"Terry Salo, a Canadian resident of Victoria, British Columbia, availed himself of hip replacement in Madras, India after waiting more than a year for the “free” service in his home province."

My step-father had a double hip replacement in the hospital in Victoria BC - he waited a year. Cost if he had to pay - about $200,000. Cost in his case - $0. Which system do you think he preferred? Do you think he minded waiting? And before you say he didn't pay for it, that is the point of paying higher taxes through the years, it all evens out in the end.

Without this medical system his choice would have been, sell my house to fix my hips, or just keep on getting weaker. Not a nice choice to have to make at 75.

"And of course, Tsusiat, let’s not forget that the very rich in Canada have a very good solution to your system - they come here! Isn’t that great? The rich use the U.S. system, the well-off negotiate the system in Canada, and the poor canadians get screwed."

On what basis are you saying the poor get screwed? Are you implying the poor do not have access to the medical system in Canada? You don't know what you're talking about! The fact that they underutilize the system has more to do with socio-economic factors than availability - that is to say, if you are homeless and off your gourd and have no family, you are not as likely to attend a walk in clinic as a young middle class mother with 3 kids.

Additionally, as native Canadians are the poorest and most geographically scattered community in Canada, they are part of that statisitic of under-representation, and a US style medical system would make things worse for them, not better.

BTW, my mother had breast cancer, and was treated wonderfully. There was no delay, she had a lumpectomy within two months of needing it.

My father had serious liver cancer last year that required removal of 80% of his liver - he is still alive and doing well. If he had had to pay on short notice for the treatment he received, he would be DEAD!

Did you know that waiting lists are for people who can WAIT!

My father did not have to wait - MRIs and CT scans occurred within two weeks of him seeing the doctor, he saw three specialists, and received top class treatment.

Finally, I have to laugh at your one sided arguments.

I at least attempt to refute the weak points in your arguments, why don't you try to do that? Why no reply to the statistics about infant mortality being higher in the US than Canada? That is not indicative of a better medical system!

As far as your military subsidizing Canada's defence, I have to laugh. If the US was not bent on dominating the world militarily, your military could be a half or a quarter the size and still protect the United States. Do you think you would be at greater risk of invasion in that case? I have to laugh - no, you would not.

If Canada was to increase our military spending to a level similar to the United States, would that be a normal thing for a country to do? And since our only potential military enemy in the real world is basically the United States, what would the point of that be? Do you think the Pentagon would be happy if Canada had an independent military, adopting an independent policy, of several hundred thousand combat ready troops?

I guess the only other potential military threat might be China, there are a lot of Chinese here, I guess they could all put on combat fatigues one day and tak over the airports and railyards and ports...LOL!

Here are a couple of very interesting lists - comparisons of expenditures on military for all the countries in the world.

US is #3 behing Israel and Singapore - $935.63 per person - newsflash, YOU CAN'T AFFORD THIS ANYMORE!

Do you remember how Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union by forcing them to overspend on their military?

Canada is #30 - $239.62 per person - which by the way, we can afford!

And check out this expenditure graph for US debt in 2004 as influenced by the military. BTW, these expenditures are not defending Canada, what a joke, they are being spent in Iraq among other far overseas places that we could better have dealt with other ways! Please note, I personally view what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq as completely different, so don't bother going there.

http://www.g2mil.com/Oct2003.htm

Can't wait to hear your ranting response which will, of course, ignore all the facts you can't absorb!

tsusiat

Opps, here is the other link mentioned in my previous post, on military spending per person per country

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap

tsusiat

The Social Security system is mostly a pay as you go arrangement, with some accumulation of assets for future needs. The government refers to these accumulated assets as “surplus” because the funds are not need right now.

Pay as you go is fine if the age distribution of the population shifts only minimally over the decades. However, we have an unusually large cohort in the baby boomers. They will be too many for the younger generations to support in retirement on a purely pay as you go basis. This is why the current taxes are higher than what is needed right now, so they can generate surpluses for this future need.

However, the surpluses are not large enough to fund this fully. It is estimated that the surpluses will be exhausted around 2042. After that the current income will cover only 75% of the social security outflow. To cover the deficiency the benefits must be cut or the tax must be increased (by 33%).

It would be much better to fund this in advance at a much lower rate. We need to put more money onto the surpluses while the baby boomers are still working and paying into the system. If we raise the tax by 1% now the system should never come up short.

However, the generations after the baby boomers will not have the same problem. They will have a more normal population distribution following them and social security will be healthy for them, after the current challenge has been fixed. This is a one time problem caused by the population bulge of the baby boom.

I think the shortfall should be fixed with an immediate 1% tax increase. Pay as you go is inadequate, but we do not need to go all the way to full pre-funding.

As for individual accounts, I think Social Security should be provide a basic minimal income to everyone at retirement. Those who want more than that must pay for it themselves. Individual retirement accounts are a good policy to encourage savings. However, I believe that the Social Security system must stand on its own without individual accounts.

BTW, I am refering to a tax increase of 1% of income. Not 1% of the current tax.

Zeph,
Was SS conceived of, and always considered to be, "pay as you go", or has it evolved into that fact?

It started that way. It's a social insurance scheme, where everyone pays in and everyone has the chance of using (needing) it.

It's much like paying for public education, except that we all get our education before we pay for others to get theirs.

With the retirement benefit of SS we pay during our working lives for the retirement benefits of those who are no longer working (and paying in).

Public Education and Social Security are inter-generational support programs.

The very first SS retirees paid almost nothing in and recieved pensions for life.

Tsusiat, I respectfully note that you seem to be extremely patriotic. I think that's a very bad thing. It's coloring everything you write.

I note that MRI's take a long time to get in Canada, and you note that "cousing Bob got one in 2 days." So? If I said 99% of grenades will explode if the pin is pulled, would you refute that by saying, "Cousin Bob pulled a pin on one and it didn't explode." So? The point wasn't that EVERY wait is too long. The point was that waits, on average are too long.

I call your resonse "cherry picking a single data point to refute a trend."

You go on about U.S. military. Somebody already posted this, but I'll note it again. It is the U.S. Military that keeps Canada safe. You don't think the Japenese or the Chiinese would consider taking over Canada if they could?

Let me be clear. If Japan knew back in 1935 that it could invade Canada without the US stepping in, you'd be eating frozen sushi right now and speaking Japanese.

Don't believe that? Your patriotism is blinding you.

One last point. Tsusiat wrote, very Tsusiisticly, . . .

What are you talking about - it is Phizer who agrees to sell at that price! That’s called market economics, and if a customer, no matter how large or small, says I can afford to pay x and the seller agrees, they are probably not doing it as a loss leader!

Please seriously try to get this point. I'm not asking you to say that America is great. I'm not asking you to swear eternal fealty to the Red White and Blue. I'm asking you to consider the information and perhaps reasonably come to a conclusion that is counter to your central thesis . . .

Phizer will sell to Canada at a loss or very low profit because it is better than NOT selling to Canada. But there is no "market economics" operating. The only reason Canada can "negotiate" the drug for less is because U.S. people are paying a lot more for the drugs.

Try this if you believe that "market economics" are in operation here.

What if every U.S. patient got their drugs exclusively from Canada at the "negotiated" price? What do you think would happen?

One of these two things would happen -
Phizer would absorb a huge drop in profits and go bankrupt . . . or . . .
Phizer would tell Canada - either pay 30% more or you can't have them.

Why? Because the drugs are only profitable if the huge U.S. market is paying a premium for them.

Please try to see that. It's not a slam on Canada. Really.

Here's an example . . .

Phizer invests billions making drug X.
It finally clears the clinical proving tests, and the FDA approves its use in the US. A patent in the U.S. is also obtained.

Phizer immediately begins selling the drug in the U.S. for 100 bucks a pop.

At 100 bucks a pop, Phizer makes a huge amount of money on the drug in the U.S. - The profits help pay for further drug developments.

Phizer now looks at the Canadian Market, which is about 12% that of the U.S..

The Canadian government looks and says, "we won't pay more than 40 bucks for a pill."

Phizer now has two options - 1. Don't sell to Canada and make no money there. or 2. Sell to Canada and make 40 extra bucks a pill, where the pill costs about 10cents to manufacture.

Phizer is a corporate that was created for profit. Phizer wants the money, so it choses 2.

But when the entire U.S. starts getting pills through Canada, then the 10 fold larger market of the U.S. is now only paying 40 bucks a pill, and Phizer starts losing money hand over fist.

Phizer will first try to use its political clout to get the Stooges in Congress to prevent medicine from coming in from Canada. They will come up with every conceivable lie. They will say there are "drug safety" issues. They will say that there are fakes. What they won't say is what they know is true, which is . . . "we will lose money."

If this works, then Phizer is all set. U.S. folks get screwed and have to buy the pill at 100 a pop while the Government puts a gun to your head.

If this doesn't work, which it may not, then guess what?

Phizer says to Canada - "it's 95 bucks a pop or you can't have it."

Then Phizer won't care where the U.S. people get their drugs from, and the U.S. subsidation of the Canadian price will end.

Now, Tsusiat, please tell me which part of the example was incorrect.

Social Security is the greatest anti-poverty program ever invented. Before it, 50% of all seniors lived in poverty, many in the poor house and malnutrion amongst the over 65 set was widespread.

Now the over 65 crowd has the lowest poverty rate in the nation and stories of retirees being forced to survive on cat food are non existent.

Has the US government *ever* defaulted on any of its debts? None ever, as far as I know.

The SS trust fund is as solid as the US dollar, for whatever that is worth. If worst comes to worst, the treasury can just print more dollars to fufill its obligations. And with the huge Boomer cohort getting ready to retire and voting in record numbers, don't think that they are going to be willing to sacrifice any of what they "earned" to help society as a whole.

SS outflows will exceed inflows in about 10 years, neccessitating a tax increase or cuts in other government spending. Some will wail like it is the end of the road, but it is just economics enforcing demographics. With fewer workers and more retirees, something just has to give. Either the retirees will have to accept a lower standard of living or the workers will. With the retirees outnumbering us in votes, I am pretty sure I know what is going to give.

In the longer run, the Social Security trust fund will "run out" around 2042 under current projections. But his is pretty far into the future to be projecting. For example, five years ago, it was predicted that the SS trust fund would "run out" in 2037. Five years later, the date has been pushed forward five years. Why is that? Productivity growth has been far higher than the government projected. In fact, if we can continue with the productivity growth that we have had for the last decade (2.5%) instead of the numbers projected (1.8%) we will not even run the trust fund empty.

I actually expect that the economy will continue to grow at this higher rate, as we emphasize more and more the knowledge skills which allow us to work more effectively and as the education level of the population continues to rise.

So yeah, there really is no pile of money in a bank somewhere, but there is a social contract we signed with the Boomers 23 years ago, in which they agreed to pay more Social Security tax, which would be repaid to them, with interest, when they retired. Now Reagan decided to return that money straight to the taxpayers, mostly the wealthy taxpayers, in the form of tax cuts. I was opposed to this at the time, but looking back on it, it was not such a bad strategy: he was counting on the tax cuts stimulating the economy enough that they would more than pay for themselves with a larger tax base 50 years down the road when the bill came due. And by giving the money mostly to the investor class, he was probably counting on them to wisely invest in a way that grow the economy the most. At least I can hope that is what he was thinking. Or he just might have been thinking what Grover Norquist referred to when he said he wanted a government "small enough to drown in a bathtub." Which seems like a particularly unfortunate phrase to use in the wake of Katrina.

I am in favor of continuing Social Security as it is: it is a useful and important safety network and insurance program. I can invest my 401k money with more risk and more potential reward, knowing that I have Social Security to fall back upon. I am positive it will still be there for me when I retire in 30 years. It might end up being cut back in benefits 1/3, but I doubt even that will happen. What I *am* worried about is what the tax rate will be on my 401k withdrawals. I would not be surprised if they equalled 50%. To a certain extent this is unfair, since I will be penalized for saving for my retirement and I will end up subsidizing those who blew it all on vacations, new cars, etc. I am willing to live with that. In any case, I don't have much choice.

There is a strong strain of pessimism throughout this blog. I find it interesting and I think I have realized something that has puzzled me since I started posting here. How can so many high income people being doing so poorly financially? Then I realized it: you are all very conservative investors. I am much more optimistic by nature and I have had pretty good overall returns from my investments. Right now, I am in a house in San Francisco (up probably 50% since I bought it in early 2003) and emerging markets (up 30% so far this year). Sure I have my down years, but in the long run, I probably make a better return because of the risks I take.

If we have a 30s style decade of depression, I am sure you will all end up ahead of me. My house would get repossessed by the bank, I would be out of a job and my overseas investments would probably tank, too. I have a couple of pounds of gold stashed away in a safety deposit box, but that wouldn't last for long.

But I am literally betting my life savings on that not happening. Let's check in in five years and see who made the better investment decisions.

Remember the discussion we had four weeks ago about how to profit from the coming crash in the real estate market? I went out and bought puts which are up 50%. You see change and turn that into danger and fear. I see change and read it as opportunity. Did anyone else take advantage of that discussion. Okay, I am not giving credit to anyone who actually sold their house and have decided to rent. I am not sure who that is, but there has got to be at least one of you. I know a bunch of you have been waiting to buy, believing that prices have to come down, but I think most of you have been waiting for over five years, so unless prices drop 50%, you made a bad choice.

There is an idea for a thread: how are you positioning yourself financially to benefit from the downturn in the housing market? What do you invest in today?

I am willing to "moderate" that thread, but be warned in advance, my idea of moderation is pretty hands off.

Oh, one other thing. It is not Social Security that is going to bust us, it is Medicare. I think we all realize that though.

Jimbo, I just got a call from Randomhouse. They'd like to publish your book.

;-)

Yeah, I didn't realize how long winded I had gotten when I posted it. But we have been all over the place in this thread, so I had a lot to say.

I will try to break it into more digestable chunks next time :-P

Almost every other industrialized nation has a health care system similar to Canada's with similar results: they spend half as much as the US does on healthcare and get either similar or better results as measured by overall life span, percentage of infants dying in the first year, percentage of the population on long term disability, disease rates in the population, etc.

Escaped from DC, you claim that Tsusiat “cherry picking a single data point to refute a trend” when you do the same thing with your MRI data. MRI wait times is not a good indicator of overall health system effectiveness and you know it. I think you might be picking a statistic to point out a general fact that when you give something away for free, it tends to be oversubscribed. I bet if you need an emergency MRI, you get it right away in Canada.

Health care is great in the US, if you can afford it. But there is a huge and growing population in the US that cannot afford it. These are the people who are not getting any MRIs at all, except in true emergencies. These are the people not getting their yearly physicals, vaccines and other preventative health care they need to keep overall health care costs low. So Canada saves a lot of money by giving this away for free and saving in the long run. At the very least, we need to find a way to do that in the United States.

Jimbo, you're killing me here man.

you wrote . . .
"Escaped from DC, you claim that Tsusiat “cherry picking a single data point to refute a trend” when you do the same thing with your MRI data."

OK, no I don't.

The "MRI data" example was ONE data point that I provided to support the following conclusion - That wait times in Canada were significant and problematic.

BUT, that datapoint was not given alone. In addition to that datapoint, I provided several other examples, including wait times for breast radiation, which led to a massive lawsuit, and a case that involved wait times that went to the Supreme Court, which decided the waits were intolerable in some instances.

So the MRI data was not offered, alone, to support the point that the Canadian health care system sucks, but . . .

rather was provided along with several other corroborating points to support the notion that there is a wait list problem in Canada, which . . .

supports my conclusion that Canada's health care system is problematic, at best.

Finally, Jimbo, I understand your point. Your point is that things in the U.S. are bad and need to be better.

I agree. Our health care system is very problematic. I just don't agree that putting the govt. in charge will do anything but make it worse.

With regard to your contention that Canada is a model we should emulate, however, I also disagree.

I think the notion of making it illegal to own private insurance is anti-American, and I mean that in the Founding Fathers kind of way.

Based on what I've read, Canada's system is getting more problematic with time.

Finally, I'd suggest the following as first steps toward reducing health care costs in the U.S. . . .

Put an end to frivolous lawsuits.

Make damage awards for non-frivolous lawsuits reasonable.

Put the screws on the AMA and other monopolies to get rid of sub-par performers. It makes me sick when I read about physicians who cut off the wrong leg and then move to another state to practice.

Allow all Americans to access medicine from anywhere, and end the American subsidation of the socialist medicince countries.

Get 90% of kids off ritalin.

Stop diagnosing Adult Parenting Disorder as "ADD" "ADHD" and whatever other concoction of letters will make parents feel less responsible.

Have Americans stop stuffing their fat pieholes with crap food.

Make nicotene ILLEGAL. The government tells you that you can crap into no more than 1.6 gallons of water, but it is fine with you sucking down a monstrous mutagen that is physically extremely addictive.

Establish a better hierarchy in medicine. In other words, you don't need to see somebody who has got 10 years of medical training when you have a cold. Here's an example - Went to see a doc about a mole on my kid's back. Didn't think much of it until I get the bill. The guy walked in, looked at his back, and said, "come back in a few years because it's tough on kids this young." Get the bill, 210 bucks. The guy was a surgeon. WTF? Why is a surgeon looking at a mole? A freaking janitor could have told me "come back." And by the way, I went 2 months later to a dermatologist and had it taken off in office - for less than 200 bucks.

Change the whole medical school theory. You simply don't need to go to school for 4 years to be a dermatologist, booby surgeon, or whatever.

Stop having insurance pay for birth control, pregnancies, boner medications, and other optional, non-health issues.

Have a la carte plans where people like me can choose basic catastrophic coverage and people who want plans where they get birth control for "free" can pay extra premiums for the fake freeness.

[the next two are not serious suggestions, although they'd help]
Burn all X-Boxs, Playstations, and all the other garbage machines that help keep kids fat.

Have 1 hour per day limiters on the Idiot Boxes.

I have more, but I have to run to the doctor to get some sleeping pills.

I agree that there should be some way for those who want to pay more to get more, unlike in Canada or at least Canada until very recently.

How about the British model? Are you familiar with it? That is more likely to be palatable to American tastes.

I agree with most of your reform ideas, especially the ability of lower skilled paraprofessionals to sub in for MDs in many cases. This is not going to happen unless we have some way of ensuring that this does not results in massive lawsuits.

I worked as a medic in the Army and I was constantly practicing "above my pay grade" but since you can't really sue the army it all worked out. I didn't kill anyone either, though I probably caused a few more pain than they would have gotten from a more skilled practitioner.

Tsusiat, ah, Tsusiat.

Two things.

1. I think I figured out your issue. You think that I'm trying to argue that the US system is better than the Canadian system? No sir, I'm not.

2. Second request. Please explain what was wrong with the example I gave for Phizer. That's all. Which part of my 100 dollar pill/40 dollar pill example did you think was wrong? It's a simple question. I promise I'll answer any simple question you ask me. Will you answer this one simple question?

Tsusiat - You directed me to a link and told me to go see what your prime minister had to say. I Tsusiat, I always want to learn. I did what you said. I went there.

Here's the first sentence of the second paragraph . . .
"Foremost on this agenda is the need to make timely access to quality care a reality for all Canadians."

IF you sent me there to gather support for my point thank you, because clearly "timely access to quality care" is NOT currently a reality for all Canadians.

But Tsusiat, oh Tsusiat, will you answer but one simple question?
Which part of my 100 dollar pill/40 dollar pill example did you think was wrong?

JImbo, yep, but I note this . . .

You wrote . . .
"I agree with most of your reform ideas, especially the ability of lower skilled paraprofessionals to sub in for MDs in many cases."

I don't think it's a question of "lower" skill. Instead, I think it's a question of "different skill."

For example, you have a dude whose job it is to draw blood, right? Makes sense to me.
Got antoher dude, he gives you the sleep meds.
Nother dude cuts you open.

The problem is when you walk in, and you've got a doctor with 12 years of education looking at a cut on junior's forehead.

You know what? It's a cut. There should be a "sewing dude" who does nothing but stitch. Post op stitching, slip and fall stitching, etcetera.

Anyway, whatever.

I'm non-violent, but 10 years ago if they had said they were going to implement a plan to make private health insurance illegal in the U.S., it would have been time to load the gun and prepare for the revolution.

Stanman,

Social insurance programs do not pay back to each person, and even when they do the return is terrible. Government is terribly inefficient.

Much of what we pay for will never directly benefit us. For example, I pay huge amounts of income tax each year. Much of it goes for welfare. I will never collect anything under welfare.

Jimbo,

The Social Security trust fund is expected to be exhausted in 2042. However, Social Security will not be bankrupt. The ongoing tax receipts at the current rate are expected to fund 75% of the obligations at that time. The trust fund needs to have a large “surplus” in order to fund the expected shortfall arising from the large number of retirees from the baby boom.

Every few years for the last 30 years at least, people have given gloomy forecasts about how the Social Security system would be bankrupt a decade or two later. Every time they have been wrong and their doomsday date keeps being pushed into the future.

There will never be a shortage of Chicken Littles in the world.

cluck cluck
peck
cluck
peck
scratch
bawk!

We have a great healthcare capability in this country. However, we do not get nearly the health improvement for our money as we could.

Other advanced countries get comparable health for a much lower cost.

The major cost difference is that we spend a huge amount of our healthcare resource in the futile effort to keep dying people alive for a few extra months. This “heroic” medicine is extremely expensive, and bloats the fiscal cost of providing healthcare to America.

As a former school teacher I can absolutely attest to the fact that kids are waaaaaaaaaaay overmedicated. But just try to suggest to the parent that they check for food alergies or actually pay attention to the kid, well the medication seems to win out more often than not.

Sadly, I've known teachers to contribute to the problem. Sometimes if they have a child that they have discipline problems with, they ride the parent until they get some kind of diagnosis that allows for medication to keep the kid so doped up they can't act up in class. Heaven forbid we actually raise our children rather than farm them out to daycare and medicate them.

One of my big personal gripes.

Sacto, too bad we're both married. Seeing eye to eye on raising kids is really high on the list for me . . .

Do you like Bill Clinton?

This is the sexiest thing a woman ever said to me . . .

She was about 5'1", hair down to her waist. I had known her all of a week.

I had no take on her whatsoever.

So I come in to work one day and make an oblique reference to Bill Clinton.

She snaps her face over to me, squinting slighly, top lip stiff, and says, in the most dripping venom I have ever heard, "I despise that man."

I was about to fall to my knee and propose, her being a total hottie and all, when I was snapped back to reality by my ring. Oh yeah, I was already married. Se la vi!

Escape

You're killing me.

I can't stand Clinton. I also have a great Clinton story.
I worked at a TV show a few years back and one of my co-workers happened to have been a former White House intern. This was pre-Lewinski. Anyway, I asked her what it was like. She told me that Bill Clinton was a charming happy-go-lucky type, but that if there were any attractive women in the West Wing, he couldn't get any work done. They literally moved all the women deemed too attractive to work near him out of the West Wing so he wouldn't be distracted. I guess Lewinski didn't meet the obvious criteria.

She also told me that Hillary was basically a bitch on wheels. Said that Bill's interns were not allowed to address her or even look her in the eye. She would only have anything to do with "her" people.

Just a small glipse into the Clinton era.

Yowsers Peggy!

And can I further surmise, oh my heart be still, that you do not simply "dislike" our next president, Hilary, but the thought of her as President makes your skin crawl a titch?

And can I further surmise, oh my heart be still, that you do not simply “dislike” our next president, Hilary, but the thought of her as President makes your skin crawl a titch?

Just the thought gives me the heebie jeebies. I'm hoping that because she is not as outgoing (hah!) as her husband, people won't warm to her enough to vote her in. Unfortunately in a world where people vote based on what they see on the Tonight Show, personality seems to be one of the main criteria on which people vote.

Yeah, well, I'm on the record a year ago saying she'll win and she'll win easily.

I figure she'll play the Caesar card. She'll wait until the 3 or 4 patsies who come out early have come off their intro momentum. Then, as close to the primaries as possible, she'll announce. She'll dominate the primaries and blow out her comptetition, who will not criticize her and who will fall in line behind her quick enough, hoping to get the VP nod or catch some other scraps that are left in her wake.

She won something like 65% of the NY women vote. Yow. That's a huge number. I figure she wins 60% of the women vote nationally, 45% of the mens, and wins in a blowout, regardless who the opposiiton is.

Funny thing. I hear a lot of women say, "I don't like Hillary and I wouldn't vote for her." Then I ask, "Yeah? What if she was running against [fill in prominent Republican]," to which they always respond, "God, not him!"

So what many many women seem to think is, "I'd love to have a reason not to vote for her." Given that the Republicans have no stand out candidates, I think she wins . . .

easy.

I hope you're wrong, but I'm not holding out hope either. I won't vote for her. What if Rudy Giuliani ran? Do you think the lustre from 9/11 could carry him far enough?

Given that the Republicans have no stand out candidates, I think she wins . . .

*cough* Jeb?

Personally, I think Rove/RNC wants to keep the Bush juggernaut going as a dynastic thing. First, Jeb in '08 & '12, then maybe Laura as 1st woman President in '16 & '20. That'll warm up the public for the really big surprise in '24 & '28: Jenna & Barbara serving together as co-Presidents (Presidents-gone-Wild!).

Jenna & Barbara serving together as co-Presidents (Presidents-gone-Wild!).

lol

Can't you just see the "lost" video tapes that surface during that administration?

Well, I don't think any man beats her. That's the funny thing. I think the only hope the right has got is to run a woman. In that way, you don't automatically lose some portion of the vote based on gender.

The way I see it, the few idiot men who would vote against Hilary because of her gender would have voted againt any democrat.
OTOH, the foolish women who will vote for Hilary only because she is a woman are going to be a small but important part of the swing vote.

So if I was asked by the right, I'd say pick your best woman and run with her. Get gender out of the race, and let it be issues based.

But the right loses on issues too. Sure, there's been a conservative swing, but, if it goes how I see it going, the country is going to be swirling in the toilet by 08, and any change will be perceived as a good change.

Whoever in the Republican party wants to be president should be coming out now to speak out against bush . . . and say . . .

end the war,
cut spending,
balance the budget,
get our fiscal house in order - the American family is about to go under. THen you'd look like a prophet instead of a "I can give more handouts than Hilary" johny come lately.

end the war,
cut spending,
balance the budget,
get our fiscal house in order - the American family is about to go under. THen you’d look like a prophet instead of a “I can give more handouts than Hilary” johny come lately.

At the end of any administration the pendulum does tend to swing in the opposite direction. I'm not sure the right would need a woman, but Hillary is already known and the gender+recognition factor will be a potent combo. Personally I think most candidates are going to promise the above agenda.... delivery is another matter altogether.

OK SactoQT, one more question before I leave my wife for you . . .

What did you think of the following movies . . .

Lost in Translation
Groundhogs Day
Ghost
Razor's Edge

Ahhhh, you must be a Bill Murray fan. ( Except Ghost)

Lost in Translation-- haven't seen yet.
Groundhog's Day-- one of the funniest movies ever (liked What About Bob too)
Ghost-- Liked it when I saw it in the theatre, but I remember it being a bit predictable.
Razor's Edge-havent' seen.

OK.

If you want me to pack up and move out west, you're going to have to check out the other two movies.

Funny thing is, I was never a Bill Murray fan. I very much dislike him in stupid comedic roles. Everything he did on SNL. Stripes. Ghostbusters. All those, to me, were really crap comedy that anybody with a skosh of talent on coke could do.

But when I saw him in GHD, where he mixes humor with seriousness, I thought he was awesome.

As for LIT and Razor's edge, all I can say is that, compared to most of the crap coming out of HW today, each of those movies is worth a watch.

I remember coming out of LIT and hearing a young woman say, "I didn't get it," and I thought, "how very very sad."

As far as movies generally go, I'm kind of goofy. I'm not a girly girl movie wise. I'm an action movie kind of gal. I also like some science fiction, and I'll watch an Indian Jones movie at the drop of a hat. I really liked Batman Begins but I'm not a fan of earlier Batman movies. I like black comedies too. Mr. and Mrs. Smith was hilarious.

Is my wife the only spouse who read this blog?