The $150 Million Dollar Man

[BeAChooser]

And now that I've already proven Newsmax is a reliable source of information in this matter, Ben:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-110130

Obama Campaign Runs Afoul of Finance Rules

A Newsmax investigation of Barack Obama's presidential campaign finance reports has turned up more than 2,000 cases in which individuals have made donations far above the legal limit of $2,300 per election.

Such donations, if not returned within 60 days, violate federal campaign finance laws.

... snip ...

On Aug. 31, for example, the Obama campaign filed a report listing a single donation from a Debra Myers in "Rancho Palos Verde, Calif.," for $28,500 - more than 10 times the amount the law allows per election. Although Debra Myers is identified as a physician, only two individuals with that last name have a listed phone number in Rancho Palos Verdes (the city's name actually does have an "s" at the end). Neither is a Debra or a "D" Myers, or a physician.

The Obama campaign also identified Woodrow Myers Jr. of Indianapolis, Ind., on Aug. 31 as having given $28,500 to the campaign. Woodrow "Woody" Myers is a former Indiana state health commissioner who spent $2.1 million of his own money in a failed special election to challenge Andre Carson, the grandson of U.S. Rep. Julia Carson, who died in December ... snip ... (Interestingly, Woodrow Myers' wife is identified as Debra, although Newsmax could not confirm whether this is the same Debra Myers the campaign report lists as being from Palos Verdes.)

In an initial reply to Newsmax questions, the Obama campaign said it had refunded both contributions on Sept. 30, a day after a Newsmax investigation was published that revealed extensive federal election campaign violations by the campaign.

... snip ...

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt e-mailed Newsmax to say that the contributions had been "reattributed" to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee, and that the excess had been refunded.

That still put both Debra Myers and Woodrow Myers over the federal limits - unless the Obama campaign refunded their entire checks, since Debra gave another $28,500 earlier in the year to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Woodrow was way over the $108,200 overall election cycle limit for individuals.


... snip ...

In addition to Debra Myers and Woodrow Meyers, hundreds of other individual donors have given to the Obama campaign far in excess of the legal limit, a Newsmax analysis of campaign finance records shows.

Among them:

James Sievers of Big Sky, Mont., gave a total of $20,700 to the campaign, in five donations between March and June of this year. The campaign has returned close to $7,000 of the money but has kept the rest.

Martin Dies of Austin, Texas, also gave $20,700 to the campaign, in four separate checks, each dated June 30, 2007. The campaign returned $2,300 of it immediately, and another $4,600 in September, but kept $13,800 - three times the legal limit.

Robert Watt of Brooklyn, N.Y., gave close to $17,000 to the campaign starting in February of this year, including a whopping $10,000 check logged by the campaign on Aug. 31. Despite the obvious violation of the campaign limits, FEC records show that the campaign returned just $2,300.

Ryan Finley of Portland, Ore., has given $15,400 to Obama for America, starting with two checks on March 6, 2007, totaling $6,900. The campaign immediately returned $2,300, bringing him within the legal limit. He gave another $8,500 in a lump sum on Aug. 26, 2008.

Ms. Merry T. O'Donnell of Juno Beach, Fla., has given $13,150 to the Obama campaign, starting with three donations in March 2007 that totaled $2,000. In January 2008, she gave two more donations of $1,000 each, as well as donations for $600 and for $2,000. In February, she gave another $4,600. As of the latest filing, the campaign has refunded just $2,300 of the total, leaving her net donations at over two times the legal limit for the two elections.

Jerry Rubin of Whitefish Bay, Wis., has given $12,700 to the Obama campaign in varying amounts since February 2007. Despite the obvious violation, the campaign has refunded just $3,400 of that total, still putting him at double the legal limit.

These are just a sampling of the 2,087 individuals who have given Obama more than the $4,600 combined total for the primaries and the general election.

Isn't it obvious, folks, that something really stinks here?

Isn't it fascinating that the Obama supporters don't care.

It says so much about them ... and Obama.

We really should thank Pookster for starting this thread.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?grpId=-1&articleId=281474977483949

Obama's Secret Campaign Cash

... snip ...

As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding.

By Obama's own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain's campaign, Obama won't release the names of these donors.

... snip ...

For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit.

Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.

And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.

According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more.

... snip ...

Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Ore., recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because "I love Obama," she said.

According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit.

The Obama campaign reported that it had "redesignated" the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fundraising committee, which have higher limits.

But if that happened, it's news to Handley. "No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money," she said.

Ronald J. Sharpe Jr., a retired teacher from Rockledge, Fla., appears in the Obama campaign reports as having given a whopping $13,800.

The campaign reported that it returned $4,600 to him, making his net contribution of $9,200 still way over the legal limit.

But there's one problem with the Obama data: Sharpe doesn't remember giving that much money to the Obama campaign in the first place, nor does he recall anyone from the campaign ever contacting him to return money.

... snip ...

John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Ill., refused to discuss his contributions, which totaled $8,724.26, before numerous refunds.

Atkinson and others gave in odd amounts: $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one rounded contribution of $2,300.

... snip ...

In all, Newsmax found an astonishing 37,265 unique donors to the Obama campaign whose contributions were not rounded up to dollar amounts. That amounts to more than 10 percent of the total number of unique donors whose names have been disclosed by the Obama campaign to the public.

... snip ...

Campaign finance experts find the frequent appearance of unrounded contributions suspicious, since contributors almost invariably give in whole dollar amounts.

One expert in campaign finance irregularities offers a possible explanation.

"Of course this is odd. They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars," said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.

Let's face it folks ...

Something is pretty fishy in the Obama camp.

And neither Obama or his followers seem to care.

Given that, do you want to let them manage TRILLIONS of dollars?

What's that saying about suckers?

 

[Peephole]

Shouldn't someone move BeAChooser's ramblings to the conspiracy theory section?

 

[chipmunk stew]

The fact is something smells in the Obama campaign.

...and it smells like victory.

 

[BeAChooser]

And yet our living standards at least on par with those in the U.S. and our unemploymentrate at the moment stands at 2.6% against 6.1% for the U.S.

The Netherlands is an interesting country in this respect. But don't make the mistake of thinking it is successful because of socialism. More likely, it's because it has and continues to display quite capitalistic tendencies and encourage business. And the 2.6% unemployment rate is well below the recent historical average so it may be a temporary aberration.

Consider this. The Netherlands still has a very lopsided distribution of income, despite the high taxes. The top 10 percent earn about 25% of the total income. The top 20 percent earn about 40% of income. And the next 20 percent earn about 23% of total income. Compare that to the US (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/9427120.gif and http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/4/G/003_money_income.png ) where the top 5 percent earn about 22% of total income. The top 20 percent in the US earn about 50% of total income. The next quintile earns about 23%. In other words, the distribution of income between the two countries is rather similar. But Obama and his followers want to *share the wealth*. They say they'll increase the taxes on the wealthiest to do that. They've talked openly about the *fairness* of wealth redistribution. Would you like Obama to do to your country what he and his supporters seems to be saying they want to do to ours in order to *share the wealth*? Clearly a 50% tax rate hasn't done much in that regard so maybe it should be 75%? You realize, that's what it once was in the US. During the Carter years. Maybe that's why some of us think of Obama as Carter II. And believe me, he was not a successful President.

Furthermore, keep in mind that the Netherlands does not have some of the drags on it's economy, education system, health care system and unemployment rate that the US experiences. These factors make the cost of health care and education much higher to those who pay for it. For example, poor, illiterate, illegal immigrants make up a very tiny fraction of the Dutch population. Illegal immigrants comprise 2.6 - 6.6 percent of the US population. That is very costly to the US health and education systems.

The US also is the world's policeman. We spend twice as much on the military as a fraction of GDP (3.3% vs 1.6%) as the Dutch. Over the years, we've spent trillions defending not only ourselves but countries like the Netherlands from countries like the Soviet Union. Even now we are deploying, at mostly our expense, an anti-missile shield to defend the Dutch from missile attacks that might come from rogue nations.

And let's not forget that the Netherlands is one of the brighter spots in the socialized medicine arena. It's system works much better than most do. And part of the reason for that may be that the Netherlands is more capitalistic in it's approach to healthcare. I'm sure we can learn some things from you in this arena but it's still taking a big chance given the record most socialized medicine countries have. For one, I can probably see a doctor faster than you, and get access to modern medicines easier ... albeit I have to pay for that privilege. But I do. It's a CHOICE.

And as far as standard of living is concerned, don't be so sure yours is equivalent to that of the US. You might find this of interest:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242

Europe vs. America

Sunday, June 20, 2004

... snip ...

The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.

... snip ...

Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.

... snip ...

In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.

In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.

Even articles that tout the improvement in the GDP of European countries over the last few years note that GDP is not a reliable measure of "standard of living". Houses in Europe, including the Netherlands, continue to be smaller than US homes. Food is more costly. Fuel is more costly. Most of you probably don't own the same quantity or quality of electronics found in even relatively poor US households. I'm not saying you aren't comfortable or satisfied, or even that bigger is better, just that one number does not describe standard of living.

And by the way, I'm not saying health care reform isn't needed in the US. The cost is outrageous. Just that the solution offered by Obama is not what I want to see. We can't afford the poorest members of our society getting the same health care coverage that Obama and McCain get (that's what Obama has proposed). Nationalizing the health care system in a room filled with lawyers (which is what will happen) is not the answer. Frankly, if we really want to lower health care costs in the US, we need to do something about lawyers ... who by and large are Obama supporters ... because their activities are a major contributor to the cost of healthcare in the United States. Do you have a problem with lawyers in the Netherlands? Just curious.

By the way, ever read the book "Zen And The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"? Phaedrus is a key figure. You might like the book.

 

[BenBurch]

...and it smells like victory.

Now, man, you KNOW you gotta use this image when you say that!

And remember; Palin don't surf.

 

[BeAChooser]

Last I heard public financing was not mandatory. You seem to think that Obama opting out of public financing for the general election is a violation of the law

I never thought or suggested that. I said ONLY that Obama LIED when he initially pledged to abide by public financing limits in the general election if his opponent would and he lied when he said he'd aggressively work out an agreement to that effect with McCain's campaign. He obviously wasn't "aggressive" and his opponent did accept the public financing limits.

I also stated that there were reasons for public financing limits that almost all democrats up until Obama seemed to agree with. And that is true. Funny how no democrats are now criticizing Obama for ignoring those reasons they used to give for public financing.

McCain opted out of public financing in the primaries and this does not merit any criticism at all.

As usual you are deceptively trying to tell only a portion of the story. Yes, McCain did opt out of public financing in the primaries. As did Obama and Hillary did. Furthermore, neither Huckabee, Ron Paul, or Romney accepted public financing, either.

Quote:
Why do you think there's a republican advantage in soft money?

Because there are a lot of rich Republicans.

Nonsense. There are just as many rich democrats.

NPR reported yesterday that the average fortune 500 CEO made 40 times the salary of the average worker in the 80's and now makes 600 times the average salary, with lower income and capital gains taxes and bupkis in trickle-down.

What makes you think being a rich CEO makes one a republican? Bill Gates, one of the richest men alive, would appear to be a democrat. In fact, in the primaries, more CEOs seem have have given to democrats than republicans. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/11/26/fortune_500_ceos_favor_dems.html How could that be?

In the general election, while McCain may get more dollars from CEOs, most CEOs give to both sides. It's called hedging your bet. But I ask you ... why should CEOs give to Obama at all when he's essentially called them unpatriotic and is threatening to severely tax them?

 

[Malerin]

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?grpId=-1&articleId=281474977483949

And neither Obama or his followers seem to care.

Apparently not. Do you really think anyone takes you seriously here?

 

[BeAChooser]

I'll bite. I make more than $250K per year and would probably pay a 3% higher marginal rate under the Obama plan as I understand it.

3%? Then you don't understand it.

Sure, his current plan is to boost the top Federal marginal rate by another 3%. But he's also said he want to significantly increase the tax on capital gains ... especially if you make over $250,000. You make capital gains, don't you? And he also said he would tax social security income for those earning over $250,000 (currently there's a $102,000 cap). At a 15.65% rate. Add that all up and you are more accurately looking at an increase in your top marginal rate of nearly 23%. 3%? Hardly.

And then he wants windfall profit taxes on oil companies. And what industry will be next, given that many companies make comparable profits to oil companies on a percentage basis? You think those taxes won't be passed on to you in terms of higher prices? And he wants to force small companies to buy health care for employees. That means higher prices ... which you will pay. And he's going to succumb to the environmental lobbies raising all sorts of costs to doing business. Again, higher prices and a hidden tax on you. Don't deceive yourself into thinking Obama is only proposing a 3% hike. That's false.

And why do think he will stop at just a 3 percent increase in the income tax rate? A three percent increase will not do what he wants ... that is, redistribute wealth. Nor will it solve the budget problems he's identified or fund all the new programs he's proposed (like sending a trillion to Africa and providing free medical care like he gets to even the poorest in America).

And since when has any tax been high enough for democrats? No matter what the rate, they seem to always ask for more. Perhaps because their political base is built on creating needs and rights, real or not. And now it will be built on a false notion of "fairness" and the principle of wealth redistribution. No, taxes will need to rise if that is what democrats *hope* to *change*.

Here's my bet. By the time Obama is a year into office, all his campaign rhetoric will be forgotten and he'll be returning to what he originally proposed ... that is, tax rates comparable to those in effect during the Carter administration. Do you remember those years ... when the top marginal rate was over 70%? And he'll return to proposing capital gains rates of nearly 28%, nearly double the top rate before the Bush tax cuts. And with a filibuster proof Senate ... he may get those wishes. 3%?

I had never thought that the United States of America was all about "ME", but I do understand there are other high-income individuals who believe in no allegiance to anything other than their bank accounts.

Spare us. High income individuals (i.e., anyone making over a hundred thousand) already pay a far larger portion of the tax burden then the percentage of total income they they make. The top 5% (that's YOU) already pay nearly 60 percent of all taxes. And they also create most of the jobs in America. They spend long hours doing it and take great financial risks. You'd be surprised at the number of companies that fail, costing those people plenty ... with no bailout. And you'd be surprised how often they think about their employees rather than just themselves.

Frankly, if you want to know someone who was all about "ME" first, you don't have to look any farther than the head of the democrat party in the 1990's, Bill Clinton ... another lawyer. You one of those who idolize him? The odds are yes.

On the contribution thing, BAC, I have no idea why you believe the Obama campaign is not complying with all relevant FEC regulations.

Then you didn't bother actually reading my posts or sources. When the FEC warned them TWICE that they had illegal contributions from certain individuals and they still hadn't returned those contributions months and months later, they were not complying with relevant FEC regulations.

It is against the law to ACCEPT contributions in excess of certain amounts. Yet they've clearly done that repeatedly, and clearly in some cases knew they were doing it. And by law they have a fixed amount of time to return illegal contributions after they've been identified. Again, they have repeatedly not done so within the allowed times ... a clear violation of FEC regulations.

It is also against the law to accept contributions from foreign entities. Clearly they have been doing that and were even aware they were doing it in some cases. And in other cases, it is clear they have looked the other way. If not a direct violation of FEC regulations, it's one in principle. One would think a lawyer would understand this given all the hard evidence I've already presented on this thread. Or don't you believe Newsmax either?

These are found and refunded. What is it that you believe the Obama campaign is not doing adequately?

I suggest you go back and reread each of my posts on this thread. Let me also suggest you join me in demanding that the Obama campaign release the names of ALL donors (for transparancy, a word the Obama campaign has used a time or two), and especially for folks like "Good Will" and "Doodad Pro". Since it is also a crime to make donations in excess of the allowed limits, these people need to be pursued by the FBI, caught and charged. Obama can help ... that is if he really believes in upholding the law. Clinton didn't. Is Obama any different? Call this a test.

More directly, how is it that you came to know about the t-shirt guy, if the campaign is somehow "hiding" its sources of funds?

Not guy ... guys. Three brothers. In Gaza. All who ordered t-shirts online far in excess of allowed contribution limits. Go read the Obama site. It states ALL purchases are considered donations. Hence, when an order comes in from one individual for more than $2300, the Obama campaign was violating the law by accepting that order. Period. And it wasn't just $2300. It was tens of thousands. And it was mailed to a foreign country. One would think that one of the many lawyers in Obama's employ would have realized there was something wrong there. But then lawyers have a nasty habit of only serving the interests of their client. So this says something about their client. Senator Obama.

Now, you referred to "tens of millions" in foreign contributions.

Again, re-read my posts. Lawyers are supposed to be good at reading.

Aside from gotcha games being intentionally played by making small change bad donations for the purpose of "exposing" them

So now you are claiming that Obama is being set up? ROTFLOL! See how desperate Obama supporters are folks?

 

[BeAChooser]

I'll tell you what has bothered me since my tax course in law school - this notion that the worst thing that can happen to you is to make any taxable income.

"But you are taking away the incentive for success"

I just don't understand that.

You ever take a economics course? Or look at actual data on tax revenues at various tax rates? ;D

 

[BeAChooser]

Shouldn't someone move BeAChooser's ramblings to the conspiracy theory section?

You having trouble arguing the facts, Peephole? Looks like it.

 

[BeAChooser]

...and it smells like victory.

You just cheerleading on this thread, CS?

Nothing substantive in the form of facts or sources to offer to challenge the material I've posted?

Seeing as everyone else seems to have given up, maybe it's all up to you now.

 

[BenBurch]

It is a sad thing to watch somebody slip into madness.

 

[BeAChooser]

Do you really think anyone takes you seriously here?

Apparently, you've resigned yourself to the role of Obama cheerleader too.

 

[BeAChooser]

It is a sad thing to watch somebody slip into madness.

Ben, don't you want to make another lame attack on Newsmax?

Or are you too busy putting on the cheerleading uniform?

Are all of you Obama supporters going to run from the facts and wave your pom-poms instead?

It's beginning to look like it?

Bet you wished Pookster never started this thread.

Because it was highly revealing.

We learned a lot about what Obama and his supporters think of the law.

 

[Phaedrus74]

A very long post, I will try to respond to your points (but I might miss a couple ) And I will have to <snip> here and there...

The Netherlands is an interesting country in this respect. But don't make the mistake of thinking it is successful because of socialism. More likely, it's because it has and continues to display quite capitalistic tendencies and encourage business. And the 2.6% unemployment rate is well below the recent historical average so it may be a temporary aberration.

Regarding the unemployment rate in the Netherlands, this has been consistently low for the past 10-15 years, which might still mean it's a fluke but we'll know soon enough...

Regarding the relative health of the Dutch economy, I think that it has to do with the fact that there has been struck a good balance between allowing the market to sort itself out, and government regulation (or to put it in terms of -isms: Capitalism and Socialism). The most important factor is the fact that twice every year there is a meeting between representatives of employers, labor unions and the government. During this meeting the current economic situation is evaluated and agreements are brokered in light of expected economic development to ensure that purchasing power of different income classes is maintained. This system is commonly referred to as the "Poldermodel". In other words it is the willingness of the different stakeholders that makeup our society to compromise that ensures stability and prosperity.

<snip>

In other words, the distribution of income between the two countries is rather similar. But Obama and his followers want to *share the wealth*. They say they'll increase the taxes on the wealthiest to do that. They've talked openly about the *fairness* of wealth redistribution. Would you like Obama to do to your country what he and his supporters seems to be saying they want to do to ours in order to *share the wealth*? Clearly a 50% tax rate hasn't done much in that regard so maybe it should be 75%? You realize, that's what it once was in the US. During the Carter years. Maybe that's why some of us think of Obama as Carter II. And believe me, he was not a successful President.

I think that the difference in income distribution is rather similar on the "right hand" (higher) side of the graph, the differences are mostly on the "left hand" side of the graph. Childpoverty rates (poverty rates in general) are higher in the US (though there are probably big differences between the individual states) source

If this can be solved by higher taxation is a question I can't answer, although I don't think it will offer a long term solution. Also I am not sure whether or not this is something that should be addressed on a federal level, more can be gained I think from stimulating the individual states to engage in some healthy competition with respect to living standard and the like.

Furthermore, keep in mind that the Netherlands does not have some of the drags on it's economy, education system, health care system and unemployment rate that the US experiences. These factors make the cost of health care and education much higher to those who pay for it. For example, poor, illiterate, illegal immigrants make up a very tiny fraction of the Dutch population. Illegal immigrants comprise 2.6 - 6.6 percent of the US population. That is very costly to the US health and education systems.

Estimates (Dutch language article) are that there are about approx. 100.000 (+/- 30.000) illegal migrants in the Netherlands. So yes, significantly lower percentage wise. I must point out that it remains unclear what costs are associated with this group, if we assume that they get full benefits form education and healthcare (which is doubtful you will agree) and that they produce no wealth at all their footprint budgetwise should be equivalent to the 2.6% - 6.6% that they respresent demographically. This is significant in real values, but percentagewise it's margin of error territory.

The US also is the world's policeman. We spend twice as much on the military as a fraction of GDP (3.3% vs 1.6%) as the Dutch. Over the years, we've spent trillions defending not only ourselves but countries like the Netherlands from countries like the Soviet Union.

I'm sorry, last time I checked the Cold War was over.

Even now we are deploying, at mostly our expense, an anti-missile shield to defend the Dutch from missile attacks that might come from rogue nations.

Sorry, didn't ask for it, and frankly, we don't need it. It only serves to aggravate Russia and Iran is nowhere near developing ICBM capacity (and if they were do you honestly believe they would commit to suicide by A-Bomb?)

[rantlet]
Seriously, man in the light of the other arguments you offer these are exceptionally weak. But I'll tell you what, how's about we send you the bill (with interest) for the costs we incurred supporting your Revolution (including but not limited to (another) war with Great-Britain).
[/rantlet]

And let's not forget that the Netherlands is one of the brighter spots in the socialized medicine arena. It's system works much better than most do. And part of the reason for that may be that the Netherlands is more capitalistic in it's approach to healthcare.

Actually, liberalization of the healthcare system was implemented in the '90's and the jury is still out whether or not it was a good idea: Waiting lists have increased, costs have rising and so has the price (for the consumer).

The future will tell how it works out...

I'm sure we can learn some things from you in this arena but it's still taking a big chance given the record most socialized medicine countries have. For one, I can probably see a doctor faster than you, and get access to modern medicines easier ... albeit I have to pay for that privilege. But I do. It's a CHOICE.

I actually have that exact same choice (and yes, I would also have to pay for the privilege )

And as far as standard of living is concerned, don't be so sure yours is equivalent to that of the US. You might find this of interest:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242



Even articles that tout the improvement in the GDP of European countries over the last few years note that GDP is not a reliable measure of "standard of living". Houses in Europe, including the Netherlands, continue to be smaller than US homes. Food is more costly. Fuel is more costly. Most of you probably don't own the same quantity or quality of electronics found in even relatively poor US households. I'm not saying you aren't comfortable or satisfied, or even that bigger is better, just that one number does not describe standard of living.

Standard of living is only partially determined by GDP (preferably PPP) as you know. There is for instance the well-documented Happiness index (where both our countries are pretty much on equal footing). And I already referred to (child)poverty rates.

And you assume a great deal about what is and is not available over here. But there is a definite cultural difference here, from my limited experience I would conclude that in the US standard of living is primarily associated with wealth, whereas in the Netherlands at least it is primarily associated with well-being.

And by the way, I'm not saying health care reform isn't needed in the US. The cost is outrageous. Just that the solution offered by Obama is not what I want to see. We can't afford the poorest members of our society getting the same health care coverage that Obama and McCain get (that's what Obama has proposed).

Campaign politics, I think both Obama and McCain realize that that's not feasible. What is feasible is addressing the excesses at the low end of the healthcare market and offer some level of basic health insurance for everybody. This is something that can be done in a fiscally responsible way.

Nationalizing the health care system in a room filled with lawyers (which is what will happen) is not the answer. Frankly, if we really want to lower health care costs in the US, we need to do something about lawyers ... who by and large are Obama supporters ... because their activities are a major contributor to the cost of healthcare in the United States. Do you have a problem with lawyers in the Netherlands? Just curious.

As you may have concluded from what I told you about the "poldermodel" the adversarial system as it is in place in the US does not exist here. The "Lawyer Problem" is because of that not as extensive as it is in the US, this is also due to some differences in the legal system that prohibit for instance a lawyer from drawing their fee as a percentage of the results of litigation (lawyers are required to be partial but independant if that makes sense).

All in all they are viewed as (in the worst case) a necessary evil.
(But they will still be the first against the wall when the revolution comes )

By the way, ever read the book "Zen And The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"? Phaedrus is a key figure. You might like the book.

Yep, that's why it's my alias. (Unfortunately I went and got my Masters' degree in Philosophy after that which spoiled the book for me, the alias stuck though).

 

[chipmunk stew]

You just cheerleading on this thread, CS?

Nothing substantive in the form of facts or sources to offer to challenge the material I've posted?

Nope. Just mockery, tinged with a little sympathetic sadness.

Seeing as everyone else seems to have given up, maybe it's all up to you now.

 

[chipmunk stew]

We learned a lot about what Obama and his supporters think of the law.

Take it up with the FEC.

 

[BenBurch]

 

[Peephole]

You having trouble arguing the facts, Peephole? Looks like it.

Lol, if it makes you feel better about yourself, have fun.