If liberals can't run a radio network without going bankrupt, how can we expect them to run a government?
The folks at Air America, after denying it for the last month, have filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. AA is a radio network which was supposed to be the liberal answer to conservative talk. They were the ones who would compete with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and G. Gordon Liddy.…
Article comments
76 - Big Dog
Zedd,
Take a Valium and read comments 12 through 20 or so....
77 - BriMan
Big Dog - so personal responsibility is your solution to every problem that plagues America?
Then why have a war on drugs? Why regulate alcohol? Why shouldnt America stay home and mind her own business? Why do we need police and fire departments and why the hell should I pay for them if I am not a criminal or I dont play with matches?
Your personal responsibility argument only addresses a minor cause of bankruptcy issues. Our society is full of predatory lending, bad food, poorly-regulated substances, over-marketed, must-have items. It is called free market - you know that thing you worship so dearly on this very website. And while we allow that free market complete access to our children and our lives, we are not supposed to put protective measures in place for those who fall victim to these unholy forces thru both sheer inundation and human frailty?
Medical problems are the leading source of bankruptcy in this country. I have never been addicted, dont eat fast-food, rarely imbibe and I still got leukemia. Dont fuckin' preach to me about personal responsibility. When Rocketdyne and Boeing and the defense industry are allowed to pollute unabated in my backyard and with the help of my Republican representative, the only personal thing I can do is run his ass out of town and hope he takes some of you like-minded sycophants with him.
And I swear if I ever see you print another thing on the free market and personal responsibility, I will start posting no-bid contracts one-at-a-time until you wish you had never seen my name.
Bush-leaguer---
78 - Big Dog
Perhaps medical problems are the leading source of bankruptcy because there are so many lawsuites that people can not afford insurance. It is not my job nor is it my respnsibility to pay for any one else's health care.
You got leukemia, sucks to be you, but people get sick every day. The fact is we eventually die and getting sick is sometimes part of that process. As a health care professional I know that having health insurance does not stop disease. If we want to stop bankruptcy then maybe we can stop all the lawsuits that cause health care costs to go up. I think we should allow people to form conglamorates so they can buy health care cheaper but I should not be paying for them, I pay for my own.
I know you would like to pass off personal responsibility but the fact is people lack it. I don't really give a rat's ass if they are innundated with ads, sales tactics etc. You know what you can and can not afford so if you live above your means, shame on you.
It is a free market but people are not required to paticipate in it if they are unable to do so. Perhaps the only reason so many poor people get in trouble is because we call it a "FREE" market.
As for your threats, save them, you don't have the ass to affect me and I don't care how many no bid contracts (which are not all bad by the way) you post, it is after all a free world. They do not bother me so post away.
When people give up the luxuries and live on the bare minimum then they can complain to me about what they do not have. I am tired of seeing people with every new gadget in the world complaining that they can't afford health care or to put money away. Once again, it is personal responsibility.
Did I say it enough for you yet??
79 - Dave Nalle
Dave - I will give you cold hard #'s now and the sources later (I have to be somewhere in 30 minutes) but the number of people in poverty has risen from 39 mil to 45 mil while Bush has been in office. Your chart on personal income isnt relevant to that argument because your chart reflects averages - I have already talked about averages and how they are misleading. Income is up for the top dozen or so % of wage earners - that skews the average upwards but doesnt reflect reality for the rest (the majority) of people.
Show me a source, BriMan, because no numbers I've seen anywhere on poverty support your contention.
Your own uninsured #'s show a decrease in the total % of people who are insured of 1.3% since Bush took office. While the number may not be astronomical, it is a disturbing trend in a country that has a smoldering healthcare crisis. It also proves my statement.
No, they don't show that. Look at the link. It shows a 2.9% increase in those covered by all forms of insurance and a .5% decrease which applies only to those covered by private insurance. And that tiny decrease is only the result of a substantial spike in insurance coverage in 1999 and 2000, likely because of the tech boom. The overall trend going back two decades remains a gradual increase and Bush's years fit in that pattern.
Again you made my point for me - limit who can file bankruptcy instead of addressing the causes of bankruptcy (#'s of uninsured, low min. wages, usurious lending practices, for instance). Spin it all you want - RW economic policy is only good for the sorta to very rich.
Except that the new bankruptcy law does NOT limit who can file bankruptcy, it just channels them into specific types of bankruptcy based on what assets they have. It may discourage those who don't really need to file bankruptcy and are doing it for convenience from doing so, but it does NOT stop the truly destitute from getting full protection.
Dave
80 - Zedd
Nancy:
I cant agree with you more. I was turned off to AA. I must admit that at first was happy to hear ANYONE at that time say ANYTHING negative about the war or Bush because at that time the news media was caught up in "counting down to bagdad" and "freedom on the march" sloggans. I thought I was in the Twilight Zone. It made me feel like "wheeew I'm not the only one...."
But as i listened, I thought geez this is not thought provoking AT ALL. Yes I agreed with a lot of what they said but a lot of it was just emotional spewing. Its just as low brow and unchallanging as the conservative talk radio shows.
Thank goodness for NPR, and BBC!!!
81 - Zedd
Dave Nalle #10:
Agreed.
82 - BriMan
Dave - here are some of the links I promised. The Census data is choppy and you have to go to separate pages for separate years so I didnt provide all of those links but they are easy to get to if you want to see them all.
What I did provide is a snapshot showing that the trend in recent years for poverty, wages, and numbers of uninsured are all going the wrong direction. I showed that the small growth in real wages from '04 to '05 is, according to the experts at the Census Bureau, from people taking on a second or third jobs and from others deriving additional investment income (skewing the averages as I explained in an earlier post).
The 39 - 45 million figure I listed earlier came from a source that I cant find in my pile of literature on my messy desk. The numbers vary because the definition of poverty varies - with the current definition having changed in the last 6 years. It is the trend though that is inarguable if you believe the US Census #'s.
From WUNC Radio reporting on Census data: The latest government figures show poverty is still on the rise. According to the Census Bureau about 36-million Americans are living in poverty. David Brady, assistant professor of Sociology at Duke University, says the official estimates are low. He says a more accurate formula would reveal that an additional 10-million Americans are officially poor. Host Frank Stasio speaks with him about poverty in America.
Census data: There were 37.0 million people in poverty (12.7 percent) in 2004, up from 35.9 million (12.5 percent) in 2003.
Continued below....
83 - BriMan
Continued from above....
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: Since 2000 -- the last year before unemployment began to rise -- the number of people in poverty has risen by 4.3 million, median income has fallen by $1,535, after adjustment for inflation, and the number of people with no health insurance has increased by 5.2 million.
By contrast, the increase in the number of uninsured occurred entirely among working-age adults -- those between the ages of 18 and 64. Both the number and the percentage of people aged 18 to 64 who were uninsured hit the highest levels on record. Some 36.3 million people -- 20.2 percent of all people in this age group -- were uninsured in 2003.
"The year 2003 marked the third straight year that living standards have deteriorated," Center executive director Robert Greenstein observed, "with poverty increasing, the number of uninsured climbing, and the income of the typical household stagnating. In addition, by some indicators, gaps between the most well-off and other Americans -- already at exceptionally wide levels -- became still larger in 2003."
From the
NYTimes - The nation's median household income rose slightly faster than inflation last year for the first time in six years, the Census Bureau reported yesterday. The rise, however, had little to do with bigger paychecks -- in fact, both men and women earned less in 2005 than 2004. Rather, census officials said, more family members were taking jobs to make ends meet, and some people made more money from investments and other sources beyond wages.
The glimmer of improvement came after years in which the economy slogged through the bursting of the 1990's stock market boom, a brief economic downturn, the aftershocks from the 2001 terrorist attacks, a series of corporate scandals and growing evidence of a deepening divide between rich and poor.
As for your statement - "No, they don't show that. Look at the link. It shows a 2.9% increase in those covered by all forms of insurance and a .5% decrease which applies only to those covered by private insurance."
While Bush has been in office:
Total % insured (all sources) 2001 - 85.4%
Total % insured (all sources) 2005 - 84.1%
If you go back to 2000, it is even worse. You are spinning the numbers to suit your argument. The total # of people on gov't provided health insurance during the same time is up 2%. Our private healthcare system is a real and moral failure. Move away from denial and try to understand the reality - it isnt about politics and power - it is about taking care of people. Uninsured people put a drag on society- economically, socially & physically. The status quo only works for insurance execs as they wring money from those who have it and shove those who dont to the side. Americans pay more for healthcare than any other industrialized society on the planet (ask yourself why) and yet cover fewer members of the population.
84 - BriMan
Big Dog-
I am not denying that some people lack personal responsibility. I am arguing that personal responsibility is not the largest issue leading to the problem of bankruptcy - it is in fact a red herring thrown out by lending institutions and their sympathizers.
Neither are personal lawsuits the main reason that healthcare is so unaffordable. Most frivolous suits dont see the light of day. 80% of all lawsuits are one corporation sueing another. Why do the Republicans only want to reform the 20%? Answer: because they dont get their campaign funds from there. They arent really trying to solve any of the problems - just scapegoating to keep their base engaged.
You are truly an enigma - you support the systems that lead to the problems you rail against. Everything you buy you support someone else's lifestyle - you just dont want to support certain lifestyles. And surprise - who are you picking on? Well the easiest targets of course. Life aint about easy pal.
Comments like dont participate in the free market and some no bid contracts are good just show how truly ill-informed and out-of-touch you are. One is impossible unless you live in a cave and eat grubs and the other is downright wrong in a supposedly competitive environment.
You should see "Iraq for Sale" - lots of interviews with people like soldiers, officers, Iraqis, and contract employees. Non-partisan, non-judgmental, no BS. You'll learn something about no-bid contracts and it wont be good (like $250,000 SUV's that you are paying for but will never own).
Keep picking on the little guy though - he is obviously making a killing off of you.
85 - Big Dog
BriMan,
I know a little about contracts. I did not say all no bid contracts are good, just some. There are certain companies who are the only ones who do a particular thing. They can be awarded contracts because of that. Bush's administration has done this just as Clinton did in Bosnia (he no bid Halliburton of all things).
The large awards in health care are settlements to people, not companies. You can say that Republicans do not look at the 80% because they get money from them but before you make that generalization you better look at the financial disclosure of ALL of them. Democrats get a lot of money from the same industry.
I don't recall saying not to participate in the free market. I think the free market is good and that government interference is the problem. Perhaps you misunderstood or I was not clear.
Government needs reform, no doubt about it and both parties need to be reformed. But they are not the panacea to the woes of poor people or anyone else. People must bear some of the responsibility and live witin their means.
86 - gonzo marx
BigDog sez....
*People must bear some of the responsibility and live witin their means.*
Quoted for Truth
same as *corporations must bear some of the responsibility*
why do i toss the last out there?
cuz of a great point BriMan has been trying to make...
reform of personal bankruptcy involving Individuals to make the requirements or even *categories* more stringent are one thing...but pales in comparison to the billions placed on the american tax payers by Corporations using bankruptcy to cut or eliminate the costs fo their own employees retirement benefits is just fucking criminal
go and google yourself, you wouldn't believe me if i typed it... take a look at how much corporate bankruptcy has cost the US as compared to individual bankruptcy
the difference?
when a Corp files, the taxpayer has to bail it out via the bankruptcy insurance the Feds provide to try and protect workers whose retirement funds have been evaporated and the company "restructures"... all the while the Management that drove the corp into bankruptcy get paid massively
when an individual files for bankruptcy, it's the creditors who have to work it out..or eat the costs
which one got *reformed* under this Administration?
clue: not the one we taxpayers pay for, that's for damn certain...
i'm all for Personal Responsibility... i just think the playign field should start as level as possible and that the taxpayers should NOT have to pay for the profits of bad Management
and that blatant hypocrisy among some of the GOP types is just as bad as some of the reverse from the Dems, and costs the taxpayers more in the overall picture
Excelsior?
87 - Big Dog
Personal responsibility extends to your actions in business. I do not think one cent of taxpayer money should go to a company. If a company can not make it then it should go out of business. Unless there was some criminal act then people should get new jobs and move on and not whine that they are now without. The business went bust so move on.
The feds should not bail out the auto industry, the oil industry or the airline industry. Also, if the feds are not going to give money to the business then when the business is doing real well, the feds will not be allowed to slap a windfall profit tax (has to go both ways).
I am not in favor of any corporate welfare. It is not the government's place to bail out a business any more than it is to bail out a person.
88 - gonzo marx
well now, the Principles stated in #87 are something i can tentatively agree upon...
as long as the Outrage is there for the criminal Enron/Arthur Anderson/airline restructuring to avoid retirement payouts - as much as it is for persons who attempt to avoid fiscal responsibility...
i can get behind it
the Problem, as i have outlined, is that this Administration..and the GOP in federal office as a whole, has NOT implemented actions equally across those two types of happenstance
and when you total it up, the personal bankruptcies are a tiny fraction of the Cost as compared to the systemic vampirism of unEthical practices by SOME criminals wearing white collars
hence the vehemence of some folks at this blatant inequity
woudl that more *conservative* types stand up and shout this Truth out...
it would not only go a long way in correcting the situation, but also show some Integrity on the part of those openly stating what many are obviously aware of
Excelsior?
89 - Dave Nalle
BriMan, your links are almost all to secondary sources and they are almost all wrong.
Your one link to the census does not even support your argument. You said that poverty is up during Bush's term in office, but the link you provide is for a ONE year increase, not the whole term. A one year spike doesn't define a 5 year period. In fact, if you look at the census report you'll see that poverty has remained stable from 2001 to 2005 and when their report for 2006 comes out there's every indication that you'll see a drop.
As to your other points, let me counter them with actual data from legitimate sources rather than leftist editorials and propaganda groups like the CBPP.
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: Since 2000 -- the last year before unemployment began to rise -- the number of people in poverty has risen by 4.3 million
As I pointed out above, this is a lie. If you actually start counting in 2000, the number in poverty has increased by less than a million and because of population growth that's actually a decrease in poverty of .3%. Check my earlier link to the census for that data.
median income has fallen by $1,535, after adjustment for inflation,
Again, a lie. Unadjusted data from HUD shows that median income has risen by $7100 since Bush took office. It's not clear what period your figure covers, but I bet it's one year from early in the Bush administration while the recession was raging. Adjusted for inflation that's still an increase of $6500.
and the number of people with no health insurance has increased by 5.2 million.
Wrong again. Where on earth are your sources getting their figures? According to the census bureau the number of insured has increased by 6.4 million since 2001. Is it possible you're confusing figures for increase and decreate in the number of insured? Another reminder that nothing coming from the CBPP should ever be believed.
From the
NYTimes - The nation's median household income rose slightly faster than inflation last year for the first time in six years, the Census Bureau reported yesterday. The rise, however, had little to do with bigger paychecks -- in fact, both men and women earned less in 2005 than 2004. Rather, census officials said, more family members were taking jobs to make ends meet, and some people made more money from investments and other sources beyond wages.
I'd like to see the link to the census bureau report rather than the NYT's version of it, because this doesn't match any data I've seen. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is actually the right source to go to for this sort of information, and they show a 14% increase in wages in the last 5 years.
You need to start looking at some valid sources rather than relying on left leaning propaganda and biased media reports.
Dave
90 - BriMan
Dave -
"Your one link to the census does not even support your argument."
Then you did not chase down the single year data as I suggested. (This forum limits the # of links per post). There is a definite increase in poverty from 2000 to present. The link you provided only addresses age 65 & over. I am arguing total #'s and you are citing a specific group. Get with the argument. From 2000 (31.6 million) to 2005 (37.0 million). More people in poverty as defined by the Census Bureau.
For healthcare, lets use your numbers - 1.7% (difference of % total covered from the peak year 2000 (85.8%) to 2005 (84.1%)) of roughly 290 million population equals 4.9 million more uninsured (you see less people are insured when the % goes down). That would have to be a conservative figure because we have roughly 10 million more in population right now and some of those are uninsured. And none of these numbers discuss under-insured - the point is it is a problem and trickle-on economics doesnt solve it. It seems that we have to keep trying it though and every time it is proven not to do the things it is promoted to do. What it does do is make the wealthy even wealthier at all of our expense as the costs of goods and services (including police and fire and highways) inevitably rise to keep inflation in check. Local and state taxes usually increase as well to make up for the budget shortfalls. Classic shove the shit to Shorty. It is piss poor policy - it has never worked and never will. But the faithful trot it out ad nauseum as sound fiscally conservative policy. Crap is what it is.
BTW - do you notice the rough correlation in these numbers?
The CBPP is a non-partisan analysis group. You can consider them leftists if you like because their analysis doesnt tow the party line . You seem concerned that the left points out the shortfalls of the economy (and not the pluses) but if the shortfalls are real, you also seem quite eager to massage the numbers (is it because you are a cheerleader for Bush and his cronies?). Unlike you (follow me here), I wasnt a big fan of the Clinton economy - meaning that I am an equal opportunity critic. You are a party-line critic - meaning your critically analytical skills sway in the political breeze. Wet your finger and hold it high - thoughtful approach.
You criticize me for using secondary sources yet you cite HUD as a source for median income data! At least my source was dealing with recent Census data and not extrapolating 1990 median income levels with a little massaging from BLS statistics. The HUD median income levels dont correlate with newer census data. Not even a good try on your part.
91 - BriMan
Big Dog-
Last I checked the Congress was controlled by Republicans. The agenda is controlled by Republicans. The Republicans made a big deal about tort reform but only picked on the smallest part of the problem. Cynical and disengenuous.
Of course Democrats are part of the problem. But they are not the largest part of the problem. The Dem party can be moved from within to serve the needs of the many over the needs of the few. The reforms that you say are needed are not going to happen within either party's established heirarchy easily but you can argue it is impossible within the party that represents and is funded primarily by big business.
Clean money and public campaign finance is what will return the gov't to the people. It is working in Arizona (a red state) and it will eventually work at the federal level too (google 'Just $6').
The government (especially Republican gov't) interferes in the free market all of the time but 98% of the time siding with business and profits over people. There is no such thing as a free market - there are opposing forces and big business has the money to sway the system. But the people have the numbers. We have also been successfully divided by these same economic forces.
You know - gov't is just a tool. You can use a hammer to build a house or you can use it to tear it down. The latest batch of cons are on record as wanting to tear it down (but not without personally enriching themselves first). Gov't is necessary - it performs necessary functions - it can level the playing field - it can be used for good given the proper oversight.
92 - Dave Nalle
Then you did not chase down the single year data as I suggested. (This forum limits the # of links per post). There is a definite increase in poverty from 2000 to present. The link you provided only addresses age 65 & over. I am arguing total #'s and you are citing a specific group. Get with the argument. From 2000 (31.6 million) to 2005 (37.0 million). More people in poverty as defined by the Census Bureau.
You're correct, I did link to the wrong table, but my comments were based on the same table you link to. Aside from that you're way off base. The increase in the last 5 years is negligible and only exists because there was an aberrant dip in the poverty level right at the end of the Clinton administration. The meaningful fact is that every year of the Bush administration has had substantially lower poverty than 6 out of 8 years of the Clinton administration, which is part of an overall downward trend from the highs in the 1980s.
The CBPP is a non-partisan analysis group. You can consider them leftists if you like because their analysis doesnt tow the party line .
I consider them leftists because everyone else does too. Read up on them. They were founded in opposition to the Reagan administration by a former Carter appointee and they are consistently on the left politically. They're a propaganda mill.
You seem concerned that the left points out the shortfalls of the economy (and not the pluses) but if the shortfalls are real, you also seem quite eager to massage the numbers (is it because you are a cheerleader for Bush and his cronies?).
Like I've said before, I'm an advocate for a balanced view and not shamelessly promoting a constant negative distortion of the economy.
Unlike you (follow me here), I wasnt a big fan of the Clinton economy - meaning that I am an equal opportunity critic. You are a party-line critic - meaning your critically analytical skills sway in the political breeze. Wet your finger and hold it high - thoughtful approach.
What party line would that be? Have you ever seen things I've posted about the Clinton era? I've generally been pro-Clinton on most issues except taxation and health care reform.
You criticize me for using secondary sources yet you cite HUD as a source for median income data! At least my source was dealing with recent Census data and not extrapolating 1990 median income levels with a little massaging from BLS statistics. The HUD median income levels dont correlate with newer census data. Not even a good try on your part.
HUD characterizes their methodology as rather more thorough than that, but I guess they could be lying.
Dave
93 - BriMan
Dave -
The trend during Clinton's presidency was poverty down every year except one from what I can see and the trend for Bush has been going up.
And that isnt what you started out arguing at the beginning of this thread. I made the contention that poverty was up. You called that a lie. And now that you are faced with census data that proves me out, you are talking about an aberrant dip after 7 straight years of declines! You, sir, are just plain wrong and you cant bring yourself to admit it - much like the administration you keep apologizing for.
You are criticizing people in another article on this site of doing exactly what you have just done to me - reacting without knowledge. Faith w/o fact. You are absolutely no different except you are being an overt hypocrit.
So by bringing up a few facts that you obviously dont like or care to hear, I am shamelessly promoting a negative distortion of the economy? It is more like you who are promoting something and it smells bad whatever you choose to call it.
I know what the RW means by balanced view - truth followed by lies, reality followed by spin, history followed by revisionism. Please do some introspection before you reply to your critics. You are far from objective - the lofty goal you seek.
94 - Dave Nalle
BriMan, as a Liberal I find it reprehensible when anyone on the right or the left distorts the truth for political advantage and I try to counter it where I can.
And that isnt what you started out arguing at the beginning of this thread. I made the contention that poverty was up. You called that a lie. And now that you are faced with census data that proves me out, you are talking about an aberrant dip after 7 straight years of declines! You, sir, are just plain wrong and you cant bring yourself to admit it - much like the administration you keep apologizing for.
Apparently we have two different ways of looking at this issue. I see 6 Clinton years of high poverty followed by 2 Clinton years of low poverty and 5 Bush years of low poverty. Bush has certainly had ups and downs, but all within a 1 point spread which at its highest was 2.4 points lower than Clinton's worst year. Poverty is also not up when you compare Clinton's average of 13.25 with Bush's average of 12.32. Hell, Bush's numbers are low compared to everything for the last 25 years except for 2 freak Clinton years.
So by bringing up a few facts that you obviously dont like or care to hear, I am shamelessly promoting a negative distortion of the economy? It is more like you who are promoting something and it smells bad whatever you choose to call it.
No, you're not part of what I'm talking about in the article in any but the most superficial way because you're just a shill on a blog making a comment. You don't have the power of political office or a media job behind you. You may want to talk down the economy, but you're just repeating what they've programmed you to say.
I know what the RW means by balanced view - truth followed by lies, reality followed by spin, history followed by revisionism.
Pretty much the same as the left partisans, I agree.
Dave
95 - MrSuccess
Libs are such losers. It just never fails to amaze me.
96 - zingzing
Stupidly, Air America modeled their programming after right wing conservative talk radio. Politics as entertainment. Parroting, etc. While those on the right seem to revel in such stuff, those on the left didn’t seem to have time for it, and so it failed.