Democrats Six-Point Plan - Does it reflect your vision for America? [Archive]

View Full Version : Democrats Six-Point Plan - Does it reflect your vision for America?

usmc1

11-11-2006, 05:56 AM

The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.

Honest Leadership & Open Government
We will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves, starting with real ethics reform.

Real Security
We will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies. We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart, recognizing that homeland security begins with hometown security.

Energy Independence
We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology.

Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence
We will create jobs that stay in America and restore opportunity for all Americans, starting with raising the minimum wage, expanding Pell grants and making college tuition tax deductible. We also believe in budget discipline that reduces our deficit.

A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone
We will join 36 other industrialized nations in making sure everyone has access to affordable health care, starting by fixing the prescription drug program and investing in stem cell and other medical research.

Retirement Security
We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, starting with pension reform, expanding saving incentives and preventing the privatization of social security.

usmc1

11-11-2006, 05:56 AM

nudeM

11-11-2006, 07:09 AM

"Honest Leadership"?

Real security - We are on the way to tell too much of our intentions and the terrorists, and other nations will be able to monitor our activities. I'll wait to see what happens, but I don't think we are going to keep our intentions secret.

Energy independencs - No way with the Dems in charge. We are not allowed to drill, or even explore for natural resources on our own turf. We can't 'harm' the environment for creatures that are on the endangered list. Here in California, there are farms that cannot be used due to destroying the habitat of 'field mice'.

On the coast, the dunes are becoming more and more scarce because we will destroy the habitat of the Snowy Plover, a small bird. Such examples are reasons why we can't search for natural resources due to extreme 'environmental regulations'.

I disagree with the minimum wage. I believe employers should pay fair wages, but I don't agree with the government setting the standards via legislation. This should be left to the private sectors.

If you're talking about a government ran health care system, I am against that as well. True, there are guidelines that should be followed, but I don't agree with the government running the show.

Now making a healthcare system that works for everyone, sure. I'm all for that, but I don't agree with government intrusion.

Retirement system - I agree with you on that. But the Social Security system as it is now, will go broke due to the government 'borrowing' from it. If it would be ran by the private sector, the administrators will get in trouble by doing the exact same thing the government is doing right now. Privatizing the Social Security looks good now, the way the economy is looking good, but if the economy were to take a turn in the other direction, then that would be a disaster.

In short, I don't think the Dems are no better than the GOP, on these particular issues. The economy is looking good due to the GOP's handeling of the budget, but the GOP also got us in the hole deeper "budget deficits", than any other time in recent history.

Being a conservative Democrat, I just don't see the new Congress and Senate making things any better. The represenatives that are going to our leaders, are too far 'left leaning' for my satisfaction. If they run things like they promised, then I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but I just don't see that happening.

Don't get me wrong, the GOP did a lot of things that I disagreed with as well. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

LamontCranston

11-11-2006, 07:50 AM

I voted maybe, because the categories are right but the explanations lack detail. I'm hoping we can have a discussion here, and not a blow off. These areas do need work.

Energy Independence: does this include a discussion of nuclear power plants?

Retirement Security: FDR did this already. And 20 years ago congress established 401(k) plans for tax-deferred employer matched retirement savings. This is really a pledge that we'll do nothing. As is.

So, is Social Security funded or bankrupt? What's the truth?

Healthcare for Everyone - I'd like people to include a discussion of Medicare and Medicaid when they discuss healthcare issues. Those are government funded programs that provide free health care to people who qualify. So we have it already. Does it work? Effective? You want to expand it? Replace it? What does healthcare for everyone mean?

Honest Leadership and Open Government? Hasn't been one since... my mind reels back over 4,000 years and can't come up with an example. Why will this crop be different? Let's start with an accounting of who financed the campaigns this season. No? OK then, let's move on.

Instead of trigger phrases like, "tax the rich" and "raise minimum wage." please explain the economics behind it.

A person or family cannot get by on a quarter or even two dollar raise in minimum wage. So what does that accomplish?

What you need to do is sell folks on shopping for American made goods and services made using higher cost labor.

Is anyone willing to pay an extra buck for a Starbucks coffee because the barristers need a raise and free health insurance?

Will you pay an extra $1,000 for a Ford over the foriegn makes because labor needs a full retirement benefit and free health insurance starting at 55?

Will you pay me $80k, knowing I'll plow that money back into the local economy, charity, social security, health insurance premiums, and tax base or will you send my job to India for $40k and impress your shareholders?

I don't know the answers but the money must come from somewhere... other than "let's tax the oil companies and WalMart" without accompanying legislation.

These are each difficult problems and I hope we can make progress.

Sanslines

11-11-2006, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by usmc1:
The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.

Here we go again implying that the entire Democratic Party is the party of saints and the entire Republican Party is the party of devils. All of these platitudes sound so wonderful and reflect what any government should strive for. It is easy to post goals in simplistic and wonderful sounding terms but the reality is almost always very different from such simple and fantastically beautiful sounding platitudes.

Honest Leadership & Open Government
We will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves, starting with real ethics reform.

We should rid both parties of corruption. What we have been experiencing over the past few years is not reflective of the true Republican party. In order to rid corruption, it will takes efforts by moderates of both parties to come together and make things happen. The first thing that the Dems need to do is to control the extreme left within their party and allow the moderates and centrists in their party the freedom to come forward and get things done. They will need the cooperation of moderate and sensible Republicans to do this and they very well know this.

Real Security
We will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies. We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart, recognizing that homeland security begins with hometown security.

Sounds beautiful and makes for wonderful media sound bites. However, without specifics taken on a case by case basis, this really doesn't mean much.

Energy Independence
We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology.

Many states are already engaged in doing exactly that. States are conducting their own research and pursuing green technologies. The moderate Democrats at the national level might advance this by funding additional programs. The realquestion is this. Who will pay for this? Are people willing to pay more for gasoline to fund such programs?

Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence

We will create jobs that stay in America and restore opportunity for all Americans, starting with raising the minimum wage, expanding Pell grants and making college tuition tax deductible. We also believe in budget discipline that reduces our deficit.

The unemployment rate is actually fairly low and we are definitely not in a recession. Who doesn't want to create jobs? The question is how will these jobs be created? As for budget discipline and balancing the budget this can only be accomplished by two means: raising taxes or reducing spending. How will our budget deficit be reduced? Will people of all income levels tolerate paying more taxes? Will the government ever be able to get a handle on out of control spending?

A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone
We will join 36 other industrialized nations in making sure everyone has access to affordable health care, starting by fixing the prescription drug program and investing in stem cell and other medical research.

What specifically is affordable health care? How does spending on research create affordable health care and who will pay for this research? Is not research presently being conducted and do not the pharmaceutical companies claim that one reason for such high prescription cocts is to cover the numerous legal and development costs of such drugs? Is not part of the problem the enormous lobbying effect and control that pharmaceutical companies have on the government? How about the hold that the insurance companies presently have on the medical system? How will reform the medical system to rid and protect it from frivolous lawsuits while allowing those who were actually hurt by doctors to seek appropriate compensation? How will we prevent lawyers from bilking the medical system as they presently do? How do we break the 'business' hold on the medical establishment and once again allow doctors to treat their patients and make appropriate decisions for those patients without 'business' interference that more or less dictates what a doctor can and cannot do?

Retirement Security
We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, starting with pension reform, expanding saving incentives and preventing the privatization of social security.

Many people feel that Social Security funds should be protected by placing them in a 'lock box' where the funds can only be used for Social Security purposes. Al Gore promoted doing this but enormous resistance prevents this from occuring. How will this ever be accomplished? As it stands now, funds are given away all over the world. Will anyone ever go back to understanding the original purposes and reasons for Social Security as proposed in the 1930's - to provide for a level of retirement income for Americans? Privatization of Social Security will never happen as Social Security will never be allowed to be run as a 'for profit' business where there are winners and losers. Anyone who thinks that privatization will be allowed is living a pipe dream.

The bottom line with all of this is that it will be up to people themselves to decide what they want. They will have to make certain sacrifices and additional payments to achieve this. There are NO free lunches in this country and government's role in all of this is to establish goals, educate and motivate people, and get the people to make the changes themselves. The government is composed of both Republicans and Democrats. Hopefully, the more sensible Democrats will be able to force change on the Republican Party by motivating the Republican Party to clean up its' own ranks. In the end, the Democratic Party may do the Republican Party a favor by making that party a cleaner and more effective party. Finally we have a check and balance system that will bring the government back more towards the center and away from the extreme right.

LamontCranston

11-11-2006, 11:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">re: Retirement -- The bottom line with all of this is that it will be up to people themselves to decide what they want. They will have to make certain sacrifices and additional payments to achieve this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Which already exists with the 401(k) and IRA provisions in the tax code. Money I control. If the Social Security Admin and the Congress cannot handle 12% of the U.S. payroll, then why would we give them control over more? Just don't spend what you have on things other than the intended purpose. Simple really.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">re: Healthcare -- How does spending on research create affordable health care and who will pay for this research? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd go one further and ask why the pharmacuticals don't fund their own research. Are they willing to share the profits resulting from the research?

Instead of raising the minimum wage (to buy low income voters), how about price controls on drugs whose research was funded by public money (which will cost PAC money from lobbyists)?

usmc1

11-11-2006, 11:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudeM:
"Honest Leadership"?

Real security - We are on the way to tell too much of our intentions and the terrorists, and other nations will be able to monitor our activities. I'll wait to see what happens, but I don't think we are going to keep our intentions secret.

Elucidate please. How are we on our way to telling terrorist organization our secrets?

Energy independencs - No way with the Dems in charge. We are not allowed to drill, or even explore for natural resources on our own turf. We can't 'harm' the environment for creatures that are on the endangered list. Here in California, there are farms that cannot be used due to destroying the habitat of 'field mice'.

I really would like to see the proof of this assertion that there are California farms going unused to protect the environment of "field mice". C'mon dude, that's right in their with the three headed baby from mars that hass been shcked up with Elvis in Madonna's basement.

On the coast, the dunes are becoming more and more scarce because we will destroy the habitat of the Snowy Plover, a small bird. Such examples are reasons why we can't search for natural resources due to extreme 'environmental regulations'.

What is an extreme enviornmental regulation? And precisely what is wrong with our protecting endangered species and/or habitat? Frankly, don't we have enough Wal-Mart parking ltos as it is?

I disagree with the minimum wage. I believe employers should pay fair wages, but I don't agree with the government setting the standards via legislation. This should be left to the private sectors.

But, the private sector does not. If left to its own devices the private sector will pay the lowest wages it can, expand work hours past safe levels, work children, and ignore safety hazards. That is why the government has set regulations. Here's a basic simple fact that you should have learned your first year of college in U.S. Gov 101..The govenment only moves into an area of control when a vacuum exists!

If you're talking about a government ran health care system, I am against that as well. True, there are guidelines that should be followed, but I don't agree with the government running the show.

Now making a healthcare system that works for everyone, sure. I'm all for that, but I don't agree with government intrusion

This is arrant silliness.

The V.A. health care (Governemtn) runs damn well for most of us. Medicare, except for plan D, works pretty well, Medicaid did too. Look, universal, cradel-to-grave, single-payer healthcare is coming. Get used to the notion that we're not going to 45,000 uninsured kids, and taht everyone is entitled to affordable, high-quality health-care.

Retirement system - I agree with you on that. But the Social Security system as it is now, will go broke due to the government 'borrowing' from it. If it would be ran by the private sector, the administrators will get in trouble by doing the exact same thing the government is doing right now. Privatizing the Social Security looks good now, the way the economy is looking good, but if the economy were to take a turn in the other direction, then that would be a disaster.

One, Social Securty is not going broke in the near future. The simple fix is to raise the cap, vada-ving, badda-boom, problem goes away.

In short, I don't think the Dems are no better than the GOP, on these particular issues. The economy is looking good due to the GOP's handeling of the budget, but the GOP also got us in the hole deeper "budget deficits", than any other time in recent history.

Being a conservative Democrat, I just don't see the new Congress and Senate making things any better. The represenatives that are going to our leaders, are too far 'left leaning' for my satisfaction. If they run things like they promised, then I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but I just don't see that happening.

Don't get me wrong, the GOP did a lot of things that I disagreed with as well. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nudeM

11-11-2006, 05:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Energy independencs - No way with the Dems in charge. We are not allowed to drill, or even explore for natural resources on our own turf. We can't 'harm' the environment for creatures that are on the endangered list. Here in California, there are farms that cannot be used due to destroying the habitat of 'field mice'.

I really would like to see the proof of this assertion that there are California farms going unused to protect the environment of "field mice". C'mon dude, that's right in their with the three headed baby from mars that hass been shcked up with Elvis in Madonna's basement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Living smack dab in the middle of the worlds largest food basket, it did happen. It happened in Bakersfield, California. A farmer got sued and was not able to plant his crop due to the endangered field mouse. Please read up on the history before posting your comment. I can't remember what year it was, but it did make the news, at least in the farming community. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

Liam

11-11-2006, 07:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudeM:
Living smack dab in the middle of the worlds largest food basket, it did happen. It happened in Bakersfield, California. A farmer got sued and was not able to plant his crop due to the endangered field mouse. Please read up on the history before posting your comment. I can't remember what year it was, but it did make the news, at least in the farming community. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This kind of thing has indeed happened. A bigger problem for agriculture comes from building over much of the best farmland in the world. Fresno and Tulare counties are the most productive CA counties agriculturally. Both are loosing farmland at a great rate due to building. The formerly very productive farmland in San Diego and Orange counties have driven out almost all farming due to urbanization. Ventura county is possibly soon to go the same way.

joeaguy

11-11-2006, 11:16 PM

Sustainability is a huge issue, and I think one the democrats understand better and I hope will take up. With globalization and privitization we've farmed out everything to the highest bidder, without looking at the long term consequences. We have deregulated energy markets where the rules are stacked so the supplier can set whatever price they feel like with no real incentive to increase supply or find new kinds of supplies. We send jobs overseas, and take other country's resources, and then demand cheap goods without realizing the political unrest we breed around the world by doing so. We overtake farmland to build mcmansions instead of being sure we are able to feed ourselves with healthily grown food, and instead of living in sensible compact communities.

These issues all effect the economey and security of our country. We need balance. We need to put America first and be sure we are able to provide for ourselves with our own resources, and do not squander them.

Some places fortunately have realized this already. Vermont for instance, has very strong movements for local agriculture and energy. In Italy and much of Europe, everyone lives in built up towns and cities, and the country is used almost exclusively for farming.

We need local and national pride and investment back. An end to the fear, reaction, and grabbing at shreds that has been going on in this new millenium so far. We need hope. That is why I vote for the democratic party. It is something I have seen them deliver on the local level, and is something I hope they can deliver nationaly.

Sanslines

11-12-2006, 04:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The formerly very productive farmland in San Diego and Orange counties have driven out almost all farming due to urbanization. Ventura county is possibly soon to go the same way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mission Valley in San Diego is excellent farmland and also a flood plain but was all paved and built over years ago. Massive housing projects are now plannned for the Imperial Valley due east of San Diego (city) along the I-8 corridor. In the next 20 years, you can be sure that Imperial Valley will look more like a suburban paradise rather then the collection of farming communities that it has been for ages. I am not sure why anyone would really want to live there as it gets so hot and infested with huge mosquitos. However, if the projected increase in national population of 100 million over the next 35 years holds true, then all of these people will have to live somewhere and so it will be inevitable that we lose more and more farmland and other protected areas.

As for Orange County, well once upon a time there were acreas and acreas of orange and other citrus groves. Same thing with the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. As recently as the 1950's the San Fernando Valley was full of citrus growing ranches and the air was full of the sweet smell of citrus. Now, the valley is suburbia and the air reeks of smog. (Just take the 405 fwy north from LA over the mountain pass and look down into the valley.) Progress has indeed 'paved over paradise and put up a parking lot' in those counties and areas too.

Sanslines

11-12-2006, 04:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We have deregulated energy markets where the rules are stacked so the supplier can set whatever price they feel like with no real incentive to increase supply or find new kinds of supplies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There presently are plans to vastly increase the USA power grid to bring electricity from where it is generated ie mid west coal and natural gas fired plants to areas where demand keeps increasing ie the east coast. Since it is virtually impossible to build new power plants (even the so called mini power plants) in congested urban areas like the east coast corridor, a viable solution is to string new power lines from coast to coast. Such plans are being strongly opposed as environmentalists do not want power lines strung through national parks and farmland. With an increase of 100 million people in the next 35 years, there will be an enormous need and pressure to expand services ie roads, schools, housing, energy, etc and it is likely that the environment will continue to degrade.

usmc1

11-12-2006, 05:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudeM:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Energy independencs - No way with the Dems in charge. We are not allowed to drill, or even explore for natural resources on our own turf. We can't 'harm' the environment for creatures that are on the endangered list. Here in California, there are farms that cannot be used due to destroying the habitat of 'field mice'.

I really would like to see the proof of this assertion that there are California farms going unused to protect the environment of "field mice". C'mon dude, that's right in their with the three headed baby from mars that hass been shcked up with Elvis in Madonna's basement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Living smack dab in the middle of the worlds largest food basket, it did happen. It happened in Bakersfield, California. A farmer got sued and was not able to plant his crop due to the endangered field mouse. Please read up on the history before posting your comment. I can't remember what year it was, but it did make the news, at least in the farming community. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really Nude M, since you're the one making the wild-eyed, unsubstantiated assertion based on something you heard or read from the "farming community" at one time or another, I think it is incumbant upon you to present proof.

But, to help you, and in the Democratic party's ecuemenical spirit of bipartisanship let me point you in this direction: Could you be referring to an instance wherein a farmer was sloshing warfarin in his fields as a rodent control measure and was restrained because this very powerful anti-coagulant poison was running off into streams, rivers, lakes and public water supplies?

See, I can play that game too. You know, put a plausible sounding assertion out there as fact and say, now you disprove that one.

Were I you, I would save my outrage and concern for the "farmer" and direct them at Con-Agra and the banks which have all but eliminated family farms in much of the country.

hickory1945

11-12-2006, 06:22 AM

USMC 1

I don't know what you guys have been smoking lately, but you better ease off on a little bit. That must be pretty strong stuff to make you guys so paranoid and hallucinatory.
Hickory

usmc1

11-12-2006, 09:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hickory1945:
USMC 1

I don't know what you guys have been smoking lately, but you better ease off on a little bit. That must be pretty strong stuff to make you guys so paranoid and hallucinatory.
Hickory </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This thread, for me, is interesting in several ways.

1. Your wiseacre comment from nowhere which has no relevance or context or bearing on what is being discussed here. Just some gratuitous half-assed comment. I always wonder if this sort of post provides a safety-valve outlet, sparing us yet another gruesome headline.

2. A third of the respondees to the poll indicate that their vision of America does not include, either all of or in part:

1) Honest Leadership & Open Government
2) Real Security
3) Energy Independence
4) Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence
5) A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone
6) Retirement Security

One-third, 33% voted that these things were not part of their vision for America. Stangely, or maybe not if you really consider it, that's Bush's current approval rating, and he sure as hell does not include these things in his vision for America.

LamontCranston

11-12-2006, 09:46 AM

I do count those things as important, but your summary of what to do about them needs work.

President Bush made retirement securty the focus of his State of the Union address last January and followed it up with extensive discussions, speeches, and sparked weeks of public commentary.

"Real Security" is a B.S. phrase. There hasn't been a terrorist attack on the U.S. Homeland in over five years.

These things are in his vision of America, and it's a matter of public record. You don't agree with the methods, but there is no denying they are in his vision.

Furthermore, your 6-point plan is a list of issues one can use as a base to run a campaign. The election is over. I'm expecting answers and actions, not a vague six-point plan.

What legislation will the Democrats introduce during their first week and first month in the new Congress?

Will there be a bill introduced that adresses each of these issues?

This isn't a plan, it's a list of issues and useless as written. Anyone can say them, few can do them.

Plus, look how easy it was to bait you off-message with the field mouse issue. True or not, it's not relevant to your so-called six-point plan, but you bit.

That's the same sort of thing I expect the special interest lobbyists will do. You and the Democrat leadership need to resist such noise and stay on message or your control of Congress may be short-lived.

Naturist Mark

11-12-2006, 10:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There hasn't been a terrorist attack on the U.S. Homeland in over five years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Except the Anthrax attack.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What legislation will the Democrats introduce during their first week and first month in the new Congress? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Here's new Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plan for the first 100 hours (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html) : <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

<LI> Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission.

<LI> Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.

<LI> Cut the interest rate on student loans in half.

<LI> Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

<LI> Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds.

<LI> Begin to achieve energy independence
by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil.

<LI> Guarantee a dignified retirement, beginning by stopping any attempt to privatize Social Security.

<LI> Return to "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority [/list]

-Mark

Qikdraw

11-12-2006, 10:33 AM

Real Security From what I have heard the democrats are going to start to impliment the reccomendations of the bi-partisian 9/11 commission. Something the republicans ignored.

Healthcare National healthcare is possible with current money going into medicare and medicaid. At least thats what a GAO report says. US healthcare, regradless of how many people say we have the best in the world, is actually ranked 33rd in the world according to WHO. A single payer healthcare system is the best choice for all Americans.

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

11-12-2006, 10:35 AM

Naturist Mark

11-12-2006, 10:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Healthcare National healthcare is possible with current money going into medicare and medicaid. At least thats what a GAO report says. US healthcare, regradless of how many people say we have the best in the world, is actually ranked 33rd in the world according to WHO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US is ranked 37th (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/9700095093?r=4960005324#4960005324) in the world. France is #1. We already pay more taxdollars for health care per capita than any other nation in the world, including France.

-Mark

earthpassenger(Kevin)

11-12-2006, 12:15 PM

The money for universal health care is certainly here in America--if the politicians would only have the courage to look for it and if they don't do something totally insane but entirely plausible like getting involved in yet another war somewhere in the world--Iran, Korea, Lebanon, Venezuela?

As Nicholas Kristof pointed out in a New York Times column (Oct 24, 2006: "Iraq and Your Wallet"), if you go by the estimate of Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz the costs of the war in iraq are "likely to exceed 2 trillion dollars." Kristof: "four times the additional cost needed to provide health insurance for all uninsured Americans for the next decade."

But will Americans let any serious attempt to deal with crazy health care prices and the growing uninsurance crisis get torn apart by the vested interests of the health care industry as happened with the Clinton administration's attempts at health care reform? Here in California our state legislature passed a single payer health care bill but Schwarzenegger vetoed it and we're back to where we started.

Some of the facts cited in an opinion piece (Nov. 3) in the Los Angeles Times by John Abramson, of Harvard Medical School and author of "Overdosed America"

1. "cost of healthcare in U.S. $7,100 per person this year--projected to increase to $12,000 by 2015 and compounding at more than
double the rate of inflation....medical care gobbles up one-sixth of the GDP."

2. "Americans spend twice as much per person on healthcare as the other 21 wealthiest countries, (but) data from the World Health Org. show that we live the shortest amount of time in good health (2 and a half years less than the average in the other countries.)"

3. "The number of the uninsured: 47 million and growing by 1 million a year" Acording to the Institute of Medicine 18,000 people die in America each year because of lack of insurance.

Electoral reform is an issue that might not have a high priority simply because of the big mess George Bush either got us into (Iraq) or left us in (health care).
Jim Webb could have lost the Senate seat in Virginia if the Green Party candidate had siphoned a few thousand more votes away from him. If you can look at the votes for President between 1992 and 2004 you could argue that 2004 was the only unspoiled election and in most cases a third party candidate, Ralph Nader or Ross Perot affected the outcome.

Instant Run-off Voting (I.R.V.) is the most popular suggestion for eliminating the spoiler problem. People vote for a first, second and third choice for a particular office and if there is no majority winner of the first choice vote second and third choices are counted until there is a winner. This is how San Francisco votes for its city-wide candidates and how Burlington, Vermont votes for Mayor. A vote on I.R.V. was introduced into the U.S. Congress by Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. but it didn't go far in the Republican congress.

Peace
Kevin

Sanslines

11-12-2006, 12:43 PM

We will not have universal health care coverage anytime soon. Heck, we won't even have affordable health care coverage and the number of people who can not afford health care will continue to grow. Too many major steps need to be taken to bring health care to all people. The first step will need to be a joint effort by members from both parties. This step is to end campaign contributions from outside and lobbying groups thereby ending the overwhelming influence that the medical and pharmaceutical establishments have on the 'system'. The government needs to force major price reductions on health care before an affordable (to both individuals and the government) insurance can be brought forward. Don't hold your breath for this to happen for the medical and pharmaceutical establishments are just too wealthy and too powerful for any group of politicians to stop their influences.

nudeM

11-12-2006, 04:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by nudeM:

quote:
Energy independencs - No way with the Dems in charge. We are not allowed to drill, or even explore for natural resources on our own turf. We can't 'harm' the environment for creatures that are on the endangered list. Here in California, there are farms that cannot be used due to destroying the habitat of 'field mice'.

I really would like to see the proof of this assertion that there are California farms going unused to protect the environment of "field mice". C'mon dude, that's right in their with the three headed baby from mars that hass been shcked up with Elvis in Madonna's basement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Living smack dab in the middle of the worlds largest food basket, it did happen. It happened in Bakersfield, California. A farmer got sued and was not able to plant his crop due to the endangered field mouse. Please read up on the history before posting your comment. I can't remember what year it was, but it did make the news, at least in the farming community.

Really Nude M, since you're the one making the wild-eyed, unsubstantiated assertion based on something you heard or read from the "farming community" at one time or another, I think it is incumbant upon you to present proof.

But, to help you, and in the Democratic party's ecuemenical spirit of bipartisanship let me point you in this direction: Could you be referring to an instance wherein a farmer was sloshing warfarin in his fields as a rodent control measure and was restrained because this very powerful anti-coagulant poison was running off into streams, rivers, lakes and public water supplies?

See, I can play that game too. You know, put a plausible sounding assertion out there as fact and say, now you disprove that one.

Were I you, I would save my outrage and concern for the "farmer" and direct them at Con-Agra and the banks which have all but eliminated family farms in much of the country.

"Saulus Populi Suprema Est Lex" - Cicero </div></BLOCKQUOTE>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again. It is evident you won't even accept the truth even if is presented to you. The story will get turned around to make your point as being right. The case you were referring to is not what I was talking about.

I'm not going to waste my time searching for the story, but it could probably be found under the E.P.A. web site. Since you are the one questioning my claim, then it should be up to you to provide my inaccuracy and prove me wrong.

I stand by my story, and if there is anyone who is in the Bakersfield (Kern County) area, then they should know exactly what I am talking about. It made the news several of years ago and was widely publicized, at least around the state.

Naturist Mark

11-12-2006, 04:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not going to waste my time searching for the story, but it could probably be found under the E.P.A. web site. Since you are the one questioning my claim, then it should be up to you to provide my inaccuracy and prove me wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I wasted time over two days trying to track down any media stories about farmers not being allowed to farm their land because of endangered field mice. Couldn't find any. Kept searching, changing criteria.

Here's what I finally came up with. A farmer who was offered help in obtaining permits, over a period of several years, to allow him to farm land that was designated as habitat for several endangered and threatened species - including leopard lizards, San Joaquin kit foxes and the Tipton kangaroo rat. The farmer spurned the assistance and ignored the warnings and was prosecuted only after two years of federal officials trying to accomodate him.

Eventually all the charges were dropped after the farmer agreed to obtain a permit and to contribute $5,000 toward a preserve for endangered wildlife in Kern County.

Immigrant Farmer Loses American Dream to ESA Storm Troopers (http://www.net.org/esa/chapter4.vtml#losing)

-Mark

LamontCranston

11-12-2006, 05:23 PM

I don't know Mark... I was jazzed up for a couple of days but this?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here's new Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plan for the first 100 hours :
Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission.

Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.

Cut the interest rate on student loans in half.

Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds.

Begin to achieve energy independence
by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil.

Guarantee a dignified retirement, beginning by stopping any attempt to privatize Social Security.

Return to "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority </div></BLOCKQUOTE> What about Iraq? Months of squawking and it's not even in the plan?

Did someone transplant Washington DC to the Land of Oz along with Dorothy and Toto? -- "break the link between lobbyists and legislation." -- so lobbyists help congressmen get elected and we're to believe said Congressmen will wash their hands of it? I thought we were to have some honesty at the helm.

There is no currently active legislation to prioritize Social Security. So in the first 100 hours they can do nothing and check this one off.

I don't understand the connection between energy independence and oil companies. How will any of that reduce demand? Or make supply cheaper? Sounds like higher gas prices for me.

And federal funding for stem cell research won't pass a veto... again.

None of this is new, none of this is change and none of this captures my imagination. More of the same trudgery, no real change.

I was hoping for a BIG SPLASH ... like zeroing out the funding for Iraq troop deployments until a division is ordered off the field.

usmc1

11-13-2006, 04:41 AM

Hey NudeM, what Mark said!

Hey Lamont, c'mon dude, getaclue! The freekin' players ain't even stepped onto the field and you're critiquing the play-calling.

Sanslines

11-13-2006, 04:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LamontCranston:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">re: Retirement -- The bottom line with all of this is that it will be up to people themselves to decide what they want. They will have to make certain sacrifices and additional payments to achieve this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Which already exists with the 401(k) and IRA provisions in the tax code. Money I control. If the Social Security Admin and the Congress cannot handle 12% of the U.S. payroll, then why would we give them control over more? Just don't spend what you have on things other than the intended purpose. Simple really.

Lamont, it's not really that simple. It is wonderful that you contribute to a 401k plan. However, what do you do with the people who either can not or will not fund their own programs? Without Social Security, once they reach retirement age, what will they do? Is our society prepared to say to such people "it is your own damn fault and so you get what you deserve" and then allow such people to starve? One way or another society will pay for those who are unprepared for retirement. Social Security is a way to force people who work to make mandatory contributions to a fund from which they will receive benefits once they retire. 401k's (along with other retirement schemes such as pensions) are either not manditory or guaranteed. Social Security offers a level of stability that other retirement schemes do not. Another tidbit about social security is this. Back in the 1950's, many people who were employed in well paying manufacturing jobs and were earning well paying retirment pensions actually did not need (and some even did not apply) for Social Security benefits. In those days, companies took care of their retired employees and Social Security to many was just a supplement. Fast forward to day's unstable world where most of those well paying manufacturing jobs are gone and Social Security is no longer an option to many. Social Security has become a necessity for retirement and it appears that this will not change anytime soon. Social Security in today's world can not be made into a privatized system (in other words allow business to influence it) for this would create a system of winners and losers. The stability factor of Social Security would be lost and we would again find ourselves with a whole group of people with no income once they receive retirement age (due to bad investment decisions).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">re: Healthcare -- How does spending on research create affordable health care and who will pay for this research? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd go one further and ask why the pharmacuticals don't fund their own research. Are they willing to share the profits resulting from the research?

Instead of raising the minimum wage (to buy low income voters), how about price controls on drugs whose research was funded by public money (which will cost PAC money from lobbyists)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bringing down the cost of medications will certainly help. However, in the grand scheme of things, pharmaceutical costs are just one factor in creating affordable health care. The major problem for most people is for those who are vulnerable to the full costs of medical proceedures. For example, a 'simple' heart attack can cost over $500,000 when all of the hospital and medical costs are added up. How many people who are uninsured can afford that? How about those individuals who worked hard and saved money but did not have 'good' health insurance and would therefore be forced to give up all of their hard earned assets before any sort of aid kicks in? Such a system as we have now encourages people to save no money as such hard earned money would be seized by a hospital in a millisecond. The fact is that our health care system is broken and pharmaceutical costs are just one part of the huge problem. The only answer to create affordable health care is to force change on the medical establishment by eliminating medical establishment lobbying. As it stands now, the ever rapidly increasing medical costs would soon become unaffordable even to the government.

missouriboy

11-13-2006, 07:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In January the Democrats will bring their six-point plan for America to Washington. Does it reflect your vision for America? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And why can we expect the result to be any different from when (was it 1994?) the Republicans presented their "Contract With America" upon first regaining control of Congress after their own 40 years of minority?

It didn't happen. What, if anything, is different now that would make this plan happen? These "plans" always come along with promises that no one could disagree with, but they never really make any difference. I'll wait and see what the "action" is.

hm0504

11-13-2006, 10:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not going to waste my time searching for the story, but it could probably be found under the E.P.A. web site. Since you are the one questioning my claim, then it should be up to you to provide my inaccuracy and prove me wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I wasted time over two days trying to track down any media stories about farmers not being allowed to farm their land because of endangered field mice. Couldn't find any. Kept searching, changing criteria.

Here's what I finally came up with. A farmer who was offered help in obtaining permits, over a period of several years, to allow him to farm land that was designated as habitat for several endangered and threatened species - including leopard lizards, San Joaquin kit foxes and the Tipton kangaroo rat. The farmer spurned the assistance and ignored the warnings and was prosecuted only after two years of federal officials trying to accomodate him.

Eventually all the charges were dropped after the farmer agreed to obtain a permit and to contribute $5,000 toward a preserve for endangered wildlife in Kern County.

Immigrant Farmer Loses American Dream to ESA Storm Troopers (http://www.net.org/esa/chapter4.vtml#losing)

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dang it Mark! There you go with your fact-based arguments again! That's pre-9/11 thinking, get over it and move on to truthiness-based!

missouriboy

11-14-2006, 05:34 AM

I believe nudeM knows whereof he speaks, just as all of us have life experiences that are true but undocumented. Can you guys document every experience in your life that you know to be true? Hell no you can't, so why do you demand that others do so?

I myself recall a news article here in Missouri (and NO, don't ask me for a link, it was years ago) where the Corps of Engineers forced a farmer to discontinue in-progress improvements on a portion of his own land, just because some unevaporated rain puddle inspired them to declare it a "wetland," that must nevermore be disturbed. You must be aware that this kind of crap has been going on for years now, and the complaint is that it amounts to "eminent domain" being invoked without the concomitant "just compensation" that completes the balance of what used to be known as "property rights" in this country.

That's the kind of stuff nudeM was talking about, and he has a valid point!

usmc1

11-14-2006, 09:22 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
I believe nudeM knows whereof he speaks, just as all of us have life experiences that are true but undocumented. Can you guys document every experience in your life that you know to be true? Hell no you can't, so why do you demand that others do so?

I myself recall a news article here in Missouri (and NO, don't ask me for a link, it was years ago) where the Corps of Engineers forced a farmer to discontinue in-progress improvements on a portion of his own land, just because some unevaporated rain puddle inspired them to declare it a "wetland," that must nevermore be disturbed. You must be aware that this kind of crap has been going on for years now, and the complaint is that it amounts to "eminent domain" being invoked without the concomitant "just compensation" that completes the balance of what used to be known as "property rights" in this country.

That's the kind of stuff nudeM was talking about, and he has a valid point! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking of crap! No he doesn't and no you don't.

To assert in any conversation such unfounded nonsense as aa farmer compelled to abandon improvement projects on his property because of an "unevaporated rain puddle" while claiming it's true simple because you know it is really brings your mental state into serious question.

You can't say to whom, or where, or precisely when, but you know it happened. Right!

But then you're the guy who believes the "government" shot drones or cruise missles into the twin towers and the pentagon and somehow "staged" the other crash on 9/11.

The sad thing is that abuse of emminent domain and failures on the part of the Corps of Engineers are very, very serious issues and problems deserving of investigation and change.

Mark shot down the other thing and no doubt if one were to invest the time, this one would catch a round right between the horns also.

But, these wild-eyed, foundless assertions distract from the real issues and marginalizes the problems as being a part of the whacko-fringe paranoia causing serious minded people to dismiss the problem.

You want a real issue to sink your teeth into, examine that which is being called "The Trans-Texas Corridor".

Baron Lake

11-14-2006, 09:56 AM

Don't be so hard on NudeM usmc. He's a fan of Ruck Limbaugh. Can't help but believe that opinion absent evidence is valid argument.

b.l.

Naturist Mark

11-14-2006, 03:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
I believe nudeM knows whereof he speaks, just as all of us have life experiences that are true but undocumented. Can you guys document every experience in your life that you know to be true? Hell no you can't, so why do you demand that others do so?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>I went to a lot of trouble to find a news story to support what NudeM posted, and I think I found it. I have no doubt that the news stories at the time trumpeted it as a travesty that the FWS would shut down a farm because of an endangered rat. Of course news stories are notorious for not getting the whole story or for covering the followup as well as the original spectacle. In this case the farmer had been flouting the law for two years, spurning the assistance offered by the jack booted storm troopers, and in the end was required to get the permit he could have got in the beginning without any of the trouble - along with $5000 restitution - a pretty paltry penalty. I am not the least bit surprised that the people in Kern County who all knew about the 'raid' do not know the full circumstances or outcome of the case. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I myself recall a news article here in Missouri (and NO, don't ask me for a link, it was years ago) where the Corps of Engineers forced a farmer to discontinue in-progress improvements on a portion of his own land, just because some unevaporated rain puddle inspired them to declare it a "wetland," that must nevermore be disturbed. You must be aware that this kind of crap has been going on for years now, and the complaint is that it amounts to "eminent domain" being invoked without the concomitant "just compensation" that completes the balance of what used to be known as "property rights" in this country. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I can guarantee that the 'wetland' in question was not just an unevaporated rain puddle. Short version: for a wetland to be subject to federal regulations it must connected to navigable waters (can you float a canoe down it at least part of the year?), and should support a permanent growth of aquatic vegetation. That is a much more substantial standard than a puddle. This used to be my job - I was one the guys at the Corps who investigated encroachments on wetlands - along with other regulatory matters.

The notion of government regulations - particularly environmental - being a 'taking' of property rights is a popular conservative meme, but it is not law and has not been supported by the courts. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
That's the kind of stuff nudeM was talking about, and he has a valid point! </div></BLOCKQUOTE> But wrong in that particular case. Again, I don't blame him - the media didn't bother to tell the whole story.

-Mark

nacktman

11-14-2006, 04:04 PM

Mark, we all need to remember not to confuse'em with the facts.

Also, for all those who do not see the six-points as what this nation is about then you need to go form your own nation - for as the Red Rider song says "Lunatic fringe we know you're out there ... we're on to you this time ... we won't let you steal the laughter ..." - this is our nation and we're going to keep it.

Sanslines

11-14-2006, 04:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The notion of government regulations - particularly environmental - being a 'taking' of property rights is a popular conservative meme, but it is not law and has not been supported by the courts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something that had happened around here is the use of Eminent Domain to 'seize property for the public good':

Eminent domain (U.S.), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption (Australia) or expropriation (Canada, South Africa) in common law legal systems is the inherent power of the state to expropriate private property without the owner's consent, either for its own use or by delegation of the taking power to third parties who will devote it to "public uses", the most common examples being public utilities or railroads.

The state offered 'fair market value' to homeowners to seize their property so the homes could be demolished to make room for a new highway. The homeowners were offered what the state felt was fair market value but the home owners did not. This led to numerous lawsuits being filed to stop the seizure of homeowner property. In the end the homeowners lost and had to accept whatever the state offered them and then move.

Another use of eminent domain involved the seizure of private property for anticipated future commercial use. The properties were seized, the homes demolished, and the land re-zoned for commerical use. To this day, no commercial buildings have been erected on the vacant sites.

Naturist Mark

11-14-2006, 05:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Something that had happened around here is the use of Eminent Domain to 'seize property for the public good': </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is always what eminent domain is. What has twisted the panties of the press and pundits lately is the Supreme Court ruling that the "public good" can be to take private land and turn it over to private developers - because the increased value will benefit the public in greater economic activity and tax revenues.

Of course that is nothing new, it used to be called "urban renewal". If I recall correctly a certain Texas baseball entrepeneur (http://www.bushfiles.com/bushfiles/SweetheartDeal.html) made millions back in the early 90s by "redeveloping" private property obtained through eminent domain in the blocks adjacent to a new municipally built baseball stadium.

-Mark

Big-Thinker

11-14-2006, 05:39 PM

I feel Eminent Domain is okay for highways, etc., but I hate to hear stories where the concept is twisted to just take property for commercial use or "future commercial use". Seems to be a clear violation of property rights. How far will this evolve? If the goal is to reduce crime in an area, I agree that extreme actions may be neccessary, but forced sale of property should not be one of them.

hickory1945

11-14-2006, 08:17 PM

Naturist Mark'
In our county and surronding area every pond lake or impounded water is considered a wetland by our local soil and water conservation districts. They recieve the power to classify them as wetlands and to have jurisdiction over them thru the federal goverment. We have to seek permission to drain, dredge or alter in any way the "wetlands". We have "wetlands" on top of hills that were built to water our cattle. Yes a pond will fill on top of a hill if it is spring fed. I have never heard the "float a canoe" saying before. The corp of engineers can tell us what to do with any water way, even if is dry most of the time and only contains water when it rains.
Hickory

missouriboy

11-15-2006, 04:27 AM

Thanks, hickory1945.

But even if the "canoe" regulations are there, the problem is the power-drunk bureaucrats who think that once they make a ruling, even if later proven wrong, they will not back down. Protection of turf, y'know. Then, even the courts are reluctant to ever rule against the "gummint." Hey, aren't we all loyal to the source of our paychecks?

So, in the end, the little guy is screwed. Is that 6-point plan going to work to alleviate some of this kind of stuff? I hope so.

missouriboy

11-15-2006, 04:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can guarantee that the 'wetland' in question was not just an unevaporated rain puddle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Mark, with all due respect, NO, you cannot guarantee any such thing, unless you were there. It's nice to hear that the regulations are reasonable, but not all power-drunk bureaucrats follow them, and that's the problem. I also appreciate your insight into the less than thorough news coverage on these events, and maybe that is what happened, I don't know. But that doesn't mean the news article I reported never appeared, as certain ones around here like to think they know better than anyone else. I did NOT make that up! And the same goes for the event that nudeM reported.

nacktman

11-15-2006, 04:44 AM

"WetLands" are only designated about bodies of water that are navigable by boat (i.e., canoe)[no matter the duration of time that they are so] or any body of water that is connected to the sea, either directly or through another body of water.

Both types of wetland designation fall under federal jusidiction with most "static" (those not connected to the sea), falling under state and local jurisdiction as well.

Any one may create a "wetland" by building a body of water where one does not exist when doing so does not alter the local habitats of other flora and fauna to the point they cannot remain as they where.

One may not alter a wetland designated area for any means except to improve and expand it and only with a permit and approved engineering plans.

None of this has diddly-squat to do with the poll and it's topic, but I see that obfuscation, disinformation, twisting the "facts", etc., that all conservatives do (we have just experienced the extreme nutjobs of the cons over the past few years) has not gone away and that where they cannot stand on their ideas and ideals they divert, pervert and subvert to draw attention from the issue at hand.

NudistGuy47

11-15-2006, 04:49 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by usmc1:
The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.

Honest Leadership & Open Government
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">I am for this, but see it as a long, protracted fight in Congress. Both parties are deep in the pockets of special interest groups and lobbysists. If true open, honest goverment is to happen, will it mean the demise of K Street?</span>

Real Security
<span class="ev_code_BlUE">Here! Here!</span>

Energy Independence
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Energy indepedence does not require drilling in protected tracts in America. Energy independence will come from the Amreican public taking steps to reduce the consumption. Some of those steps are using public transportation, car-pooling when available, developing the technology already in place to reduce fossil fuel consumption, etc. It also means developing and using alternative energy resources such as wind. We, the citizens of the US, have a need to protect the environment for future generations. I support the Kyoto Protocol, which Bush negated as soon as he entered office. I would like to see the US be more focused on conservation than consumption. (OOPS! I just exposed myself as the Greenie that I am!)</span>

Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">I will support educational excellence and raising the standards for graduation. I would like to see all HS graduates possess the life skills necessary to exist in this increasingly complex world. I also support job creation, but at this moment, am unclear exactly what kind of jobs will be created that will stay in the US. I do know from the trend data and futurist forecasts, that the US is heading to a knowledge economy and will require a highly educated, skilled worker. With that in mind, I will support reducing the costs of college so that those who wish can pursue higher education.</span>

A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">There will be a long, protracted battle in reducing the prescription costs. The reason Canadian drugs cost less is there is a national healthcare system that negotiates the best price possible for the drugs. Buying in bulk always saves money.</span>

Retirement Security
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">I will support this facet in that I beleieve all should have the right to a retirement with dignity. Where I differ with the Democrats is I strongly believe we each have our own responsibility to save for our own retirement. That means paying yourself first when it comes to the earnings brought home. It means taking advantage of all the tax deductions to save for retirement. The government is not the source of retirement dignity. It is our own hard work and dedicated savings. As a society, the US savings rate is WAY below other industrialized countries. Without our own savings, there will be no future retirement with dignity.</span>
QUOTE]

I did bring this subject back to the original subject. Sometimes it takes me a bit of time to have the thoughts coalesce.

missouriboy

11-15-2006, 05:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You want a real issue to sink your teeth into, examine that which is being called "The Trans-Texas Corridor". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I am quite aware of this travesty. It, like NAFTA, is being foisted on the public without any real Congressional oversight. Will the 6-point plan curb the power-grabbing globalists who are fomenting it?

When I travel to Sandpipers Resort, I drive down the 4-lane divided US Highway 281 that has signs bragging "Future Corridor of Interstate 69." My first reaction was "What? The number 69, for this area, does NOT fit the Interstate numbering scheme at all." Then later I find out about this "NAFTA Highway" thing, where Kansas City will become the Port of Entry for Mexican trucks bringing Chinese goods, and it'll be a 10-lane road plus pipelines, rail lines, and communication lines, all sucking up a HUGE chunk of some of our best agricultural land, all the way to Canada, then also branching out to the east and west coasts someday. All paid for with US taxpayer dollars, of course, without our representatives ever voting on it.

Yeah, now there's something worthy of changing the 6-point plan to a 7-point plan! How about it?

(The rest of your wild-eyed, raving post doesn't bear repeating, or any response.)

hickory1945

11-15-2006, 05:44 AM

Nacktman'
All this wetland business is not the result of the last few years. This has been going on for years. It went on when Clinton was in office and before that. Beauocrats are entrenched in Washington and do their thing no matter what party is in the White House.
Hickory

usmc1

11-15-2006, 06:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You want a real issue to sink your teeth into, examine that which is being called "The Trans-Texas Corridor". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I am quite aware of this travesty. It, like NAFTA, is being foisted on the public without any real Congressional oversight. Will the 6-point plan curb the power-grabbing globalists who are fomenting it?

When I travel to Sandpipers Resort, I drive down the 4-lane divided US Highway 281 that has signs bragging "Future Corridor of Interstate 69." My first reaction was "What? The number 69, for this area, does NOT fit the Interstate numbering scheme at all." Then later I find out about this "NAFTA Highway" thing, where Kansas City will become the Port of Entry for Mexican trucks bringing Chinese goods, and it'll be a 10-lane road plus pipelines, rail lines, and communication lines, all sucking up a HUGE chunk of some of our best agricultural land, all the way to Canada, then also branching out to the east and west coasts someday. All paid for with US taxpayer dollars, of course, without our representatives ever voting on it.

Yeah, now there's something worthy of changing the 6-point plan to a 7-point plan! How about it?

(The rest of your wild-eyed, raving post doesn't bear repeating, or any response.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, wild-eyed ravings that's me alright.

But, you're only partially aware of all the implications of the Trans Texas Corridor.

Those cheaply made goods from Asia bound for US & Canadian consumption will bypass US ports, costing even more American jobs.

They will be offloaded in Mexico and put on Mexican trucks (no American teamsters need apply). Those trucks will cross the border without even a speedbump.

OK, now you almost have it. The company building the hyper-highway (car lanes, truck lanes, railway beds, and power lines) is a Spanish company. The company that will own the concessions along the way, a Spanish company.

Now you have the complete gist of the deal as it is going down.

The difference between this and the farmer's mud puddle is that this one is real and well-documented and one hell of a lot more deserving of our attention and energy.

Baron Lake

11-15-2006, 10:46 AM

Moboy, nudeM's "poor farmer" story was clearly debunked by Mark. Please take time to go back and read his relevant post. BTW the "farmer" in question warn't hardly Pa Kettle. He's a city slicker investor from LA.
b.l.

Naturist Mark

11-15-2006, 04:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hickory1945:
Nacktman'
All this wetland business is not the result of the last few years. This has been going on for years. It went on when Clinton was in office and before that. Beauocrats are entrenched in Washington and do their thing no matter what party is in the White House.
Hickory </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The relevent statutes were passed in 1969 and 1972 - by Nixon - and were extensions of the orignal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

Nachtman's summary is essentially correct, except that it is now common to grant waivers that allow development in wetlands if mitigation occurs - usually the mitigation is the creation of new wetlands to replace the negatively impacted wetlands - this is controversial since manmade wetlands are seldom anywhere near as ecologically valuable as critical natural habitat. And lately (under 'W') mitigation has become so debased as to be a joke - in some cases golf course water hazards as being touted as mitigation for the destruction of critical wetland habitat.

As to the point about "wetlands" on top of hills that were built to water our cattle. Manmade bodies of water are NOT subject to federal wetland protection and are outside Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. They MAY be subject to State and Local regs. Water QUALITY standards regulated by the EPA or FWS may apply, but not federal wetland regs.

-Mark

hickory1945

11-15-2006, 05:28 PM

Mark'
That is sure not what they tell us a the local Farm Service Agency, US government office.
They designated wetlands by looking at aerial maps. We had one area that the grass had laid down, in kind of a round shape, they said it was a wetland. When we pointed this out to them, they said it was our responsibility to prove it wasn't and to not to do anything to it until it had been inspected. They haven't come to inspect it yet. These areas were all reported as wetlands to the EPA and other agencies. We ask why they wouldn't change the classification, they said it would be reported a wetland loss and would reflect bad on the county. Crazy huh. Never was a wetland but once reported as such, it will be considered lost habitat for wildlife.
Oh our wonderful federal agencies.
Hickory

nacktman

11-15-2006, 05:49 PM

Hickory, I never said a thing about any one being in office in my post about the wetlands. I said that those - who we all know - use obfuscation, distortion, outright lies and so forth when thay cannot stand upon their ideas and ideals.

Mark, the granting of waivers is a joke as you said especially in the last six plus years. Also most states do have regs in place for man made "wetlands" - even those built on the top of hills to water our cattle. What they are and how they are enforced varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction just as any other type of regulatory oversight is.

Thanks NudistGuy47 for bringing the thread back to topic.

Honest Leadership and Open Government

Well, duh, that's what this country was founded on and I demand we have it!

Real Security

Oh, now there's a concept for ya! How about another ... I was always taught you made friends by being a friend first and friends looked out for one another ... I know it's a novel idea but we could give it the ol'college try now couldn't we?

Energy Independence

Hey, we could have been energy independent for the last century as we were before the last century if corporations (and you know who they are) had not suppressed or had the government suppress alternative energy sources - there's no reason we will not be energy independent by the end of the first decade of this century except for those same said corporations and their flunkies stalling and blocking the development and use of alternative energy supplies.

Economic Prosperity & Education Excellence

Doing, do you really need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the benefits of everyone being prosperous and the well educated - or do you feel being dirt sucking poor and marginally edgamucated is a better way to go.

A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone

Here's another no brainer for ya and we could have it tomorrow morning if the medical lobbyist were shut out of congress - and before any neo's raise the higher taxes bullshirt, there is more than enough money to cover every citizen and illegal now and into the future at the current tax rates (and maybe even at lower tax rates) already within our government. We could do all this and still pay off the deficit raked up by those "non-tax raisin' neo's (after raising taxes more times and at higher percentages than any before have done)[oops, was that my outside voice].

Retirement Security

Lawdy, Lawdy, Lawdy just what we need - to be able to live out our Golden Years as real human beings, how can we ever want such a thing!

Naturist Mark

11-15-2006, 06:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We ask why they wouldn't change the classification, they said it would be reported a wetland loss and would reflect bad on the county. Crazy huh. Never was a wetland but once reported as such, it will be considered lost habitat for wildlife. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aha!

I think we have an answer.

The Bush administration has been criticized (http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/conservation/article/0,13199,1179434,00.html) for the extreme acceleration of wetland loss in the past 5 years, so they have been attempting to claim additional acres - including golf course water hazards and, apparently, wet grass.

The more bogus 'wetland' they can claim is protected, the more critical wetland habitat they can justify turning over to developers.

-Mark

nudeM

11-15-2006, 07:10 PM

Thanks Mark for your research. That was the case I was speaking of. I did not bother to follow up on the entire story, even at the time it was making the news around here.

I guess I stand corrected, but I will never again, bother to get into any more politcal discussions on this site. One, there are too many 'far left' members who will bring up political subjects for the pure sake of arguing, on subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with nudism.

Two, there are other subjects that are political which are 'nudist' related that aren't even considered. Political discussions are okay, but after a while, it brings out the 'true-hate behavior' of many of our members. So bad, that the attacks begin to become personal. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

hickory1945

11-15-2006, 07:19 PM

Mark'
Sorry but this has been going on for many, many years long before the Bush administration got into office.
Hickory

nacktman

11-15-2006, 08:14 PM

hickory, no one claimed "it" was not going on before the shrub was in office, but the fact that it has been decidedly more pronounced and outrageous in the last few years in undeniable.

Just what has this to do with the topic of this thread anyway?

Naturist Mark

11-15-2006, 09:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks Mark for your research. That was the case I was speaking of. I did not bother to follow up on the entire story, even at the time it was making the news around here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NudeM, thanks for the note. It is the nature of the local news cycle that an 'outrageous' story will be reported, and kicked around the echo chamber without any critical followup. That forms - or misinforms - a lot of public opinion.

I hope what I've written didn't feel like a personal attack, I try to avoid even the suggestion of that and I apologize for any failures. I appreciate honest back and forth, often it teaches us some things we didn't expect to learn.

Like Hickory and Moboy's discussion of the politics of wetland protection - something I was personally involved with as an investigator back in the 80's - led to some illumination of how some agencies are (possibly) mis-designating property as wetland, under federal pressure, in order to cover for allowing development in critical natural wetlands. There may be a good investigative journalism story in that.

Nope, doesn't have much to do with nudism, but this is the non-nudism 'open conversation' section.

-Mark

Sanslines

11-16-2006, 04:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"WetLands" are only designated about bodies of water that are navigable by boat (i.e., canoe)[no matter the duration of time that they are so] or any body of water that is connected to the sea, either directly or through another body of water.

Both types of wetland designation fall under federal jusidiction with most "static" (those not connected to the sea), falling under state and local jurisdiction as well.

Any one may create a "wetland" by building a body of water where one does not exist when doing so does not alter the local habitats of other flora and fauna to the point they cannot remain as they where.

One may not alter a wetland designated area for any means except to improve and expand it and only with a permit and approved engineering plans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The actual definition of a wetland (at least in Pennsylvania) appears to be encompass much more then the above statements: (The below was taken from a Pennsylvania Cooperative Student Manual)

Definition of a Wetland
Wetlands are so variable that their appearance and boundaries fluctuate over time (Figure 1 - Example of a Wetland. Photo by R.P. Brooks). These dynamic changes are what makes wetlands difficult to recognize. Yet, these same characteristics are what make wetlands so productive and diverse. Wetlands are unique. They are one of the few habitats that are protected and regulated by state and federal agencies. The following definition of wetlands is used for regulatory and permitting purposes:

"Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal conditions do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."

This definition states the three important features of wetlands. Look at the three underlined words - these define a wetland.

Water: Hydrology is the driving force in a wetland. The water in a wetland may either be contributed from above or below ground. The hydrologic evidence will necessarily be present at some time during the year, but it may not be obvious. The presence of water at or near the surface, or other indicators, such as flood debris and water stained leaves, clearly indicates that wetlands are present.

Note: Students will observe water levels during every visit.

Soils: Wet or hydric soils develop recognizable characteristics after being saturated for several weeks. A mixture of brown and gray mottles near the surface usually means the water table fluctuates during the year and may support wetland vegetation. Dark gray soils are usually very wet or hydric. Lists of hydric soils have also been developed by county offices of the National Resources Conservation Service.

Vegetation: Wetland plants, called hydrophytes, are the most obvious indicator that one is standing in a wetland area. Numerous field manuals are available to help identify wetland plants. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a list of plants that occur in wetlands for various regions of the country. In this list, wetland plants are assigned to several categories depending on how often they are found in wet areas. For example, some species are called obligates because they are almost always found in standing water or saturated soils. Other species might be classified as facultative because they can adapt to either wet or dry conditions. (See the National Wetlands Inventory description of plant indicator status in Appendix 1).

Wetland Functions and Values

What do wetlands do? A function is a process. It is something the wetland does. Some functions can be measured or quantified, others are more difficult to measure.

Wetlands are an essential component of the environment. They are purifiers. They perform functions such as improving water quality by transforming chemicals or trapping sediment or preventing erosion. Wetlands perform a useful, free service in cleaning our waters, but these biological systems can be degraded and destroyed to the point where they are no longer able to perform these functions.

Wetlands have social and economic values associated with them. These values are something the wetland provides to humans. Some functions can also be thought of as values, such as flood control. When wetlands are destroyed, flooding is more prevalent and the costs of these floods can reach up to billions of dollars.

Shoreline Stabilization and Erosion Control

Wetlands protect shorelines from the erosive action of waves. The dense root masses of emergent and woody hydrophytes stabilize river banks and shorelines. On banks and beaches where native vegetation has been removed or damaged by livestock grazing, the soil is quickly washed away (Figure 2 - Soil erosion caused by lifestock. Photo by R.P. Brooks). Eroded sediments carried downstream can cloud the water and smother the larvae of trout, bass, frogs, or reduce the penetration of light needed for aquatic plants.

Flood Control
Wetlands are important for flood control, acting as buffers during spring thaws and heavy rains. Wetlands adjacent to rivers and streams absorb the excess waters of floods and delay its release. By slowly releasing water, wetland basins and their associated vegetation can reduce the incidence of flooding downstream.

Sediment Trapping and Nutrient Removal

Wetlands trap pollutants and sediment that might otherwise contaminate streams and reservoirs. They can prevent toxins that have been dumped on the ground from seeping into groundwater. Plants are one of the important components of this function. Plants slow down the flow of water allowing silt to settle. Plants are also able to absorb nutrients and toxins. These nutrients are broken down and cycled through the food web as animals consume the plants. Plants use photosynthesis to provide food for themselves. The process supplies oxygen to the ecosystem, and the plants become food for other life forms. This is called "primary productivity".

Wildlife and Fisheries

Wetlands are important as breeding and spawning grounds for waterfowl, fish and amphibians (Figure 3 - Heron. Photo by R.P. Brooks). They provide protective cover and food for migrating birds, muskrat, moose and other wildlife species. Many species of juvenile finfish and shellfish are raised in wetlands before entering lakes and oceans. Aquatic invertebrates, such as snails, clams, crayfish and aquatic insects, are abundant in wetlands. These invertebrates are essential links in the food web that support waterfowl, furbearer and fish populations.

Thus, recreational hunters, trappers, and anglers rely on wetlands, both directly and indirectly, to provide adequate numbers of harvestable species.

Wetlands provide critical habitat for many threatened and endangered species. In Pennsylvania, the American bittern, king rail, Blanding's turtle, and eastern tiger salamander are but a few of the species of special concern that are dependent on wetlands.

Wetland Vegetation

Wetland plant communities provide the shelter and food upon which wetland fauna depend (Figure 4 - Wetland Plant. Photo by R.P. Brooks). Wetlands also provide homes for many species of rare plants including the spreading globe flower, whorled pogonia, carnivorous sundews and pitcher plants. In some instances, plant products are removed from wetlands. These include renewable supplies of blueberries and cranberries. Wetlands are also used as sources of timber and peat. The commercial production of berries, timber, or peat will invariably alter the hydrology of the system.

Recreation and Education

Wetlands provide a host of recreational and educational activities. They are living classrooms ready to teach lessons in plant and animal diversity. They are places of scientific research and artistic inspiration. Birders, photographers, musicians, students, hunters and anglers are all people that have benefited from the natural beauty of wetlands.

Types of Wetlands
(adapted from Wetlands and Wildlife, Brooks et al. 1993)

The term wetlands is actually an all-encompassing name for a very diverse and variable group of habitats (Figure 5 - Emergent wetland. Photo by R.P. Brooks). This variety is due to regional and local differences in climate, soils, topography, hydrology and water chemistry. These factors control to a large extent the amount and kind of vegetation in the area. Can you name a type of wetland?

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Classification

In the 1970's the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designed a classification scheme to assist in a new effort called the National Wetlands Inventory. This new product, commonly called Cowardin classification (Cowardin et al. 1979), has become the most widely recognized and commonly used detailed classification for wetland ecosystems in the United States (Figure 6). The five major wetland systems recognized are: marine, estuarine, lacustrine, riverine and palustrine.

The marine system includes open ocean and coastlines, and is generally limited to beaches, rocky shores, and deep, saltwater habitats. Estuarine wetlands are coastal brackish areas such as tidal salt marshes, intertidal mudflats and coastal rivers. Lacustrine wetlands include deep freshwater areas such as lakes and reservoirs and the fringing wetlands. The Riverine system includes freshwater rivers, stream channels, and immediately adjacent wetlands. The Palustrine (meaning "marshy") system contains the majority of vegetated freshwater wetlands including marshes, swamps, bogs and wet meadows.

Emergent, Shrub, and Forested Wetlands

Wetlands are further characterized by either the amount of water in the area (nonvegetated wetlands) or the type of dominant plants in the area (vegetated wetlands). Types of nonvegetated wetland include the open water portions of lakes, ponds, rivers and streams. Vegetated wetlands can be broken into three main types: emergent wetlands, shrub wetlands and forested wetlands (Figure 6).

Emergent wetlands, commonly called marshes and meadows, are dominated by herbaceous (nonwoody) plants such as grasses, sedges, and forbs (broad-leaved plants) that "emerge" from the water. Shrub wetlands, commonly called shrub swamps or thickets, are dominated by low, woody plants such as willow, alder, buttonbush and meadowsweet. Forested wetlands, known as wooded swamps or bottomland forests, are dominated by large trees over 6 meters (20 feet) tall. These trees include species such as red and silver maple, willow, pin oak, black ash, slippery elm, eastern hemlock, spruce and tamarack.

Many inland wetlands are a mosaic of several wetland types. Indeed, it is rather common to find nonvegetated and vegetated wetlands adjacent to each other. Emergent wetland communities are often present as fringing wetlands along lakes and other water bodies, or may include clumps of woody plants.

Bogs

Bogs are a unique mosaic of wetland types found in the northeastern and northwestern corners of Pennsylvania. Most of these originated during the last ice age when small, round "kettle ponds" were formed. Large blocks of ice were left behind as the glaciers retreated northward. Bogs do not have flowing water, but may have open water depending on how far succession has progressed. Plants associated with bogs include sphagnum moss, cranberry, blueberry, pitcher plant, leather-leaf, sheep laurel, black spruce and tamarack (Figure 7 - Example of a Bog. Photo by R.P. Brooks)

Hydrogeomorphic Classification

Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification is a promising new classification method developed by Dr. Mark Brinson from East Carolina University in Greenville, NC. This system classifies wetlands based on three characteristics: geomorphic setting (location of the wetland within the surrounding landscape), water source and transport (precipitation, surface and near-surface water flow and groundwater discharge), and hydrodynamics (direction and strength of water flow within the wetland). These characters are responsible for maintaining many of the functions performed by wetland ecosystems (Brinson 1993). This systems focuses on the abiotic factors that influence such functions as chemistry of water, habitat maintenance, and water storage and transport (Brinson 1993). The Cowardin classification system relies primarily on the structure and composition of the vegetative cover. The HGM approach does not mean to disregard the importance organisms play in the ecosystem, but rather intends to develop a better understanding of the relationship between organisms and the environment (Brinson 1993). Wetland functions are closely tied to HGM class.

Wetlands classified into different HGM classes perform different functions and have different structures; wetlands in the same HGM class should have similar functions. Each wetland is different, but if they are grouped based on functions they perform we can focus on the processes fundamental to the sustained existence of these ecosystems. Developing a method to classify wetlands based on what they do will also lend a greater understanding to the relationship between ecosystem structure and function. Using both the Cowardin and HGM classification systems is very useful in distinguishing among wetland types.

The diagram (Figure 8) shows the subclasses, different types of wetlands, in Pennsylvania. This classification for Pennsylvania wetlands was developed using the HGM approach and a set of 63 reference wetlands by the CWC. The purpose of this classification system is to categorize actual wetland sites based on the idealized characteristics and functions of model wetlands, which are based in part on data collected from reference wetlands (Brooks et al. 1996). The HGM classification can be used to describe a subclass such as headwater floodplain (HF) and then the Cowardin system can further describe the vegetation type of that area. For example, a riverine headwater-floodplain (HF) could be dominated by shrubs (SS for scrub-shrub) or trees (FO for forest) or both (SS/FO).

Riparian depressions are often located at the juncture of hillside slopes and the valley floor, along rivers. The water in these depressions often flows into streams, but the source is more often groundwater than water flooding over the banks of the river or stream. Headwater floodplains are found along small tributaries in the watershed. These wetlands receive most of their water from overland flow during spring runoff and rainfall, and occasionally flooding. Mainstem floodplain wetlands are found along larger streams and rivers, and most of their water comes from overbank flow during floods. Slope systems are found along elevational gradients, some that are very gentle. The water for these systems can either come from a groundwater or surface water source. Figures 9 (Schematic of HGM Subclasses of Wetlands in Pennsylvania) and 10 (Vegetation Profiles of Wetland HGM Subclasses) provide a schematic of the HGM subclasses of wetlands in Pennsylvania.

Wetlands and Watersheds

A watershed is all the land area that contributes runoff to a particular body of water. It is a catch basin that guides all the precipitation and runoff into a specific river system. A watershed is the geographic locus of a water-driven dynamic that affects all living and nonliving things within its boundaries (Aquatic Project WILD 1992). Do you know what watershed you live in?

A watershed is a landscape unit formed around a network of streams (Figure 11 - Example of a Watershed). All the water in a watershed flows out at a single point and into another watershed. Watersheds are also called river basins, catchments or subwatersheds. Watersheds form a natural unit upon which to focus efforts aimed at understanding wetlands protection and restoration. Watersheds are constrained within identifiable boundaries and the primary defining factor, water, is measurable. Along the stream network, headwater and riparian wetlands form important buffers between landscape activities (such as development, agriculture and mining) and in-stream effects (such as acid mine drainage, erosion and runoff).

Determining the boundary of a watershed can be a challenging task and is normally done through the use of topographic maps and field surveys. The boundary of a watershed usually consists of topographic features, such as ridges, which direct the water flow in a certain direction. No surface water will flow across a watershed boundary and all flow within the boundary will drain to the watershed outlet (flow outside the boundary will be associated with a different watershed) (Ward 1995). Remember, water flows downhill!

Everything exists within a watershed, including wetlands. Since wetlands largely influence water quality, the quality of water within a watershed can be drastically affected by the number of wetlands existing within that watershed. To guard against water quality degradation, wetland protection efforts should take into account the larger watershed-scale. This is sometimes referred to as a landscape perspective and is simply a means of looking beyond the boundaries of the wetland of interest.

Perhaps the single most important thing to remember about watersheds is that they are hierarchical systems, connected to other watersheds as they are traced downstream. What affects a watershed in one place eventually affects other sites downstream. Damage often accumulates as water proceeds downstream. Most scientists feel it is far more economical to prevent contaminants from entering water systems than to clean up pollution after it takes place (Aquatic Project WILD 1992).

In Summary, based upon the Pennsylvania definitions, a wetland does not need to be a defined body of water. A wetland can be saturated ground, muddy dirt, marsh, etc.

usmc1

11-16-2006, 04:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudeM:
Thanks Mark for your research. That was the case I was speaking of. I did not bother to follow up on the entire story, even at the time it was making the news around here.

I guess I stand corrected, but I will never again, bother to get into any more politcal discussions on this site. One, there are too many 'far left' members who will bring up political subjects for the pure sake of arguing, on subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with nudism.

Two, there are other subjects that are political which are 'nudist' related that aren't even considered. Political discussions are okay, but after a while, it brings out the 'true-hate behavior' of many of our members. So bad, that the attacks begin to become personal. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NudeM, since I suspect I am one of the far-lefter who has left you with feelings of rancor, I just want to note a couple of things for your consideration:

1. This particular thread is political and had nothing at all to do with nudism and is in a section of the board devoted to such as well as other "open" topics.

Sort of, I think, like the warnings at nudist resorts and nude beaches taht one will encounter unclothed bodies and if likely to be offended one should not proceed.

You knew what it was about when you posted. You posted a canard to disparage the Democrat's Six Point plan. You got called on it, and nowyou're saying I don't want to play no more. Fine, your choice.

2. It is regretable that you choose not to post your thoughts here in the future. That's your choice of course, but, your beliefs are important...and as you said, you learned something.

You learned that something you thought was gospel truth was not exactly as you thought it was.

3. True hate behavior? How could I hate you? I don't know you. But, if you regard vociferous defense of one's position or point of view as hate-behavior so be it.

As for me, well, I think guys like you really mean well, and are decent people who sense something has gone wrong and are disturbed by it. And, no person wants to be told that they've been had and that something they've held as truth is dead wrong.

But, you were told that story as truth. What I would suggest is that you ask yourself why you were lied to and find out the source of the original untruth.

There is the villain.

So, I have no regrets about the exchange nor do I apologise for my political positions or how I express myself.

I just think that if you're going to go after someone's politics with anecdotal stuff it is incumbant on you to offer some sort of evidence or sourcing other than it was a big topic of conversation around here awhile back.

usmc1

11-16-2006, 05:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
hickory, no one claimed "it" was not going on before the shrub was in office, but the fact that it has been decidedly more pronounced and outrageous in the last few years in undeniable.

Just what has this to do with the topic of this thread anyway? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I think it got introduced as an inarticulate attempt to use a couple of canards to say that "Government" is evil therefore the Democrats six-point plan won't work.

As to Bush and the environment. I do know one very staunch Republican in Missouri, NRA all the way kind of guy, bambi-slaughtering, hard core Catholic, Reaganite, suburban white-boy who is so outraged by Bush's attack on the environment that he went Democrat this last cycle actually voting for a DEMOCRATIC WOMAN who supports STEM-CELL research.

He thought maybe his voting hand would wither and fall off.

I guess they was logging or mining or building highrises on his favorite hunting grounds and that was the "tipping point" for him.

missouriboy

11-16-2006, 07:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
...you're only partially aware of all the implications of the Trans Texas Corridor.

How do you know that? If I wrote everything I was aware of, the post would be too long and most people wouldn't read it. (Like that encyclopedic definition of wetlands, above.)

Those cheaply made goods from Asia bound for US & Canadian consumption will bypass US ports, costing even more American jobs.

Exactly. Keep going...

They will be offloaded in Mexico and put on Mexican trucks (no American teamsters need apply). Those trucks will cross the border without even a speedbump.

And those decrepit trucks will (probably) be exempt from American safety standards. I've seen the junk on the highways in Mexico, and it's scary to think of them in our 70 mph traffic.

OK, now you almost have it. Oh, really? The company building the hyper-highway (car lanes, truck lanes, railway beds, and power lines) is a Spanish company.

And they will operate it as a toll-road! Sweet -- first we donate our tax dollars to build it all, courtesy of Uncle SAP, then we get to pay them fees to use it.

The company that will own the concessions along the way, a Spanish company.

Now you have the complete gist of the deal as it is going down.

Do I now? Do you? How about the massive new volume of eminent domain cases required just to obtain (and destroy the agricultural productivity of) the land? Oh, and the small items like our National Sovereignty, and the usurpation of Congress's Constitutional authority to regulate international trade?

The difference between this and the farmer's mud puddle is that this one is real and well-documented and one hell of a lot more deserving of our attention and energy.

Darn right. This is BIG! That's why I suggested adding something really important, like this boondoggle, to the six-point plan.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Two Representatives in Congress have introduced a resolution expressing the Sense of Congress that the US should NOT engage in the construction of a NAFTA Superhighway and should NOT enter any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union.

Would you support such a Resolution? Will the Democrats support it?

Watch out! The Representatives involved here are, gasp, choke, Republicans! Virgil Gooode (Va.) and Ron Paul (Tx.) to be exact.

usmc1

11-16-2006, 08:41 AM

Dr. Paul is an old friend of mine going back to my days in broadcasting in Houston in the late 70s and early 80s. Ron was Libertarian from a silk-stocking district before the word came into vogue.

He also is very damned independent and acts on his convictions rather than party cant.

So, I guess even the odd Republican, like blind squirrels finding the stray nut or two, can from time-to-time come down on the right side of an issue.

It has happened before and it will happen again.

As to the rest, well not only have I now met a paragon of virtue, you're also a tower of knowledge, mud puddles aside.

missouriboy

11-16-2006, 09:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
Dr. Paul is an old friend of mine going back to my days in broadcasting in Houston in the late 70s and early 80s. Ron was Libertarian from a silk-stocking district before the word came into vogue.

Good. I would consider him a friend of mine too, though we've never met. I've admired his politics for years. The House needs 434 more just like him.

He also is very damned independent and acts on his convictions rather than party cant.

That's because he's a RINO, not really a Republican. He's still a Libertarian at heart, and ran on the Republican ticket just to satisfy the god-awful requirements of ballot-access dictated by our Two(faced)-Party system.

So, I guess even the odd Republican, like blind squirrels finding the stray nut or two, can from time-to-time come down on the right side of an issue.

It has happened before and it will happen again.

And in this case, that would be Virgil Goode, right? But it's deplorable that you make it out to be only an accident. Republicans are Americans too!

As to the rest, well not only have I now met a paragon of virtue, you're also a tower of knowledge, mud puddles aside.

Well thanks for the acknowledgment, but in truth everybody knows more than you seem to want to give them credit for -- unless they are on one side, only, of the political spectrum. Thanks anyway. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif (Or did I detect yet another barb of cynicism there?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So, again, could there ever be some discussion of the really substantial issues, like NAFTA et al, instead of limiting ourselves to the same-old, same-old partisan bickering dwelt upon by the Establishment scandal-sheets?

usmc1

11-16-2006, 10:14 AM

Friend was too strong a word, valued acquaintance is a better description.

Well, to answer your question, probably not! But, we all could give it a try with the thread I just started asking if "This is an issue upon which liberals and conservatives can agree"?

Sanslines

11-16-2006, 10:42 AM

NudeM,

To cut through the fog here and clear things up the discussion here basically works like this. There is a small group of individuals present here who are always right. If they don't agree with you then you are always wrong. They are adament and will never admit that they could possible be wrong. They will never admit that a variety of opinions many be right and what one person says is right for that person. Basically, the bottom line is this. These individuals are right and everyone else is wrong. They are the experts and what others say is misguided information at best and totally wrong information at worst. Furthermore, such individuals will never realize that polical discussions are very subjective and in most cases contain varying degrees of right and wrong. Politics is not Mathematics or Physics which in an exact science. You now have the bottom line here as expressed in a nutshell. Make your decisions appropriately as to whether you wish to continue with this topic but also understand that if you do, you will be swimming in shark infested waters.

nacktman

11-16-2006, 03:33 PM

Methinks one has their panties in a twist!

missouriboy

11-17-2006, 05:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, to answer your question, probably not! But, we all could give it a try with the thread I just started asking if "This is an issue upon which liberals and conservatives can agree"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I read that thread and yes, we could agree. Partially, anyhow. I could summarize my thoughts but it'd be from a somewhat larger perspective, and a longer historical time-period. But I'm out of time right now, and will attempt to contribute later. Tally-Ho! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

missouriboy

11-19-2006, 06:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Retirement Security
We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, starting with pension reform, expanding saving incentives and preventing the privatization of social security. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I am reluctant to agree with calling the expectation of easy retirement a "right" as in the statement hilighted above. Just the circumstance of being an American does NOT give one a "right" to the property of another. To ascribe "feel-good" rights to people, without the corresponding responsibility to contribute toward securing them, leads to unintended consequences that should be considered very carefully.

In the words of that thinker again: "The free use of private property has lost its status as an important human right. In the Soviet Union it was abolished wholesale; in the Western democracies it has been nibbled away by taxes, regulation, and the alleged “rights” of people who make claims on others’ wealth and possessions."

To read the rest of it, written nine years ago, click here. (http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/061031.shtml) Read it twice, if necessary, to grasp the message about unintended consequences. Then think about it. Please! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

earthpassenger(Kevin)

11-22-2006, 06:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Retirement Security
We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, starting with pension reform, expanding saving incentives and preventing the privatization of social security. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I am reluctant to agree with calling the expectation of easy retirement a "right" as in the statement hilighted above. Just the circumstance of being an American does NOT give one a "right" to the property of another. To ascribe "feel-good" rights to people, without the corresponding responsibility to contribute toward securing them, leads to unintended consequences that should be considered very carefully.

In the words of that thinker again: "The free use of private property has lost its status as an important human right. In the Soviet Union it was abolished wholesale; in the Western democracies it has been nibbled away by taxes, regulation, and the alleged “rights” of people who make claims on others’ wealth and possessions."" (MissouriBoy) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm hardly an expert on Social Security but as far as I understand it it's currently a retirement/disability program in which benefits received by people who have qualified are based on work credits earned as we and our employers(or we alone if we are self-employed) pay payroll taxes. And for the retirement to be true retirement it is assumed that people still need to supplement Soc. Sec. payments with something else--savings, stocks, a business, the support of a family, etc. This seems to me like a retirement
program based on a "corresponding responsibility to contribute toward securing" the right to retirement. Joe Sobran's essay characterizes
the modern welfare state as one which seizes the wealth of the "haves" to give to the "have-nots". But to give a simple (or simplistic) answer I think that is not an accurate description because Social Security, along with Medicare, is an extremely popular
government program (just judging by how unpopular the Bush Administration's attempts to introduce some form of privatization have been.) And because people who are beneficiaries, or who expect to be beneficiaries have spent their working lives contributing to the program there is a strong sentiment that they have earned this right.
But other people may have other opinions on this subject--and on other retirement issues.

Peace,
Kevin

missouriboy

11-23-2006, 03:51 AM

Kevin, your description of Social Security is fine. As you say, it provides benefits for people who "have spent their working lives contributing to the program," thereby earning the rights to those benefits. Nothing wrong with that. But the Democrats' Six Point Plan says "every single American" has the "right to retirement with dignity." Not just the contributors, but everyone. See the difference? My post is about this difference, not the status quo.

Someone please tell me that's just feel-good political rhetoric, not really the plan.

usmc1

11-23-2006, 05:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
Kevin, your description of Social Security is fine. As you say, it provides benefits for people who "have spent their working lives contributing to the program," thereby earning the rights to those benefits. Nothing wrong with that. But the Democrats' Six Point Plan says "every single American" has the "right to retirement with dignity." Not just the contributors, but everyone. See the difference? My post is about this difference, not the status quo.

Someone please tell me that's just feel-good political rhetoric, not really the plan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not believe that anyone can truthfully tell you that the Democrats plans to protect Social Security and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid are "just feel-good" rhetoric. They derive from that which we hold paramount...

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

A safe and secure retirement and productive old-age would surely be one of the "blessings of liberty", be "just", part of the "general welfare" and go a long way towards maintaining "domestic tranquility".

Social Security is fact. Social Security is not intended as an investment program, it is an insurance program, a safety net for the aged, the widowed and orphaned and there are those of us (clearly a majority in the most recent election cycle) who do not intend to allow it to be destroyed or turned over to Wall Street.

I will tell you a personal story.

In September I was in D.C. talking with the legislative assistant of the GOP Congressman from Bush's old district of Midland. He asked me, why I cared about "privatization" since I am at an age that it would not affect me.

I told the young man that we all warm our hands at fires others have built and drink from wells taht others have dug and I did not intend to see that fire go out or that well go dry.

Now, people can snort and spew, root their noses in the ground and toss dust, wet them selves in frustration or fury, drool and pass wind, but, I am here to tell you this; the intent to protect Social Security and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid is not political rhetoric and there are those of us out here working hard, on a day-to-day basis to see that they it does become so and that it is effectively accomplished.

Now, stay out your wife's way today and enjoy some turkey and watching the Cowboys whip some butt.

missouriboy

11-25-2006, 03:14 AM

I guess once again I have utterly failed to make my point understood -- a lifelong shortcoming of mine. Since I don't know any plainer way to put it than this...<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the Democrats' Six Point Plan says "every single American" has the "right to retirement with dignity." Not just the contributors, but everyone. See the difference? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...I guess I'll just have to give up. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sad3.gif

Although, if someone does happen to get it, please start over with my first post on the subject, and be sure to read that linked commentary about "unintended consequences."

usmc1

11-25-2006, 05:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
I guess once again I have utterly failed to make my point understood -- a lifelong shortcoming of mine. Since I don't know any plainer way to put it than this...<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the Democrats' Six Point Plan says "every single American" has the "right to retirement with dignity." Not just the contributors, but everyone. See the difference? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...I guess I'll just have to give up. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sad3.gif

Although, if someone does happen to get it, please start over with my first post on the subject, and be sure to read that linked commentary about "unintended consequences." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

"All men." Men in this instance meaning humanity. All. Not the privileged only. Not the wwealthy only. Not the "contributers" only.

Now, in your earlier writing you modified right to retirement to right to "easy" retirement. To that we might find some area of agreement.

Life is not easy, except for some and even they seem often to be afflicted with the terrible weight of the crown.

And MoBoy, you're saying things plainly enough, I think. You don't beleive it is right that you be taxed so that non-contributors can draw from Social Security and Medicare or Medicaid and you think promising such is political rhetoric, and feel good talk.

But, I'm saying that those "non-contributors" are widows, orphans, the disabled, and the blind. But, when speaking of "retirement", one draws out only based on what one has put in through the years. One who has never contributed to Social Security does not get to walk up to the window at age 67 and say ok, start sending my benefits.

And, I'm saying the basis for this is found in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Here is how the retirement portion works...

"To receive most Social Security retirement benefits, a person must be "fully insured," which simply means that he or she has worked for a long enough time and has put enough money into the system. This is tracked using credits: You receive one credit for each quarter-year you work. So if you work for an entire year, you earn a total of four credits. To be eligible for retirement benefits, you need 40 credits. Since you can't earn more than four credits per year, you have to work for at least 10 years to ensure full eligibility. You have to earn a certain amount of money each quarter to get a credit for that quarter. This amount increases each year to adjust for inflation. In 2003, it was $890.

Workers can start collecting Social Security retirement funds when they turn 62. However, this is the early retirement age -- the full retirement age depends on when you were born. For instance, if you were born between 1943 and 1954, you receive full benefits if you retire at age 66. If you were born in 1960 or later, your full retirement age is 67."

Personally, I believe much of the political broohaha about Social Secuirty could be eliminated by two very simple acts based on today's realities. People earn more than before and live longer than before.

Remove the cap on earnings for contribution, and increase the age for eligibility.

shomymojo

11-25-2006, 10:12 AM

"I am not a member of any organized party - I'm a Democrat." - WILL ROGERS - 1935....(Me too Will)..." Some people say we need a third party in this country. I think we could use a second one." - JIM HIGHTOWER 1995...( me too Jim)...LOL

missouriboy

11-26-2006, 03:40 AM

usmc1 and others, you keep repeating the description of Social Security, which I am already familiar with, and which does not treat benefits as a "right." The plan says...<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Retirement Security
We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right...of every American... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> What will they change? What do they mean by "ensure?" If they are talking about creating a new right, where none exists now, that's what I wanted to discuss. And to be sure "unintended consequences" are considered before creating new "rights" hither and yon.

You imply that this right should accrue to all men, not just the contributors. Is that what will change? I doubt it, and if not, such language in the plan is feel-good rhetoric.

And, "retirement" is not Medicaid and Medicare. They are totally separate benefits, even though administered by the same agency. The plan only mentions retirement, so why cloud the issue with those others?

usmc1

11-26-2006, 05:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
usmc1 and others, you keep repeating the description of Social Security, which I am already familiar with, and which does not treat benefits as a "right." The plan says...<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Retirement Security
We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right...of every American... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> What will they change? What do they mean by "ensure?" If they are talking about creating a new right, where none exists now, that's what I wanted to discuss. And to be sure "unintended consequences" are considered before creating new "rights" hither and yon.

You imply that this right should accrue to all men, not just the contributors. Is that what will change? I doubt it, and if not, such language in the plan is feel-good rhetoric.

And, "retirement" is not Medicaid and Medicare. They are totally separate benefits, even though administered by the same agency. The plan only mentions retirement, so why cloud the issue with those others? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MoBoy, one of the difficulties that guys like me have in communicating with guys like you is that guys like you perceive everything in very strict literal, black and white, terms and for guys like me words have various shades, hues, tints, shadings and tones of meaning. Not that either is better or more correct, it is just that our perceptions and how we process and use those perceptions are entirely different.

Here's an example. Medicare, because it is not spelled out and labeled as a retirement benefit, you do not see it as such. I, on the other hand, because Medicare kicks in when a person reaches age 65, the general vicinity of "retirement age" and is used primarily after one "retires" and losed one's health coverage, regard it as a retirement benefit.

Likewise Social Security, which exists to protect orphans, widows, and the disabled as well as a safety net for older americans, I see as an important component of a safe and secure retirement.

You saw me as "clouding" the issue with, some-not all, details of those programs. I saw it as an attempt to provide some specifics and clarification to the "discussion". Taht was mostly to avoid the "clouidng" which you refer to---so again, it is difficult for a guy like me to communicate with a guy like you.

We (you and I and others) see things differently-imagine how hard it is for our representatives to achieve bi-partisan results with some sort of sustainable majority.

You ask what will change because of the Democrats 6-point plan. Did you not know that Bush and his caravan of gnawing rats and mendicants have money in the 2007 budget to once again attempt to privatize SS? That will for certain change with the Democrats.

Did you not know that Plan D, already a disaster, will be become even more confusing and harsh, costing seniors and the government more under the GOP/Insurance Company Lobby written changes for 2007 and into coming years? The Democrats are going to go after and modify those changes and make some of their own.

One change already proposed by the Democrats is to roll plan D into Medicare, and allow Medicare to bid out the drugs as the VA now does. The savings would save seniors and government billions and be sufficient to close the "doughnut hole" in coverage. How's that for "change".

You might do well to review the Older Americans Act. It will help you understand the background and subtext, nuances, and shadings of meaning of the words you're having trouble with. In vernacular, you'll know where we're coming from, dude!

As for me, I believe what they are saying is that, Yes! Every American has the RIGHT to a safe and secure retirement with dignity, and that they are going to attempt to spell out and insure that the right becomes institutionalized law. That will for sure "ensure"....

As to creating new rights, no, they will not be creating soemthing new. They will be affirming that which is already there, but not yet properly and sufficiently codified nor acknowleged.

There are those of us who fought like cornered wolverines to get these people elected for this and other reasons (no more Alitos, changing course in Iraq, for example) and we intend to hold them accountable.

So to your questions: No, no new rights, merely affirming and ensuring the rights which exist from our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Yes, to changes, some of which I have iterated for you.

As to political rhetoric and feel good words. I suppose those individual perceptions and interpretations can not be resolved. But, you now have the benefit of my informed input as you try to make your decision.

earthpassenger(Kevin)

11-26-2006, 06:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
Kevin, your description of Social Security is fine. As you say, it provides benefits for people who "have spent their working lives contributing to the program," thereby earning the rights to those benefits. Nothing wrong with that. But the Democrats' Six Point Plan says "every single American" has the "right to retirement with dignity." Not just the contributors, but everyone. See the difference? My post is about this difference, not the status quo.

Someone please tell me that's just feel-good political rhetoric, not really the plan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Behore I take any more time to research Social Security I would ask if any one can describe who the non-contributors really are--. If you work or make money in any way in America (except of course with some exotic exceptions which are all illegal such as people making a living in organized crime, selling illegal drugs, selling other underground products/services, or not reporting legal earnings)you pay a portion to Social Security or you are the spouse or the child of someone who does. And at this point without looking further I can't see how you can not be a contributor unless we're talking about a small part of the population who are more or less voluntarily unemployed and very likely homeless (and many of these people are part of this next category) or else someone who is not able to work because you are disabled--and according to the Soc. Sec.
website the disability has to be total to qualify for benefits. I guess people who live with other people in relationships that are not legally recognized or not legally declared could be people between the cracks. But these people could be doing the same things that legal spouses do to support a household.
That's why I wouldn't want to call talk of retirement for every American vague rhetoric with unintended consequences.
Isn't the biggest concern regarding Social Security the expected shortfall about twelve years from now. And this is related to the disproportionate size of the Baby Boom generation not to a disproportionate number of non-contributors among them (although of course they won't be contributing when they're retired--which is a separate aspect of the "Pay
as you go" system, but as I said as contributors during their working lives they earned retirement benefits--which seems to be the subject of debate in the last few posts.)

Peace,
Kevin

nacktman

11-26-2006, 09:00 PM

Kevin, non-contributors would be:
1)dependent children who have not reached the age they are allowed to work and become contributors,
2)persons who by disability (physical and/or mental), who cannot work and be contributors prior to coming of the age to be allowed to work,
and that is pretty much it.

Now what constitutes what is open to interpetation and there lays the rub.

The gross insult to those working for a lifetime is the 5% of the populus that makes more money in a day than the average schmoe does in a decade who contribute nada, zip, zilch, yet demand and recieve benefits - (it is a not so well hidden fact that there are some who pay nothing into FICA or Medicaid and it ain't you and me, duckie). The "illegal" alien getting benefits is not the problem the numbers there are really small when the entire picture is looked at nor is it the under-employed single parent who gets partial benefits because they work and still contribute into the program.

The complete point has not been hashed and rehashed out and won't be until after January 2007 just as the other 5 points to the plan so the spectulation and handwringing going on from those who would see this nation continue its rapid downhill pace into decline (there's another thread on that subject), is but more smoke and mirrors to divert the country away from the cessation of the descent and a return to the forward and progressive nation we have been and will be again so that they can revel in the decline and decay of this great nation.

missouriboy

11-27-2006, 06:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for me, I believe what they are saying is that, Yes! Every American has the RIGHT to a safe and secure retirement with dignity, and that they are going to attempt to spell out and insure that the right becomes institutionalized law. That will for sure "ensure"....

As to creating new rights, no, they will not be creating soemthing new. They will be affirming that which is already there, but not yet properly and sufficiently codified nor acknowleged. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Then the only thing that needs to be done is to ensure that existing laws hold sway. Such as enforcing contract law, etc.

Agreed, Medicare Plan D should be scrapped and done over the right way. But that's nothing to do with "Retirement."

Same thing for most of the other examples cited. But that's nothing to do with "Retirement."

Sure, every American has the "right" to (everything, almost) but only the right to "pursue" it, not to have it handed to him for free. That would be an "entitlement."

Are you saying the Democrats are going to start "ensuring" that certain heretofore recognized rights are going to start changing to entitlements?

usmc1

11-27-2006, 09:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for me, I believe what they are saying is that, Yes! Every American has the RIGHT to a safe and secure retirement with dignity, and that they are going to attempt to spell out and insure that the right becomes institutionalized law. That will for sure "ensure"....

As to creating new rights, no, they will not be creating soemthing new. They will be affirming that which is already there, but not yet properly and sufficiently codified nor acknowleged. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Then the only thing that needs to be done is to ensure that existing laws hold sway. Such as enforcing contract law, etc.

Agreed, Medicare Plan D should be scrapped and done over the right way. But that's nothing to do with "Retirement."

Same thing for most of the other examples cited. But that's nothing to do with "Retirement."

Sure, every American has the "right" to (everything, almost) but only the right to "pursue" it, not to have it handed to him for free. That would be an "entitlement."

Are you saying the Democrats are going to start "ensuring" that certain heretofore recognized rights are going to start changing to entitlements? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No! What I am saying is that I have spelled out my thoughts sufficiently. If you are unable to understand what I have written, and want to remain purposely obtuse, asking, essentially, the same thing over-and-over because you do not care for the answer given, tough! That's your deal.

I've more important things to do.

earthpassenger(Kevin)

11-27-2006, 12:17 PM

SOCIAL SECURITY:
They say it's the third rail
You can't talk about--or rail about--
Like buildin' less jails
Or pullin' any troops out--
Or pullin' your own tooth out!
Some say it'll be good through futurity--
And what's better: and end the debts of all debtors!
But there's cause for insecurity
And plenty of doubts for doubters.
Pat Robertson says it should be taken out like Chavez!
And if you've an old copy of Time magazine
With Alf Landon on the cover (or a contemporary)
You've heard it's just a big Ponzi scheme!

Friedman said you'll be sorry--
Krugman still says don't worry!
Is the big Baby Boom the call of doom?
Or does a little chortle await the shortfall?
Privatization's the elephant in the room--
Eek! A mouse! Could ya lose the house?

We've been yappin', we've been irate
About who's a contributor--
Hasn't this debate been goin' on since Rosy the Riveter?

First believe in Santa--you're brainless if you think you'll be pampered with transfer payments!!

You're manic! You'll cause a panic! Which'll cause a default! Which'll be all your fault--Lock him in a vault!!

There's FICA
Which ya pay
If you're Bill Gates
Or a biker.
There's a trust fund
(If you can trust 'em).
There's COLAs for inflation--
I thought they were just for carbonation.
There's the SSA for SSI,
There's the VA for GIs,
For Medicare there's CMMS
(More information if your clueless).
There's alphabet soup--there's bran flakes instead of shredded wheat,
If you only poop columns of concrete.

If you stay abreast of the news,
And all the websites ya gotta peruse,
You'll master all the facts,
And one day send a fax,
Receive a phone call,
Show up in the office,
Smack in the halls of Congress.
You'll lay out all those facts,
And then some,
And hear a few ho-hums.

But then you'll refute the dishonorable attacks
Of your honorable representative
In his honorable double-breasted coat and slacks.
You'll spiral into viral denial
(After you've been more than humble--but apprehensive)
As you pinion
And nail
And file away
At his stale, recycled opinions.

To be brief,
He'll be fleeced.
If you're on the same side as mine,
You'll know the right time
(And whether it's Dennis Hastert or Charles Rangel)
To schmooze him into a snooze--like Rip van Winkle's--
And then he'll lose!

And after you got the guy
Why!
Nobody'll have the blues,
And still have Medicare for the flu.

Peace,
Kevin
*******************************
"Social Security Debate"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_%28United_States%29

usmc1

11-27-2006, 02:50 PM

LOL-shouldn't that have been in the "bad poetry" thread.

earthpassenger(Kevin)

11-27-2006, 03:55 PM

I can never figure out where "bad poetry" stands in relation to "bad prose".

Peace,
K

nacktman

11-27-2006, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by earthpassenger(Kevin):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I can never figure out where "bad poetry" stands in relation to "bad prose". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They stand about a "pentameter" apart there, Kevin. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

missouriboy

11-28-2006, 02:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Are you saying the Democrats are going to start "ensuring" that certain heretofore recognized rights are going to start changing to entitlements?

No! What I am saying is that I have spelled out my thoughts sufficiently. If you are unable to understand what I have written, and want to remain purposely obtuse, asking, essentially, the same thing over-and-over because you do not care for the answer given, tough! That's your deal.

I've more important things to do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My original concern about alleging "rights" without considering the consequences has never really been engaged, so I might as well withdraw it.

I have better things to do also, like moving to Sandpipers Resort for the rest of the winter. Beginning right now. I don't know when I'll be able to rejoin the forum.

Tally HO!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

usmc1

11-28-2006, 02:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Are you saying the Democrats are going to start "ensuring" that certain heretofore recognized rights are going to start changing to entitlements?

No! What I am saying is that I have spelled out my thoughts sufficiently. If you are unable to understand what I have written, and want to remain purposely obtuse, asking, essentially, the same thing over-and-over because you do not care for the answer given, tough! That's your deal.

I've more important things to do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My original concern about alleging "rights" without considering the consequences has never really been engaged, so I might as well withdraw it.

I have better things to do also, like moving to Sandpipers Resort for the rest of the winter. Beginning right now. I don't know when I'll be able to rejoin the forum.

Tally HO!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually that issue was addressed most emphatically. No new rights, just those rights inherent to all as iterated in our founding documents.

Can't make it no plainer than that.

It may not be the answer you want. It may not be the answer you were trying force with the way you framed the question..but, it is the answer.

I know that we will all be bereft at your departure for warmer climes.

missouriboy

12-05-2006, 01:29 PM

Finally got on the Wi-Fi at Sandpipers Resort.

So pleased to now alleviate all that bereavement. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

usmc1

01-02-2007, 12:43 PM

Poll shows support for Democrats' goals

By DARLENE SUPERVILLE
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- People overwhelmingly support two of the Democrats' top goals - increasing the minimum wage and making it easier to buy prescription drugs from other countries - as the party takes control of Congress for the first time in a dozen years.

By a smaller margin, the public also favors relaxing restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a third issue Democrats have promised to tackle during their first 100 hours in charge.

The jury is out on incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Most people say they do not know enough yet to have an opinion about the California Democrat who will be the first woman in that office, an Associated Press-AOL News poll found.

The survey results come as the 110th Congress is set to convene Thursday at noon. Voters last November toppled Republican majorities in both the Senate and House, exasperated by investigations into the ethics of GOP lawmakers and unhappy with the war in Iraq.

Democrats will hold a 233-202 edge in the House and will control the Senate by 51-49.

A boost to the $5.15-an-hour federal minimum wage would be the first since 1997. Democratic leaders have proposed raising it in stages to $7.25 an hour. President Bush has said he supports the idea, along with help for small businesses.

Fully 80 percent of survey respondents favor an increase, too.

Support is strongest among Democrats, 91 percent, while 65 percent of Republicans back the idea. Women, men without college degrees and single women all are especially likely to favor a minimum wage hike.

Nearly seven of 10 adults, 69 percent, favor the government taking steps to make it easier for people to buy prescription drugs from other countries, where some medicines cost significantly less than in the U.S.

Importing prescription drugs to the United States is illegal, but the Food and Drug Administration generally does not bar individuals from bringing in small amounts for personal use. At the same time, the government has estimated that buying drugs from other countries would do little to influence what they cost here at home.

Some 56 percent of adults support easing restrictions on using federal money to pay for research on embryonic stem cells. Supporters say such research could lead to treatments for everything from Parkinson's disease to spinal cord injuries. Bush and other opponents say the embryos from which the cells are extracted are human lives that should not be destroyed in the name of science.

Bush kept a promise in 2001 when he limited federally funded research to lines of embryonic stem cells that had been created by that time. Last summer, he used the first veto of his presidency to reject a bill that would have directed more federal dollars toward embryonic stem cell research.

Democrats have pledged to reverse that outcome, setting up a possible veto showdown with the president.

Achieving the Democrats' goals could help Pelosi raise her public profile.

She is the first woman to lead a party caucus in either house of Congress - she was elected leader of the House Democrats in 2002 - and now will be the first female speaker, second in line to succeed the president.

Yet as much as the 10-term congresswoman has been in the news over the years and, more recently, since the Democratic election rout on Nov. 7, people say they just don't know her.

More than five in 10 adults, 55 percent, don't know enough yet about Pelosi to have an opinion of her. Those with opinions to share were split, with 22 percent viewing her favorably and 22 percent unfavorably.

The telephone survey of 1,004 adults was conducted Dec. 19-21 by Ipsos, an international public opinion research company. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

---

AP Manager of News Surveys Trevor Tompson and AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.