Comments Posted By sara in va
Displaying 61 To 70 Of 112 Comments
THE STIMULUS SHOULD GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD
bsones,
You are a conservative? Really.
:
:Several years ago, my husband was sued for nearly $60 million. We are not worth anything remotely close to that - trust me. He was a salesman for a distributor of a certain medical product.
The product was found to have oil residue on the implant left during the manufacturing process that, in some cases, resulted in the implant being unable to secure itself in the body. It was an error made in the manufacturing process, and in only some of the many implants produced and sold. My husband, of course, had nothing to do with the error, besides consulting during the surgical procedure.
However, lawyers for plaintiffs sued my husband (along with the surgeons and the manufacturer) so as to try to keep the suits in the local court (in order to obtain a larger jury award).
There were patients who had no problems -none, zilch-with their implant whatsoever, but they were suing for removal anyway so as to try to get money for "pain and suffering." They had perfectly good implants removed just for money. (And believe me, ripping out a perfectly good, secured implant probably did more damage in the long run.)
My husband and our family suffered a great deal over this, nearly lost all that we had worked for and sacrificed for, overnight. This incident only solidified my view that there are many people who will do anything - even the most irrational of things - in order to get a bigger piece of the pie.
There are those who deserve our help, and those who rape the system. I don't believe in making things easier for people to rape the system.
And, to tie this in to our discussion. What purpose would it have served to call up the President of the company who manufactured the implant to berate him publicly? The company was sued and ended up having to put itself up for sale. Justice served.
To make a point to bring up business owners to threaten them and humiliate them is nothing but a freakin side show. Congress is NOT the FDA. Congress is a bunch of grandstanding politicians, eager for a popular cause to use to score political points.
Comment Posted By sara in va On 14.02.2009 @ 11:41
#32
bsjones, what do you do for a living?
Do you move paperwork around in a basement office, along with 100 other brainless types waiting for lunch hour? Where is lunch today? Hmmm, the cafeteria sounds good.
:
:
This is NOT the role of Congress, dude. They can call their little publicity forum the Congressional SubComittee on Oversight and Investigations or the This is the Easiest Job on the Hill, but it still reeks. If people are sick or injured from products, they can sue through the court system. The Judicial Branch is set up for such things.The sight of Congress flexing its muscles into the business arena, bringing up every corporate exec under the sun who may have done wrong, is not something that should turn you on.
Comment Posted By sara in va On 12.02.2009 @ 05:32
lionheart,
I think the reason you don't see AS comparisons all over the place is that there is really no need to comment on the obvious. And, truly, it's depressing to talk about it, when you know what the end run probably is.
I've been wanting to start a coffeehouse in an historic tavern here to try to foster activism locally. Particularly to provide a place for disenchanted GOP members who now have no place to call home. I see it as a haven for the John Galt types.
But, all my friends tell me I'd be insane to do it in this climate. Then, my husband suggested I take the money I'd probably lose the first two years and instead put it in a fund to pay high school students to read Atlas Shrugged. If the student proved it by passing a small exam, the fund would pay them $250 (or some other amount).
Small investment for incremental societal change.....
if only we could make it required reading.keep the faith
Comment Posted By sara in va On 11.02.2009 @ 06:12
bsjones #17
I read the Reich column. Screw that.
How disingenuous to complain that Republicans are simply playing politics when the Democratic leadership has written into reality every single disgusting perverted plan they've been scheming for the past half-century?
And now it comes out that they've hidden a plan in the bill that would not only track our medical treatments, but determine what is appropriate and cost effective. I sure as heck don't think that's a federal government's role. Do you?
I'm sorry, but I think Robert Reich is evil, and I don't agree with hardly anything he says.
If things like this are hidden in the stimulus, our only solution is to scrap it, start with a bi-partisan panel and a clean sheet of paper. (I suggested the same in a post here last Thursday.)
Comment Posted By sara in va On 10.02.2009 @ 06:09
Shaun,
There are a lot of Main Streets in this country. Some are hurting more than others. States with powerful unions aren't doing well. Texas is doing OK. California is not.
I think it's fair to say California's problems have been building for quite some time. Its citizens (think: Nancy Pelosi) legislated themselves into a hole; Texans legislated more like adults.
We agree that we need to help our fellow Americans out in time of need. That's who we are as a people. We're givers. But, we also aren't fools.
The question that we're trying to answer is: How much sacrifice should we ask Texans, and Kansans and Iowans and Alaskans to possibly suffer in the long term to help California, or Indiana, or Florida now? How much should a small business owner in Texas sacrifice to help Indiana build a water park with a slide?
Isn't it logical to take the utmost care to make sure that whatever actions we take will help those who need the help (funding ACORN solves no problems and feeds no families)and that what we're doing doesn't send even more families into their own hole a year from now?
What in the world could be possibly wrong with deliberating such a basic question until a reasonable (not perfect) answer is found?
How can someone who believes in doing the least amount of harm be criticized as "sitting on a high horse?"
Comment Posted By sara in va On 9.02.2009 @ 15:52
BLEAK CHOICES FACING GEITHNER IN TRYING TO SAVE THE BANKS
#3 What part of financial instruments don't you understand? Here, let me help you.
The problem with being oversold is that you can always get more oversold. So I wouldn't be oversold, if I could help it. Of course, short sellers will arrange to borrow shares they consider overvalued and then may or may not sell them. If the price drops, they would normally repurchase shares, return them and pocket the difference. However, they may just choose to exercise an option.
Investors who believe the VIX is signaling a trading low will give a thumbs up to asset sales for re-pricing purposes. It does not mean a permanent signal to purchase derivatives, but could be a meaningful indication to stock up. What to stock up on is the question. This is not a reason to panic. Credit default swaps should pick up the losses.
In order to insulate unprotected assets and capitalize on the chaos, a new CDS trading platform may be suggested and quickly instituted. This will regulate transparent pricing mechanisms inherent in the insolvency.
Got it? Jeez, dude, it's not that complicated.
Comment Posted By sara in va On 8.02.2009 @ 17:32
:
:
:
By the way, all this talk about catastrophe makes me want to crawl under my bed. I've got kids though, so I have to act calm and mature. What an actress I am becoming. Good thing we've got Rick to solve our problems or else I'd be a wreck.
SMALL GOVERNMENT, BIG GOVERNMENT, OR CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT?
#12
Bloated was a poor word choice...redundant?There are a lot of groups all saying pretty much the same thing. Kind of like the overlapping advisers, cabinets and offices at the federal level. And everyone needs money to operate....my inbox is completely full with donation requests.
Comment Posted By sara in va On 8.02.2009 @ 12:56
I was looking at the CPAC Agenda and tallying up all the speakers and organizations involved in the conference.
Everything sounds peachy, wow, we've got the Taxpayer's Union, and Americans for Limited Government, and Citizens Against Government Waste, and Citizens in Charge, Cato, Heritage, American Conservative Union.....on and on.
We've become nearly as bloated as the freakin' federal government. Maybe if people weren't so concerned about defending their turfs, we could do a better job fighting the enemy together (there's only so much money available) and maybe win the war, for once.
The liberals do a much better job of organizing, but then, they are experts at bureaucracy and always will be.
Case in point. All these conservatives and we ended up with McCain. We suck.
Comment Posted By sara in va On 8.02.2009 @ 08:34
I suppose conservatism will be out of favor until our current course proves untenable. Meaning, the "gap" between rich and poor is nearly closed, and the poor are finally forced to pay their share.
Anyway, I don't know one conservative who espouses the elimination of government. Any person who is arguing against conservatism on that plane doesn't know crap. Logic prevails on the need for government....but I would like for someone to explain to me the rationale behind a federal Office of Faith. And don't say, hey Bush started it. It was wrong then, too.
#4, Nagarajan Sivakumar, you rock. You are an honorary citizen...if you care to be.
Comment Posted By sara in va On 8.02.2009 @ 08:27
OMG. This is beautiful and frightening and makes my mind bleed.
The answer is no, conservatism is not dead.
In the Age of Obama, conservatism can, and hopefully will, flourish. Bush, who supposedly represented the movement (at least early on), confused the people. We had the power of the Presidency, but a rudderless President. Obama will prove to be a powerful lightening rod, a unifying force.
There was a clip on TV today about the new fashion trend of dressing up at the office. Friday casual days are gone, supposedly. The power suit is in. Trends come and go. Could it be that today's youth will be repelled by liberalism simply because it represents the majority? I don't know, but can keep my fingers crossed.
I don't mind being branded as someone whose political philosophy is defined by what I am against. But if I had to define myself by what I was "for" (my "positive agenda") it would be that I am "for" building an efficient society where hard work and effort are not penalized, and which looks first to the private sector for solution. When big government flourishes, it means the people have failed.
Of the nearly 50 million people who voted for McCain, I would guess that only a small percentage expect to see, or hope for, a "Utopian moral universe". They fight from the far right to hold the center, a tug of war to keep society from going off the deep end. The liberals are the ones who seem to believe in actually being able to create Heaven on Earth. The majority of "conservatives" are not that foolish. They know Heaven doesn't belong here at all.
There is too much to say, and I can't express it. That's why I should just shut up and read.
Comment Posted By sara in va On 6.02.2009 @ 16:35
