Disqus - Latest Comments for fitzmauj

Re: Letters - South Philly Review

fitzmauj — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:37:11 -0000

You can drive your cars, for the right price. How is it the government's job to explore for oil? Sounds like you want the government to become involved in industry and companies? And also, how is oil the general welfare? What about the free market?

I think most people would agree that health insurance for all would serve the general welfare, enabling 40 million people to have access to health care would serve the general welfare. Can I count on your support for that? Probably not, because the odds are that you already have health insurance and that makes that not part of the general welfare. So don't give me that general welfare nonsense.

And also, eliminating greenhouse gases would serve more of a general welfare purpose than exploring for oil. I'd appreciate a link to the second memo- I follow news pretty closely and didn't hear a thing about this second memo, so I'll reserve any debate about that until I see the memo and will at least trust that it exists. However, there is also no evidence that dinosaurs existed before man in the eyes of some people, or that macro-evolution is responsible for the lifeforms that exist today,, I guess the verdict is still out on those things too?

Re: Letters - South Philly Review

fitzmauj — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:33:13 -0000

In one stroke you cement your case for keeping oil, and in the next stroke you say we need new forms of energy, but one interesting point emerges: how will you and your father commute using new forms of energy? Are you going to use clean coal to power your car (even though that technology costs in the billions range and hasn't been proven)? Or perhaps a Mr. Fusion like Back to the Future? God knows you aren't using electric, since the gas industry killed that. And all this beside the fact that simply because you and your father rely on something doesn't justify its use. I'm sure you and your father could just as easily use public transportation, or depending on which college you attend, possibly ride a bike.

And as for the government supporting oil, Louisiana produces nearly 20% of domestic oil, and I didn't see President Bush doing much in a timely manner to put that place back in shape post-Katrina (I would know, I have lived there, and not for a week on vacation).

And I appreciate how you neglect to mention global warming, a large focus of the article to which you are responding. Perhaps because there is no good way around it, or no catchy way to put individual (read selfish) needs above it. Thankfully the Obama Administration realizes this rising and eminent threat- places where we vacation today, like Wildwood for many South Philadelphians, will not exist in 50 years if global warming is not checked.

I really can not figure out why many people pretend global warming is not a threat. Its science, its demonstrated.

Re: Letters - South Philly Review

fitzmauj — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:44:48 -0000

But your argument was that introducing government run health-care would lead to the end of creativity, innovation, and ingenuity. So since God controls that, I don't see how that would end with government taking control.

Obama was not planning to do it, he needs to. And how is it fair to suddenly criticize something which you didn't when it was performed by someone matching your ideology? Not very fair at all.

Re: Letters - South Philly Review

fitzmauj — Sun, 03 May 2009 22:48:58 -0000

Many things have been documented, that doesn't make them true.

Government has given the ability and drive to make those inventions by grants and patents, which demonstrates your point is invalid.

I'm not equating tax cuts and debt, just arguing that you are mistaken. Cutting taxes has not always brought more revenue in. And I'm sorry, but that judgment has to be made: how fair is it to all of the sudden and conveniently point a finger at someone trying to fix the problem using the same tools used to create the problem? I understand you recently started following politics, but the debt and deficits were a problem in 2006 when I took my class and you started following politics; were you as gung-ho then?

And like I said, trusting the individual is good, but the government and man are meant to be checks on each other (per my Federalist #51 suggestion)- regulation is needed and government needs to step up

Re: Letters - South Philly Review

fitzmauj — Sat, 02 May 2009 23:07:01 -0000

I think your arguments about what will be needed is pure speculation (or at least the conventional Republican talking points, in which case, I can throw out some Democratic ones and we'll be at a stand-still). They're called trusts and they're bad. You can't have the suppliers in complete control of prices (which is where we're at now). And as for your claim about the demise of ingenuity and initiative, they're called patents and they'll be around for a while.

Thank you for moving from your previous position and admitting that government has some role to play. I'm not blaming the crisis on capitalism, I'm blaming it on capitalism when its left to its own devices. Your Carter explanation sounds like a conspiracy theory or a vain attempt to exonerate the Republican Party at best. The only role government played was not being strong enough to step in earlier and regulate. The government has in fact enabled those great inventors and creators with patents, copyrights, grants, subsidies, etc, or at bare minimum, creating and sustaining a market system where such ingenuity is rewarded.

Taxes have been lowered for most, and deficits and debt has skyrocketed beginning with the Republican messiah, Reagan (I studied this in a course in college, well before all the cool kids cared about government finances). Like you said, Bush was horrible with finances, but all of the sudden bloggers such as yourself care, it seems a little convenient and unfair.

The individual can't be completely trusted, read Federalist Paper #51.

I appreciate your respect and concern, but it seems you begrudgingly refuse to allow that government can and should (and has and does) positively impact the capitalist marketplace.

Re: Letters - South Philly Review

fitzmauj — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:06:26 -0000

Well there is certainly a place at the table for the industry leaders, who better than experts to help design a new system? Its just frustrating when facts are ignored:

The market doesn't work-millions lack the funds and therefore the opportunity to purchase comprehensive coverage (and so do those with pre-existing conditions)
Without regulation and such a huge demand, the suppliers set the price at levels that will crush the system. Without reform of prices, I know there is zero chance I'll ever see Medicare benefits.
And finally, and this is just my opinion, but I don't really think there is a market. I think it is more of an arrangement where the citizens and the government lose and the industry wins.

Re: Letters - South Philly Review

fitzmauj — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:00:22 -0000

But the industries won't adjust prices. You need government to limit or eliminate trusts and monopolies. America has seen what happens if the insurance industry gets its way, their lobbyists successful created a system limiting competition to state borders. I wish that this market worked as normal, but it doesn't. Prices aren' within reach for many, and many with pre-existing conditions aren't eligible- there simply is no market for them. Thats where government comes in- part of government's job is to step in when there is market failure, as is obviously the case here.

Government solution is certainly not self-contradictory. There are countless examples of the government successfully advancing solutions: FDA, minimum wage, 1964 Voting Rights Act? The problem isn't untrustworthy government, its untrustworthy politicians. They are the reason that troubled programs are having difficulties (your cited Social Security, Medicare, etc). PS: DMVs are state run. Thats a huge leap from the federal government, and I would surely trust the PA state government.

And finally, I would like to know what "pure" capitalism is? Does it include eliminating funding and grants for research done by for-profit companies? Eliminating regulation of the stock market, trusts, and monopolies? We recently saw what happens when you let the market run rampant. Does it include ignoring workers' rights, minimum wage, and safe working conditions? What about when unemployment reaches double-digits (like the 30s, which resulted from, oh my, lack of regulation in the stock market)? Is government still untrustworthy and should we let pure capitalism reign supreme?

I appreciate your distrust, but I believe its misplaced.

Re: Letters - South Philly Review

fitzmauj — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:34:49 -0000

Yeah, like the FDIC insuring bank deposits, or government limiting carbon emissions, or trustbusting to protect the consumer? In fact, in your blog about the medical industry above, how do you propose to enforce any of the points you raise? You think the industry is going to make alterations and risk or sacrifice the largese it has achieved without regulation? Who is going to buy in bulk? Who is going to give credits? Who is going to allow competition that the insurance lobbyists oppose? Oh, right, the government.

Re: Letters - South Philly Review

fitzmauj — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:33:19 -0000

I strongly disagree with your general definition and outlook of socialism. Firstly, many successful programs in American history are socialist: Social Security, Medicare, SCHIP. If you would want to eliminate the socialism in these programs, then by all means go ahead, and you and your economically conservative bretheren will suffer the national backlash in favor of socialism.

Secondly, the government has always been in control of the economy, its called fiscal and monetary policy. For someone so clearly educated on economics, it disheartens me to see this drastic overlooking of fact. And another point, TARP was signed by Bush, so if Obama is socialist for enforcing the law, then Bush and those Republicans who voted for passage (and consequently the Republican Party) are most certainly socialist for passing the law.

Taking these points together, I guess a great deal of Americans somewhat endorse socialism? Perhaps the Red Scare is over and its time to evaluate ideas and policies on merit and not out of fear and greed?

Re: To the Editor - South Philly Review

fitzmauj — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:59:51 -0000

Concerning Ron Mento's article, I don't understand what his point is? Is he criticizing Obama's appearances at church and on entertainment shows? While I understand these may appear to not be politically relevant, I can most certainly argue otherwise. Firstly, the Tonight Show appearance was obviously an attempt to inspire Americans and return a sense of hope and confidence, not campaign. If the station's logo changed from a peacock to CSPAN, I doubt there'd be this kind of reaction (and he appears on that station almost daily). Furthermore, conservatives' messiah, Ronald Reagan, was such a successful leader because he inspired hope and confidence in America. Regarding criticisms about Obama's religious service attendance, our country is undeniably religious; a real leader is cognizant of that and makes sure to represent this. It sounds as though your problem is with the media coverage, not Obama.

With regard to "what would happen to Bush", lets not go down that road. I can easily say that the media wouldn't care, and you can't prove me wrong- hindsight is often made-up and indemonstrable. If anything, lets compare what Bush was criticized by the media for- frequent vacations to Camp David. I guess all that war, crashing the economy, violating the Constitution, and destroying our country's international reputation gets tiring.

And finally, I would like to think of myself as an educated voter. I have a college degree and haven't missed an election since I registered when I was 18- I don't know what mysterious "truth" Mr. Mento is referring to, but here are the truths I know:
Truth: Obama is cleaning up the messes (plural) left by one of the top three worst presidents of all time (possibly #1).
Truth: Resources are spread thin cleaning up all those messes
Truth: Nevertheless, Obama is being applauded internationally and by a majority of the public

So, to all you self-described conservatives, please make sure to evaluate the entire scenario, don't write and believe vague and unsubstantiated articles, and please don't have the gall to criticize a newly elected president after your most recent standard-bearer is single handedly responsible for the current crisis we all face.

Re: Ism schism - southphillyreview.com

fitzmauj — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:02:58 -0000

As you note, their budget lacks specifics, so for now, lets not compare apples and imaginary oranges. And looking back at how the Republicans used the 1994 take-over and the unified government that they had during Bush's first term, I think your accusations of Democrats use of power now is a bit hypocritical. Furthermore, they weren't saying no to the deficits during the Republican power years in the beginning of the decade. I offer this question to you, what is wrong with some socialism? As the above article offers, two of the governments most lauded programs, Medicare and Medicaid, are, in fact, socialist. I would appreciate your criticisms of those programs.

Re: Ism schism - southphillyreview.com

fitzmauj — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:57:08 -0000

Now you're addressing Congress? You are flip-flopping your accusations between two completely different parts of the federal government that are quite at odds. There haven't been any takeovers because they lack the authority to do so. And once again, I do not believe Geithner wants the power for himself, just some government agency like the FDIC. I appreciate your anger over the handling of AIG, but that is not a license to twist facts and unleash blanket accusations.

Re: Ism schism - southphillyreview.com

fitzmauj — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:53:05 -0000

And how would anything the nation does be paid for?

Re: Ism schism - southphillyreview.com

fitzmauj — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:03:59 -0000

Disregarding the fact that the article allows that there is socialism at play, I believe you are misconstruing the facts. To my knowledge, Geithner is proposing allowing the government to seize at-risk, non-bank financial institutions. This is to stop things like the AIG fiasco from occuring again- at-risk banks are seized by the FDIC, but because no legislation to allow non-bank seizures was in effect, AIG needed to be propped up. So in effect, by noting AIG, you are supporting Geithner's point-of-view.

Also, I'm not sure he is requiring the power to be vested in him, but some government department, much like the FDIC. If you want to attack this, then you would simultaneously be attacking the body which insures the money in your bank account, has been around since the Great Depression, and was arguably a key piece of the New Deal.

Re: Ism schism - southphillyreview.com

fitzmauj — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:23:29 -0000

Thank you, Mr. DeMarco