HG_Eliminator raises his hand, me too..

Nancy Reagan's consulting of astrologers while in the White House is documented fact.  I remember when the scandal broke, yes, but for those of you who might not have been old enough to remember, here are some links.

Nancy using astrologers to dictate her husband's schedule while in office...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967389,00.html

In Nancy's own words from Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Reagan#Influence_in_the_White_House

But, Obama apologized as she has apparently never held an actual seance at the White House, unlike Mary Todd Lincoln who turned to them after her husband's assassination apparently. 

Oh, and I was wrong about this point above.  He did call it "the Nancy Reagan thing".  So, he did owe her that personal apology.

I would likely make the same mistake, however, as I lump all of those con games into the same category.  For me, seances are just as ridiculous as astrology.  I suspect it's the same for a man of reason like Obama.

Nope.  Just a game of random chance.  Legalized gambling for suckers - generally the poor in this case.

The right-wing believes in DO-ing. You believe in talking. It's easy for you to talk about "we" the people, it's quite another thing to DO for the people.

So on the one hand, you object to me bringing up the fact that I give a lot to charity and already pay a lot more in taxes than most people but on the other hand, you argue that you are "unselfish" and think it's time to talk about "we" based purely on your support of increasing taxation.

Wealth gets spread around regardless. The question is who is deciding how the wealth is spread. Right-wingers believe that the people who earn the money are more competent to spread the money than 435 people in Washington DC.

Ayn Rand believed in indivdiualism. That is, people are noble enough to decide what is best for themselves and know when it is wise to aid someone else and when it was foolhardy. The government, by contrast, has no vested interest in such wisdom because their only job is to keep their job.

You say there is a contradiction between my beliefs and my actions. How is that? I believe in individuals because I believe people to be inherently good and compassionate and intelligent. 

So please tell me, how are my beliefs and my actions in contradiction? 

What do you mean "if" I pass it down to your employees? Money I earn is spent somehow in some way. I don't take it and bury it in the back yard. If I hire more people directly then I am increasing opportunity. If I give raises to people, their ability to contribute to the economy increases. If I build a new house then I am creating jobs and opportunity for construction workers. If I buy more space in the building we are in and build it out, I'm creating jobs and increasing future growth opportunities.

So where is the "if" come in? Is there some poor way to spend that money? The "wealth" gets spread. The question merely is whether I can spread it in a way that is more efficient and better for society than 435 members of congress and I think the answer is resoundingly yes. 

None.  Our health care costs per employee have decreased overall. We provide great benefits to our employees. You are simply buying into too much left-wing nonsense about health care premiums. There's been a lot of improvements to health care insurance over the past few years.

In addition, you make a huge assumption that it would only take a 2% shift in taxation to cover everyone's insurance. A HUUUGE assumption that I don't think would be backed up by reality should it come to pass.

Again, you are making an almost ridiculous assertion that the federal government of the United States could pick up the tab for 260 million Americans health insurance in exchange for going back to the pre 2000 tax rate. Actually, no, it isn't almost ridiculous, it's an outright insane assertion.

How -- specifically -- did Bush tank the economy. What economic policy do you think caused this? Please be specific.  What economic policy of Clinton's caused the Dot-com bomb?

Giving the federal government credit or blame for economuc upturns or downturns is a lot like believing that eclipses are ill omens.  

I don't even know what to say to this. 

It's amazing how much blind faith people will put into the judgement of a first-term senator with no economic background but how little trust they'll put into a successful self-made business owner when it comes to business and economics.  It does, however, explain how things got to the state they're in.

I dont' mean to be skeptical but I would love to hear the name of the "MUCH" larger company you ran because given what you've written, and I mean no disrespect on this, I can't imagine you have ever run a company of any significant size given your understanding of business economics.  I don't mean that based on being liberal or conservative but rather your misunderstanding of economics in general.  

Brad, you have the mind and experience of a small businessman in the midwest.  I have a great respect for that but it is no wonder that you don't see economic issues as I do.  Without violating MY right to privacy here, I can say...

The SMALLEST company I have ever owned grossed $10+ million annually and had 60 employees at the time I sold my stake to my partners.

The most famous company I was senior staff/key man for grossed $100+ million annually and had a valuation of just under $1 billion 8 years ago.   It's a household name founded by household names.  At the time I left to form my own company, it had a staff of 2,000.

The last PROJECT I headed up (earlier this year, and why I can afford to take the rest of this year off) was as the Director/Writer/Producer of the digital animation centerpiece of a $2 billion entertainment complex.   I built a company larger than Stardock in November just to complete this one project.  And I did it in two weeks, pulling some of the top talent from all over the world to do it.  This was done on my word and reputation alone.

I have been fortunate enough in my life to have creatively contributed to FIVE different billion dollar franchises and have collaborated with the most famous and successful people in the world.  Again, without violating my personal privacy here, I can say that one of them is Star Wars.  The other four are just as well known.

And, odds are, it's safe to say that you or your family own products related to ALL of these franchises.

In short, Brad, no, I don't think small business.  I have been talking the economics of how billionaires see the world, because that's the calibre of men I have worked with.  So, it's no wonder you don't get it or me.  And it's also why I'm always talking about the BIG picture here, the movers and the shakers.

But what really annoys me here is that I have to get all egotistical just because you're insecure.  That's NOT who I am.

But if it takes this to get you to consider the fact that I might just know something about what I'm talking about here, so be it. 

I still respect you and all your company has accomplished, despite the fact that you've forced me to say all this.

Now, can we get back to debating as just two MEN here? 

What you seem to have missed if that the people you speak of HAVE been "in charge" and they've mucked everything up but good.  They bought and paid the congressman from both sides and got everything they wished.  They had a completely deregulated, unmonitored free hand for 8 years now and they've nearly bankrupted the country doing it.  Your GRANDCHILDREN will be paying for this graft.  Think about THAT when you complain about losing your 1-2% tax cut.

So did Alan Greenspan.  And he's admitted that greed will overide those good intentions if not checked. 

Normally, though, I agree with you, but it doesn't mean you naively let the fox guard the henhouse unsupervised. 

Just that.  I haven't worked for you, so I don't have the faintest idea how you run your business day to day.  No sleight or insult was intended.  I just didn't want to be making ANY assumptions without information.

Then I congratulate you on being the only business in America who has been able to pay the same premiums for the same quality of healthcare, without those costs being passed on to your employees via higher deductibles, reduced care, higher copays, etc.  Well done! 

But the last time I did the math, um, November of last year, comparable coverage to what my people had eight years ago was NOT AVAILABLE anymore.  And the closest I could find was three times the price.  So we all picked a plan together because, compared to their salaries, it was still nothing to worry unduly about.

I believe you are confusing the two figures.  Regardless, I think if we got rid of the HMOs and insurance company middlemen and all those associated profits and administrative costs, I think we could provide comparable health care for a fraction of what we are all paying into the pot now, and cover everyone.  We'll examine the plan(s) as they come up in congress when that happens, of course.

Please refer to my previous posts.  I went into all of this with specificity.  And this thread is long enough.  Or you can, um, just read the news every day.

He's smarter than Bush and he's surrounding himself with smarter people.  That's a start.  As a person who has hired some of the top talent in the world, and has managed them successfully, I like how he's delegating and to whom.

Bush got us into the current state, not Obama.  Not sure how you can pin the current state of affairs on those of us who voted AGAINST Bush...twice. 

Sorry, but your argument so far is not moving me at all, and I'm on opposite position from Brad! That shows how weak your argument is so far, if you can't move someone that probably would side with you. So weak.

I don't care if you have been a trillionire twice, it doesn't matter on your argument related to economy.

The post you are quoting from has nothing to do with my specific positions on economic matters, only in answering Brad's question regarding my bona fides.  I hope that clears it up for you.

Actually, my opinion would be that you'd be wrong about that.  But you are entitled to your opinion that the opinions of billionaires and trillionaires (of which there are precisely none) aren't relevant in economic discussions.  Good luck with that. 

Come on now, when he saw the press laughing at the first part of his reply, "that he had talked to all the living presidents" (as if anyone could talk to the dead ones), he realized his mistake (gaff) and jumped on Nancy Regan as the way out.  If you know that is the case, so why pretend otherwise ? He apologized because the president elect does not need to make fun of someone that is an old and feeble woman.

Yes, come on now.  Who gives a crap about this?!  Don't we have more important things...you know ISSUES to be debating...like the:

Economy

War in Iraq

War in Afghanistan

Osama bin Laden still free

Wall Street rip-off of taxpayers and homeowners

Health Care crisis

Constitutional crises involving torture, rendition, executive usurpation of power, revocation of habeus corpus

Lack of high level functioning of every major government agency right now due to lobotomization

Hell, even Global Warming tops arguing about the semantics over whether this was a gaff or a politically incorrect statement he needed to apologize for.  

It's not like he tried to give a shoulder massage to the chancellor of Germany or something. 

BTW, the forums are REALLY fast right now.  I hope it's permanent and not just because I'm the only one here. 

In itself it is unimportant, but in the overall tone of the thread, it seems to me to be an examle of your inability to say you were wrong about anything in your insistence that Obama did not make a gaff here.  Rather you just shift away to "who cares about this crap anyways?" It exemplifies your attitude that you are always right.  This takes away from your credibility on the points when you are right in my opinion and just leaves the impression of a partisan who will rationalize anything.

Its convenient that you chose not to 'violate' your personal privacy, fact is, all your bragging means nothing without proof, we at least know what Brads accomplishments are.

I also find it hard to believe that with your personna, you would have been successful in any area. Successful executives , along with sharply defined business skills also practice temperance, humilty, rationality, empathy et cetera, et cetera.

Your alleged accomplishments are also conveniently lofty. Shouldn't you be off jetsetting instead of acting like a bitter knowitall on a small forum..in the midwest.