Obama and Bush not so far apart...

[Guest]

torbs;242291 wrote:
Blah blah blah look at me I'm chuck, the online adult attention whore blah blah blah

1. You either take things out of context (me telling you to stop typing so you don't make yourself look more stupid than what you already have been...I'm not saying to not exercise your 1st Ammendment right, so if you want to continue go right ahead, but you are only going to look more ignorant as time goes on)

Ignorant? Please elaborate w/o resorting to #2 where I've agreed to concede.

2. You make whole hearted lies about Obama saying healthcare isn't a right (In the debate he said it was, which I showed you...Telling somebody that a candidate never said a statement when they really did is a whole hearted lie)

And I corrected my statement after proven wrong. I do think Obama didn't clarify his view on it as much as he should have, I don't think he feels that healthcare is a right that everyone should have, but rather that the "Right" is that when you have healthcare, it should be there to protect you for the worst case scenarios. This is my opinion on what I think his intentions are (based on everything else I've seen regarding his healthcare plan....maybe he changed his position...if so, I don't support this change of position)

3. You copy and paste everything to make a point...Like I care what a website has to say, especially if it isn't a credible one, or one that's known to swing left...Find stuff that isn't totally bias and has wording that's fair from both sides for a change.

Business week magazine isn't a credible website? Uhh.... How is it any different than you or anyone else pointing to a website known to swing to the right? I'm all about balance man

4. How can you compare Ron Paul to Obama in the way you did? How ignorant are you, really. No income tax vs. VERY HIGH taxes for the Americans that have earned it...

I never said their plans were the same.....just that the intended results were similar in that more tax dollars are likely to be pumped into local businesses if there are less taxes (or no taxes for that matter) being paid by the majority of the people. I've beat this to death already, learn to read. I also said that Pauls plan is to keep corporate taxes in place but get rid of income taxes and that I view this as socialistic too....making the businesses pay all of the taxes is a tax on the rich and is not fair....much like Obama's isn't fair.

5. Just say you are supporting Obama all because of his foreign policy and not because of anything else...that'll save you from having to type your life away in this thread. If you don't believe the trickle down effect works, then why is it that when a few big wigs go under the entire economy goes under?...Why is it that when the big wigs are doing well that the economy prospers? 72% of CEO's FEAR Obama...They know higher taxes are coming in a country that already holds the 2nd highest company taxes in the world (35% vs. Ireland which is 11% as said by McCain in the debates)...

I already have said that his foreign policy views are what draws me more than anything...and of the two viable candidates, he is the one who I think can turn the economy/this country around....maybe not the way I want it to be turned around, but fiscally (raw numbers/data) his plan costs the country less money than McCains.

If you tax companies anymore they will leave...How can you not grasp that concept? Are you just that ignorant, or that stupid...?

There have been tax incentives on the books for years and years that actually encourage companies to incorporate overseas. Besides, didn't we see the largest number of businesses shift to China/Korea/India under BUSH than we have seen under any other president?

At the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, Barack Obama = Karl Marx.

I wish I hadn't banned you now Torbs, I have agreed that his tax plan is socialistic in its wealth redistribution...but the beauty is in 4 to 8 years, we can elect someone who will change his plan (if it ever sees the light of day)

btw, thanks for banning me GSR!

[DaveH]

tjamz;242226 wrote:
That's been working real well for us lately hasn't it? I mean, how well has the economy done since those tax changes took effect that benefited the wealthy (not arguing that they didn't deserve the breaks....because I feel they did). Even before all this blew up in our faces (economy) the economy was struggling...moving forward, but struggling.

Actually the economy was doing extremely well before this fed-caused this housing debacle. Especially if you consider the circumstances here and abroad (9-11, war, etc).

[Guest]

SmitEvo;242297 wrote:
Inflation is more prone from expansionary credit caused by deficit spending and false interest rates imposed by the government that are not market driven. In addition, to printing money that we dont have with no backing...not from no income tax.

So, you are telling me that if there were more demand for goods, the supply side wouldn't raise prices to meet demand? I mean, that is the premise of a free market, right? Supply vs Demand.....the same reason why min wage doesn't help (took me a while to get to this point) because everything costs more when the people making/selling it get paid more.

[PSiedTSi]

Chuck, of course there would still be a black market, but it would be toned down, and likely less volatile. The amount of middlemen make the market price greater and greater, because everyone wants a piece of the pie. Very seldom do you know the grower or the 'dealer' themselves. It would be easy for the gov't to 'undersell' the regular dealers. Another option would be to utilize private growers already in place(which would further curtail the black market activities).

As far as quality goes, I really don't think black market growers can compete. Look at california for example. When I was there recently, a person in training with me(no really it was lol) asked someone where he could find some, and the kid simply said: you need a 'card' for that. seems like most use the gov't sources when available(even though its ONLY for medicinal purposes).

I'll post more when I get to a comp.

[Guest]

DaveH;242305 wrote:
Actually the economy was doing extremely well before this fed-caused this housing debacle. Especially if you consider the circumstances here and abroad (9-11, war, etc).

Yup...they managed to get back to their all time highs....only took until 2006 to get back to the highs of July 1, 1999 and its been downhill since July 2, 2007 to present....well before the banking crisis started.

And yes, I know that back in 2007 was the start of this.

[SmitEvo]

tjamz;242306 wrote:
So, you are telling me that if there were more demand for goods, the supply side wouldn't raise prices to meet demand? I mean, that is the premise of a free market, right? Supply vs Demand.....the same reason why min wage doesn't help (took me a while to get to this point) because everything costs more when the people making/selling it get paid more.

Well like most markets, they would find a way to get an equilibrium price by creating more supply in the market. So if demand is high for something, a new business will be created to offset the supply problem. Just like our economy now...I think there are too many businesses/people that would jump all over this opportunity.

Min wage is bad...price floors never help perfect competition. It is kind of like Tariffs....messes up the markets.

[Guest]

Yes, I know this Brian....first you bitch that I write too long of posts, then I'm not detailed enough...but think about this Brian...where is the incentive to start a business? You are still being taxed if you do (or your business is anyway). So the answer is NOT to start a business...right?!?!? (I kid, I kid)

[MisterCMK]

I hope that Mr. Obama and the government will simply take my paychecks and give me what they feel is enough to pay my bills and get by day to day. The government will help.

[DelSlow]

God i would LOVE to see Chuck and Torbs in PERSON debating this. See how knowledgeable and what you actually do know without going to Google or Glenbeck.com (or the show). Id have a feeling Chuck would destroy you.

PS Torbs, do you even know who/what Karl Marx is...quick...Google it real quick and find out.

[SmitEvo]

DelSlow;242319 wrote:
God i would LOVE to see Chuck and Torbs in PERSON debating this. See how knowledgeable and what you actually do know without going to Google or Glenbeck.com (or the show). Id have a feeling Chuck would destroy you.

PS Torbs, do you even know who/what Karl Marx is...quick...Google it real quick and find out.

That was funny....

Torbs will be missing for a while though...I am sure he is too cheap to unban himself.

[Guest]

SmitEvo;242320 wrote:
That was funny....

Torbs will be missing for a while though...I am sure he is too cheap to unban himself.

Yup....I shoulda been taxed more heavily, I can still afford to ban him.

[24valvenotak]

MisterCMK;242318 wrote:
The government will help.

they already did. they made up more money out of thin air to pay for their mistakes. all that needs to be done now is to pray extra hard... which means its in your hands now.

[Sweet-WRX-Lovin]

I would just like to laugh at all the anti socialism statements and the cries against government control. Do you enjoy having a fire department and what they can do for us? The protection you receive /are supposed to receive from our law enforcement departments? How about our city water and sewage systems? This country is a mix of capitalism and socialism and has been for a long time. Where people draw the line sometimes a purely laughable. Basic health care should be there when people need it just like fire departments. A country needs to look after its citizen's best interests, and while that can be a scary thing based on who's making the policies, that is why we are also democratic. Or at least are supposed to be.

And hell yes legalize some pot, tax the crap out of it and end this "this drug is bad, but these are not" bullshit.

[Parker]

tjamz;242317 wrote:
Yes, I know this Brian....first you bitch that I write too long of posts, then I'm not detailed enough...but think about this Brian...where is the incentive to start a business? You are still being taxed if you do (or your business is anyway). So the answer is NOT to start a business...right?!?!? (I kid, I kid)

the answer is....

why start a business if you are going to be taxed to shit if the business actually goes somewere (starts making money)... so yes, under the nobama plan... the answer is yes, don't start a business....

not like it matters.....

he's not going to win anyway....

[thrash]

I think legalizing pot is a great idea, and so does the only presidential candidate worth voting for: Ron Paul.

It's not crazy. I don't think it will fix the economy, but it's a small step in the right direciton on a number of fronts. You can read Ron Paul's statements on why, as he speaks fairly eloquently on the matter. Key things I can think of:

• Keeps harmless people out of jail, leaving room for real criminals who are currently getting released early
• Drug enforcement, in practice, is HORRIBLY biased against urban blacks. The last thing black chidlren need is to continue growing up with fathers who are in jail instead of at home, especially for BS "crimes" that white people NEVER go to jail over. What is that teaching black youth?
• The DEA costs a ton of money and can violate due process with considerable ease. If you are suspected of a drug charge your property can be seized and auctioned before you ever have a trial. You will NOT get it back and you will not be compensated. This is a clear violation of the constitution but the "drugs are baddddd" crowd hates drugs more than it loves America.

PS: I am as boring as straightedge as they get -- I've never so much as had a sip of alcohol. I'm certainly not some washed out kid quoting high times as gospel truth. The facts are undeniable -- our demonization of pot does considerably more real harm than any hypothetical good it does. Freedom means people are free to do things that I think are stupid as long as they don't violate my rights.

[PSiedTSi]

Thank you. I realize it won't wholly fix the economy, but like you said it's a step in the right direction. Above the ability for the gov't to potentially profit from it, it would also save a ton of spending(like you said).

Althought Paul is obviously the biggest advocate of it, Obama has atleast conceded he is for medical use(which is a great step forward, at this point), saying there "no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain". He understands the differences in potency(which a lot of conservatives do not), which is a main hang up for a lot of uninformed(or misinformed?) Americans.

[DaveH]

Sweet-WRX-Lovin;242521 wrote:
I would just like to laugh at all the anti socialism statements and the cries against government control. Do you enjoy having a fire department and what they can do for us? The protection you receive /are supposed to receive from our law enforcement departments? How about our city water and sewage systems? This country is a mix of capitalism and socialism and has been for a long time. Where people draw the line sometimes a purely laughable. Basic health care should be there when people need it just like fire departments. A country needs to look after its citizen's best interests, and while that can be a scary thing based on who's making the policies, that is why we are also democratic. Or at least are supposed to be.

Schultzy throws out some good points, altho slightly twisted. The fire dept and police are there for emergencies, and everyone is forced to pay for them.... altho they are NOT federal government agencies, they are local.

I did think about your post quite a while and it made me think about the possibility that the govt could be involved and actually be useful, sort of like the fire and police dept. I think this would actually get people from the left and right on board (I could be wrong). What the govt could do is set up an emergency medical fund that everyone is forced to pay into (ie: taxes). Everyone would be responsibly for their day to day doctor bills, but if you get a catastrophic illness or a major injury the Government pool (the fire dept) kicks in. This way you could buy health insurance if you wanted, and it would be relatively cheap because it wouldn't be responsible for terminal illness or other very expensive treatment, etc. Or better yet, you could simply eliminate health insurance and just pay as you go, without worrying about losing the house if you get really sick. The pay-as-you-go idea really would make people pay attention to what you are getting for your $$, which is really lacking today. Prices are crazy right now because people have insurance and don't care what stuff costs.

Anyway, just some ideas bouncing around in my head..... I haven't thought it through very hard but on the surface it seems a lot better than "universal healthcare" that a lot of folks seems to want.

[PSiedTSi]

IMO, Universal health care doesn't really fit here...something like what you were getting at Dave seems a lot more feasible. You hit the nail on the head about people not knowing what they are getting for their money. Medical services(drug companies, doctors) can charge what they want for their services because most won't take people without insurance...and they know insurance just pays...

[Guest]

DaveH;242697 wrote:
Schultzy throws out some good points, altho slightly twisted. The fire dept and police are there for emergencies, and everyone is forced to pay for them.... altho they are NOT federal government agencies, they are local.

I did think about your post quite a while and it made me think about the possibility that the govt could be involved and actually be useful, sort of like the fire and police dept. I think this would actually get people from the left and right on board (I could be wrong). What the govt could do is set up an emergency medical fund that everyone is forced to pay into (ie: taxes). Everyone would be responsibly for their day to day doctor bills, but if you get a catastrophic illness or a major injury the Government pool (the fire dept) kicks in. This way you could buy health insurance if you wanted, and it would be relatively cheap because it wouldn't be responsible for terminal illness or other very expensive treatment, etc. Or better yet, you could simply eliminate health insurance and just pay as you go, without worrying about losing the house if you get really sick. The pay-as-you-go idea really would make people pay attention to what you are getting for your $$, which is really lacking today. Prices are crazy right now because people have insurance and don't care what stuff costs.

Anyway, just some ideas bouncing around in my head..... I haven't thought it through very hard but on the surface it seems a lot better than "universal healthcare" that a lot of folks seems to want.

Sounds somewhat familiar Dave...

**[B]Make Health Insurance Work for People and Businesses - Not Just Insurance and Drug Companies.
**

[/B]

• Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.

• <u>Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit</u> to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.

• <u>Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees.</u>

• <u>Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.</u>

• Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care.

• <u>Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.</u>

• <u>Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.</u>
  **[B]Reduce Costs and Save a Typical American Family up to $2,500 as reforms phase in:
  **

[/B]

• Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market

• Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data

• <u>Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees.</u>

• <u>Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.</u>

[thrash]

Health insurance is supposed to be only used for emergencies. Just like any other insurance.

The problem is that avoiding for paying for inexpensive preventative care can mean filing a huge claim for large-intervention care later on.

There is already free medical care for emergencies for everyone. A hospital cannot turn you away. This is why a lot of people go to the ER for headaches or other such crap -- they can get care without having to pay for it and the staff is legally obligated to treat them.

I don't know how this is currently financed. But this happens today and is part of the problem.