Obama and Bush not so far apart...
-
StangerBanger96;242062 wrote:
http://wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.htmlWow Chuck, I'm surprised you actually said (though not directly) that you pretty much don't care about more Government control of our lives...I would have expected you of all people to realize that any move towards socialism is bad.
Also I still don't get how he plans to somehow ruin our healthcare system by trying to socialize it and STILL lower taxes on everyone but the top 5%...it simply wouldn't work.
This is what I said:
Now here is the real irony in this.....I've heard from nearly all of you that you think the "bail out" should have gone to the people of this country and not to the corporations, yet when a tax plan comes out that might just do that, you all seem to think it is the most evil thing ever....
I hear that you pay too much in taxes, that it consumes too much of your income....then you bitch when someone wants to lower them for well over 99% of this board and 95% of Americans.
You bitch that the "minority interests" get all the benefits, then when a program that benefits the majority comes out you are all against it.
And here is what I'll add to that: The gov't already controls every aspect of your life (which I don't think is good). I don't see either candidate doing anything to change this. I do see one candidate who is trying to take the opposite road that McCain/Bush have traveled and try trickle-up economics. More money in the hand of middle class (or lower) taxpayers is a good thing. The money will get spent...if not spent, invested.
As I'm typing this I see more responses from Nick B and others...so I'll attempt to answer what I can:
-
I don't see this as more gov't control....actually the opposite. I see 95% of the people having LESS gov't control.
-
I don't see how the gov't can fuck this up if they are giving you/me/everyone you know practically more of their tax dollars back to spend as they choose. If they were saying "In giving this money back, you must use it to purchase treasury bonds or stock in XYZ company" then i'd see it as gov't control.
-
Capitalism only works if your customer can afford your services/products. Allowing more people to spend money with you will make you more money in the long run.
-
I agree that Gov't involvement sucks in general. I can also say that THE BEST/EASIEST TO USE healthcare program (from an insurance processor/clinic acct receivables/business office manager at a hospital perspective) available is Medicare/Medicaid. 1/10 the hoops to jump through vs. private insurance companies. Payments ALWAYS come on time to the hospital/clinic if the paperwork is filled out properly. Never are they denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions or being out of their network. That is the ONE program that they do extremely well. Now, I'm not saying that I want universal healthcare...I just threw that out stating that they do get it right sometimes.
-
In normal circumstances I'd agree that the country may need a different approach to taxes than what Obama is currently presenting. At this time my opinion is that we need a short term (4 years...8 years....I don't know) tax break for the middle class....even if that means slightly higher taxes for the upper class. Remember, tax tables are never constant...nearly every president has messed with them in some way shape or form. At this time, I think Obama has it right....if/when the economy straightens out the levels will need to be adjusted again.
-
I don't believe (but could be wrong) that he plans to magically have the gov't insure everyone and that you'd lose your current provider. Rather he wants to open the plan-format that is presently available to congressional members to the general public. Having more people insured is good. Why? Because the more people insured, the lower the total risk to the insurer. Not everyone is going to use their plan to the fullest, most won't even come close. Yes, there will be a slight shift in burden of major catastrophic payouts from the insurance companies to the gov't under Obama's plan, so the worst of the worst will be picked up by the gov't (most would have been anyway as many file for bankruptcy when they have a major illness that their insurance won't cover...but under this plan, only the major catastrophe would be absorbed by gov't and the "normal" dr visits, etc.. would still be covered by the insurance company.)
-
If you want to get rid of socialism, get rid of the corporate tax breaks completely. By essentially investing in the company, the gov't has taken an interest in seeing that company succeed by allowing so many loopholes/write-offs. I mean, this is a free market society, right? So why not tax them appropriately? Why do we allow them to write off anything at all? Isn't part of socialism gov't subsidizing a business? By allowing them to write off their purchases/operating expenses you are subsidizing them w/ reduced taxes. So, to spin this 180 degrees, I think your (the Republican) tax plan is socialist by nature.
-
-
zbrown;242079 wrote:
Chuck sounds just like obama anymore...........Just keeps rambling and talking forever.......every second trying to prove to himself that he is right....
I don't feel the need to prove I'm right, I take much more pleasure in proving others wrong
and seriously whoever thinks Obama isn't a socialist either needs to take a look at the constitution or GTFO....
I never said he wasn't socialist in some of his thinking/ideas...I just think that at this time in American history a socialistic approach to taxes may be a necessary evil. I think that Obama will do far more good that harm to this country overall, something I CANNOT say about McCain with a clear conscience (there are some things that I think McCain will do better at).
BTW, I have provided reasoning to my thoughts at every turn. Please point to the sections of the constitution where you think Obama is not following the preset rules. Or do you just listen to what Hannety/Limbaugh/etc... say and repeat and accept it as gospel
Please answer this one question for me Chuck..... just a simple large or small...... that is it, nothing else
Was the original intent of our fouding fathers and Constitution to have a LARGE Gov. or a SMALL Gov.???
Undeniably small. I'd LOVE to see gov't programs reduced and spending reduced.
Now, I'll put this back on you.... I know you farm, I know you have said that you don't need the gov't checks to keep you in business. Here is your chance to shine..... I challenge you not to accept/cash any check you receive from the government in the form of subsidy, CRP payment or ANY other incentive that you are eligible. I challenge you to get your neighbors to all do the same. Until that day comes, you have no more right than I to say that you are in favor of small government and the ending of gov't programs.
-
tjamz;242092 wrote:
Please point to the sections of the constitution where you think Obama is not following the preset rules.Bedtime..... but i may have to look tomorrow, it seems i missed the part where health care is a right to be provided
plus numerous other things......
-
Also, wasn't it the REPUBLICAN candidate that announced he was going to suspend his campaign to vote for/work on one of the most Socialist bills of all time?
And for Nick....I challenge YOU to not accept anyone who has qualified for an FHA loan to buy a home from you and certainly not to recommend that they look at FHA loans with their banker.
-
zbrown;242094 wrote:
Bedtime..... but i may have to look tomorrow, it seems i missed the part where health care is a right to be providedplus numerous other things......
Obama has NEVER said it was a right to be provided. He may have said that we have a responsibility to make healthcare more affordable to everyone...but so has McCain. I WILL TAKE THIS BACK BASED ON THE BIT OF THE DEBATE I SAW.....THOUGH I THINK THE CONTEXT IS SLIGHTLY SKEWED AND OBAMA HIMSELF IS TO BLAME FOR SKEWING THE CONTEXT
The constitution never said that motor vehicles should have to pass crash test ratings either...but they do. Why? Because it helps ensure the safety of the people of the united states.
Yes, that is an absurd argument....but you pointed out an absurd untruth, so I felt it only fair to counter with something equally as absurd.
-
zbrown;242097 wrote:
thank you...When did I say it wasn't socialistic? Never. When have I said it is the tax plan that I would PREFER to see long-term? Again, never.
I don't think that people should carry large credit card debt either as it is a bad fiscal move, however in the case of emergency, I think having the available credit ready and to use it is necessary. That is what I was getting at. I personally feel we are in a state of emergency in this country and the normal rules I play by need to be changed....
Similar to how many think the Patriot Act was necessary to remove some of our civil liberties/rights after we were attacked and the country was under crisis.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
-
tjamz;242098 wrote:
Obama has NEVER said it was a right to be provided. He may have said that we have a responsibility to make healthcare more affordable to everyone...but so has McCain.The constitution never said that motor vehicles should have to pass crash test ratings either...but they do. Why? Because it helps ensure the safety of the people of the united states.
Yes, that is an absurd argument....but you pointed out an absurd untruth, so I felt it only fair to counter with something equally as absurd.
Gosh..... maybe we should have a socialized food program, where the Gov. has to provide for ALL of our nutritional needs......after all who needs health care if you don't have food right??
That has to "help ensure the safety of the people of the United States"
Better have one for clothing and shelter too.........
LOL... atleast i will lay in bed with a smile on my face till i fall asleep thinking of how misleaded and overly dependant people have become....... and how sorry i feel for those people
-
tjamz;242098 wrote:
Obama has NEVER said it was a right to be provided. He may have said that we have a responsibility to make healthcare more affordable to everyone...but so has McCain.
.So apparently Chuck is ignorant enough to not even watch a debate...
Chuck spread a falsicy? No way...
-
tjamz;242098 wrote:
Obama has NEVER said it was a right to be provided. He may have said that we have a responsibility to make healthcare more affordable to everyone...but so has McCain.The constitution never said that motor vehicles should have to pass crash test ratings either...but they do. Why? Because it helps ensure the safety of the people of the united states.
Yes, that is an absurd argument....but you pointed out an absurd untruth, so I felt it only fair to counter with something equally as absurd.
WTF? -
zbrown;242102 wrote:
Gosh..... maybe we should have a socialized food program, where the Gov. has to provide for ALL of our nutritional needs......after all who needs health care if you don't have food right??That has to "help ensure the safety of the people of the United States"
Better have one for clothing and shelter too.........
LOL... atleast i will lay in bed with a smile on my face till i fall asleep thinking of how misleaded and overly dependant people have become....... and how sorry i feel for those people
you dont think this country is pretty socialist already?
weird..
you work in an industry where the govt supplements income to reduce risk or influence prices. they pretty much already provide for our nutrition because if they didnt step in and keep them from going broke half of the farmers wouldnt be farming anymore. anyone have crp land?
socialist shelter and clothing programs? already exist, bud.
i feel sorry for a lot of people too, mainly the ones that were immorally or unethically dismissed because their well being didnt fit into the profit margin.
-
torbs;242109 wrote:
So apparently Chuck is ignorant enough to not even watch a debate...Chuck spread a falsicy? No way...
No, Chuck didn't watch the debate. He was busy getting his home ready for sale.
Do I agree with everything the man says? No. Do things get said during debates that are not as thorough as their published health plans. As for what I saw in your clip....what I heard was this "If you have health insurance, you shouldn't have to fight for them to cover your ass if you get sick. You have health insurance to protect you in the event of a major crisis and if you have this coverage, you have the right to be protected under the policy."
Maybe that isn't exactly how it was worded, but I feel that was the intent.
-
I'll elaborate more later.
-
I still haven't heard anyone come up with some good logical argument for the fact that OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS were the ones who pushed through policies allowing people with little to no income to recieve mortgages they'd never be able to afford. On top of the fact that Obama is the 3rd largest recipient of lobbying funds from fannymae and freddiemac...AND when McCain wanted to investigate them because he knew they were lieing about their profits, the DEMS, including Obama, said "NO NO nothing's wrong with them!"
Between the Dems, Acorn, and Fannie/Freddie, a large chunk of the recent $700+ Bil we just spent is their fault. Sure, lenders willing to sign off on them are largely at fault too, but they wouldn't have even been allowed to if the Dems hadn't been so pushy in getting their poor constituients into houses they couldn't afford.
Not to mention that gas prices spiked ~ $2/gal in the months after the DEMS took control of office. They were flirting in the high 1 range and then magically shot up to near $4/gal soon afterwards! Interesting correlation there...
-
StangerBanger96;242131 wrote:
I still haven't heard anyone come up with some good logical argument for the fact that OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS were the ones who pushed through policies allowing people with little to no income to recieve mortgages they'd never be able to afford. On top of the fact that Obama is the 3rd largest recipient of lobbying funds from fannymae and freddiemac...AND when McCain wanted to investigate them because he knew they were lieing about their profits, the DEMS, including Obama, said "NO NO nothing's wrong with them!"Obama has been a senator for what? 4 years....his party has had political power for 2 years (majority house/senate)... MOST of these sub-prime mortgages came during the early 2000's when interest rates were incredibly low....back when the Republicans had FULL control of house/senate/whitehouse....and before Obama was in the senate. Nobody said "You HAVE to give loans to everyone, regardless of ability to pay", that was a market decision by the businesses themselves and not a mandate....if it were EVERY bank in America would be screwed right now and facing the same problems....but they aren't. Locally, the banks have been fiscally sound.
Are you saying you WANT more regulation? That's not very Republican of you....I mean...free market and stuff, right?
Between the Dems, Acorn, and Fannie/Freddie, a large chunk of the recent $700+ Bil we just spent is their fault. Sure, lenders willing to sign off on them are largely at fault too, but they wouldn't have even been allowed to if the Dems hadn't been so pushy in getting their poor constituients into houses they couldn't afford.
Fannie/Freddie...yes, the funneled a ton of money to Obama...that is something he'll have to live with and struggle through. No argument from me.
As for the dems...see above.
As for ACORN...here are some stats (from their website...so take that for what it is worth)
Maude Hurd, ACORN’s National President, issued the following statement in response to Senator McCain’s attack: "We appreciate that Senator McCain's effort to stir up the Republican base by attacking a community organization working to increase public participation in our democratic process. However, these attacks reflect an increasingly panicked candidate; unfortunately the Senator McCain we saw tonight is very different than the Senator McCain who stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN at a February 20, 2006 immigration reform event
It is clear for us to see that John McCain was for ACORN before he was against ACORN; he was for reform before he was against reform; and he was a maverick before he became erratic. What is really going here is that Senator McCain and his allies are part of a coordinated effort to engage in what appears to be an unprecedented effort to suppress voter turnout. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, and the McCain campaign has resorted to the worst type of deceptions in regards to ACORN."
The Facts:-
ACORN has helped 1.3 million citizens from all parties and all walks of life apply for voter registration.
-
<u>**In most states, ACORN is required by law to turn in every voter registration card - even in cases where the cards are not valid. **</u>
-
<u>* It is ACORN that has reported almost all of the issues regarding voter registration cards.**</u>*
-
** Invalid voter registration cards do NOT constitute voter fraud. <u>Even RNC General Counsel Sean Cairncross has recently acknowledged he is not aware of a single improper vote cast</u> as a result of bad cards submitted in the course of an organized voter registration effort. **
-
ACORN hired 13,000 field workers to register people to vote. In any endeavor of this size, some people will engaged in inappropriate conduct. ACORN has a zero tolerance policy and terminated any field workers caught engaging in questionable activity. At the end of the day, as ACORN is paying these people to register voters, it is ACORN that is defrauded.
So basically, Obama is being blamed for voter fraud because he felt it was necessary to get more people out to vote and stood behind the core principles of that organization...and some people at the field level decided to provide falsified documentation? Am I guilty of embezzelment because I used to work for Tyco and their CEO (Dennis Kozlowski) was found guilty of these crimes as well as tax evasion?
Not to mention that gas prices spiked ~ $2/gal in the months after the DEMS took control of office. They were flirting in the high 1 range and then magically shot up to near $4/gal soon afterwards! Interesting correlation there...
See quote below...then see my comments below it.
The Nov. 17 Lundberg Survey of about 5,000 gas stations across the country showed the average price of a gallon of self-serve regular gas was $2.23, a penny lower than the same week a year ago, publisher Trilby Lundberg told CNN.
Yes, the cost of gas did rise, as did the price of every commodity due to the weakening dollar and the fact that we were borrowing money to fund wars and other programs. When the dollar devalues, it means we can't buy as much of a product for a given amount of money as we were able to before. Now, which party is responsible for the HUGE deficit spending/borrowing and which one left the whitehouse 8 years ago w/ a projected surplus and balanced budget?
When I had my bachelor party on August 4, 2001 I paid $.97 for gas in Sykeston, ND. Yes....97 CENTS, not a typo (nationally gas was $1.27 at that time). So gas prices doubled from August 4, 2001 to around $2.50 back when the democrats won the midterms...at least according to this index:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html
Now, here is what I will say...if you don't like Obama or his tax plan, that is fine. I'm not a huge fan of it either. If you feel that strongly, I suggest you all send your stimulus package checks back as well....all that was designed to do was stimulate the economy by putting money in the pockets of citizens who will spend it on businesses....but I'm guessing each and every one of us that got one, spent it and thought nothing of it. Hypocrites.
-
-
SmitEvo;242130 wrote:
Chuck is turning into a communist....I really can see how you went from liking Ron Paul to even agreeing with Obama. The antichrist must have you under his powers....I seem to recall a conversation at your house one night where, when I asked you who you voting for if Paul didn't get the nomination and you said............ "Probably Obama"
Again, I see this as a stimulus package w/ a plan to pay for it. It SHOULD be short term at best....and likely will be as tax code gets changed yearly.
I'd prefer to see flat taxes...how is this communist/socialist? That is the most fair way of paying taxes....period.
But, with Ron Pauls plan, he called for the end of Personal Income Tax (along with appropriate cuts in spending to match) but maintaining all of the existing corporate and other taxes. OMFG did Ron Paul just say he wants the rich corporations to fund this country so that the working class can keep their hard earned money in their pockets!?!?!?!?! What a communist!!! Oh....wait, that is kinda what Obama is proposing.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login