Who'll be the better president?

[FordGT90Concept]

Hehe... Defense! Defense! Defense!

The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.”

Nice.


That's a damn fine read. :O

 

[das müffin mann]

"WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are — beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

___

THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.

___

THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years — and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

___

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "

THE FACTS: His proposals — the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more — cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged — although not in his commercial — that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."


ok now im really done

 

[magibeg]

http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

Everyone here should watch this video(no its not about liberals or republicans, its about propaganda in general).

"In this presentation, experts in the field of communication, politics and media discuss the ways in which George Orwell's writings on propaganda and language remain hauntingly relevant in today's political climate."

You guys would all seem a little less retarded if you actually watched this video to understand why your views are different and why you shouldn't label others 'liberals' or 'republicans'.

 

[das müffin mann]

hey magibeg i watched it

 

[magibeg]

hey magibeg i watched it

Judging by peoples behaviour a lot of them didn't. After watching the video you can definitely pick out certain traits going through this thread.

 

[Bigjohn]

"WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are — beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

___

THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.

___

THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years — and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

___

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "

THE FACTS: His proposals — the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more — cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged — although not in his commercial — that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."


ok now im really done

Are you still voting for him??

Nothing like Obama to lie to win...
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/10/29/obama-continues-airing-false-ad/

Who's plan will create more jobs??

 

[das müffin mann]

im not voting for either candidate
im writing someone in
i know who im voting for locally however

 

[Bigjohn]

A breakdown of why healthcare is not a right:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Speech: My right to say what I want, and your right to say what you want, do not infringe upon or cost either of us anything when the other exersizes it.

Amendment 2 - Right to keep and bear arms: My right to own a gun does not infringe upon you or cost you anything when I excersize it (unless I'm being criminal in my use of the weapon, of course... but that's off point.)

Amendment 3 - I can't be forced by the government to quarter troops: Again, does not cost you or anyone anything for me to excersize this right....


Amendment 4 - protection from unreasonable search and seizure: No cost to you or anyone else...

Ahh, I could go on, enumerating all 10 amendments in the bill of rights... but I won't, because you see the trend... Rights are things that don't infringe on another person....

Right to healtcare? Not so much. There is no mythical pot of money called "government money". So, who will the government force, at the point of a gun, to pay for your doctor visit?

It's easy to say "everyone".... 295 million+ people and all, it's harder to see the face... but still, it's a forced transfer of wealth, weather it's a dime per taxpayer that takes care of your visit, or you put a single name and face on that taxbill...

 

[farlex85]

A breakdown of why healthcare is not a right:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Speech: My right to say what I want, and your right to say what you want, do not infringe upon or cost either of us anything when the other exersizes it.

Amendment 2 - Right to keep and bear arms: My right to own a gun does not infringe upon you or cost you anything when I excersize it (unless I'm being criminal in my use of the weapon, of course... but that's off point.)

Amendment 3 - I can't be forced by the government to quarter troops: Again, does not cost you or anyone anything for me to excersize this right....


Amendment 4 - protection from unreasonable search and seizure: No cost to you or anyone else...

Ahh, I could go on, enumerating all 10 amendments in the bill of rights... but I won't, because you see the trend... Rights are things that don't infringe on another person....

Right to healtcare? Not so much. There is no mythical pot of money called "government money". So, who will the government force, at the point of a gun, to pay for your doctor visit?

It's easy to say "everyone".... 295 million+ people and all, it's harder to see the face... but still, it's a forced transfer of wealth, weather it's a dime per taxpayer that takes care of your visit, or you put a single name and face on that taxbill...

Meh, the government could come up w/ the money easily w/o changing anything except spending. For instance: http://www.whatwecouldhavedonewiththemoney.com/. A pretty interesting book, the guy spent a year w/ economists figuring out what could have been done w/ the $1trillon+ that's been spent on the war. Somewhat a waste of time, but interesting none the less. A couple of examples are pay for college for every student in America, pave all interstate highways w/ 24k gold, provide social security for every American born in the next 65 years, provide the bailout w/ a few hundred billion to spare, ect. You don't need to be taxed more, you just have to get the government to appropriate funds.

 

[mdm-adph]

Meh, the government could come up w/ the money easily w/o changing anything except spending. For instance: http://www.whatwecouldhavedonewiththemoney.com/. A pretty interesting book, the guy spent a year w/ economists figuring out what could have been done w/ the $1trillon+ that's been spent on the war. Somewhat a waste of time, but interesting none the less. A couple of examples are pay for college for every student in America, pave all interstate highways w/ 24k gold, provide social security for every American born in the next 65 years, provide the bailout w/ a few hundred billion to spare, ect. You don't need to be taxed more, you just have to get the government to appropriate funds.

Ah, but you can't do that, you needed that money because Saddam had WMD's... no, wait...

Saddam was about to attack America... wait a sec...

Saddam was working with Al-Queda... no, that's not right...

Saddam was a very bad guy!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Meh, the government could come up w/ the money easily w/o changing anything except spending. For instance: http://www.whatwecouldhavedonewiththemoney.com/. A pretty interesting book, the guy spent a year w/ economists figuring out what could have been done w/ the $1trillon+ that's been spent on the war. Somewhat a waste of time, but interesting none the less. A couple of examples are pay for college for every student in America, pave all interstate highways w/ 24k gold, provide social security for every American born in the next 65 years, provide the bailout w/ a few hundred billion to spare, ect. You don't need to be taxed more, you just have to get the government to appropriate funds.

So, so, so, wrong! We're in debt up to our eyeballs. We're broke, completely broke. All we have is "good faith" that we will repay the debt that is owed. The government doesn't have a magic tree they can pluck wealth off of--well they do, called tax payers. And WE THE PEOPLE ALREADY OWE $10 TRILLION. That's $10,000,000,000,000. Count the zeros. That's 13 of them. THIRTEEN. Can this not be any clearer? What if you were $10,000,000,000,000 in debt as an individual? You think you'd be going out to buy health insurance? NO! You'd take it to the grave and have your children pay for it. Guess what Uncle Sam is doing? EXACTLY THAT!

At least McCain's plan changes the course of health insurance to a direction that is more sustainable. Obama wants to make our existing situation significantly worse by not addressing the fact that healthcare services are WAY overvalued. All it's gonna do is act like a leech on the existing healthcare infrastructure and suck the life blood out of it until only a 100% tax payer system remains.

Look at the programs that currently make up 95% of our countries debt: They are all entitlement programs. Why add more? To do so is to steer into the ice berg instead of away.

I really can't make it anymore clear how bad Obama is for this country. We won't be paying for it during the four years of his presidency, we'll be paying for it in the century afterwards just like we are for FDR's Social Security and LBJ's Medicaid/Medicare. I already voted for the candidate that most resembles a lifeboat and no, it isn't the guy that wants to "spread the wealth." "That one" is the captain of the Titanic staying the course into the ice berg.


We spend $500 billion+ annually on the military. If it wasn't spent in Iraq it would have been spent elsewhere (by more F-22s, research GAYDAR, etc.). Regardless, the war in Iraq is at most $1 trillion (liberal estimates) over 5 years and is scheduled to start declining soon. That's $200 billion a year. We spend that much money just fighting off corrosion of our Naval fleet.

Ah, but you can't do that, you needed that money because Saddam had WMD's... no, wait...

Saddam was about to attack America... wait a sec...

Saddam was working with Al-Queda... no, that's not right...

Saddam was a very bad guy!

You can only say that with certainty in hindsight--that is no coincidence and that discussion ended in 2003. The question has been, and remains, do we keep Iraq as an ally or do we make an enemy by forcing them to fend for themselves. We don't need anymore enemies.

 

[Bigjohn]

Everyone glosses over the preamble to the Bill of Rights... but it in and of itself is telling. It specifically states that these are to restrict the power of the federal government over the people...

he Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

 

[magibeg]

So, so, so, wrong! We're in debt up to our eyeballs. We're broke, completely broke. All we have is "good faith" that we will repay the debt that is owed. The government doesn't have a magic tree they can pluck wealth off of--well they do, called tax payers. And WE THE PEOPLE ALREADY OWE $10 TRILLION. That's $10,000,000,000,000. Count the zeros. That's 13 of them. THIRTEEN. Can this not be any clearer? What if you were $10,000,000,000,000 in debt as an individual? You think you'd be going out to buy health insurance? NO! You'd take it to the grave and have your children pay for it. Guess what Uncle Sam is doing? EXACTLY THAT!

If you want a bit of surprise the US debt is actually closer to ~$50 trillion. The government owes 10 trillion but theres other debt in the US besides just government debt.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

$10 trillion is owed right now. $40+ trillion on top of that is forecasted expenditures over the next several decades mostly consisting of Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare benefits.


Case in point: McCain IS an agent of change.

Two years ago, Democrats were convinced that the war in Iraq was "unwinnable" while Republicans wouldn't vote for anything that had the word "time table." Here comes Mr. Maverick himself (John McCain) stating we need to change the strategy by adding more troops. That wasn't popular with anyone. Two years later, both sides are talking about drawing troop numbers down.

Against all odds and popular belief, McCain was correct.

Well, our $10 trillion dollar debt isn't going to go anywhere unless someone steps up to do something about. Mr. Goodie-Two-Shoes (Barack Obama) says he will "cut spending where he can" and cites NOTHING he will cut. Mr. Maverick says spending freeze, followed by a hatchet, followed by a scalpel. The only things that won't have a spending freeze is military, veterans programs, and entitlement programs.

Hmm, I don't have to think at all on that one as to who is going do something about that $10 trillion debt. It is as obvious as night and day in the middle of a desert.


I ask the questions the Democrats want asked now:

Who really stands for change? The one that tells you the other is George Bush or the one that points out domestic terrorist connections? George Bush shouldn't even be relevant in this just as Bill Clinton was irrelevant when Al Gore ran. Why is his name EVER even mentioned?

 

[WhiteLotus]

and, of course, this is all beyond hyperbole..... the US vs the UK is, well, a 232 year old dustup that pretty much ended in a very nice friendship. And you guys over there on that tiny island nation make MUCH better beer, for the most part...

why thankyou very much.

 

[Bigjohn]

If you want a bit of surprise the US debt is actually closer to ~$50 trillion. The government owes 10 trillion but theres other debt in the US besides just government debt.

we're talking abou the debt rolled up by the free spending morons in our congress, and the entitlement programs that they use to by the votes of the dolts. Aka the DUMB MASSES... (or Dumbasses)

 

[Bigjohn]

why thankyou very much.

I was enjoying a pint of Brains SA in Cardiff when a very attractive lass walked up. Knowing she was probably doing a promotion of sorts, I turned and smiled - she handed me a "BUDWISER" tee shirt...*(sigh)*

 

[WhiteLotus]

I was enjoying a pint of Brains SA in Cardiff when a very attractive lass walked up. Knowing she was probably doing a promotion of sorts, I turned and smiled - she handed me a "BUDWISER" tee shirt...*(sigh)*

haha - gotta love the UK ales though, I don't even like them very much but when i have a few i knw i'm drinking good stuff. Don't really get much American stuff over here other than Budweiser and Coors.

 

[farlex85]

So, so, so, wrong! We're in debt up to our eyeballs. We're broke, completely broke. All we have is "good faith" that we will repay the debt that is owed. The government doesn't have a magic tree they can pluck wealth off of--well they do, called tax payers. And WE THE PEOPLE ALREADY OWE $10 TRILLION. That's $10,000,000,000,000. Count the zeros. That's 13 of them. THIRTEEN. Can this not be any clearer? What if you were $10,000,000,000,000 in debt as an individual? You think you'd be going out to buy health insurance? NO! You'd take it to the grave and have your children pay for it. Guess what Uncle Sam is doing? EXACTLY THAT!

At least McCain's plan changes the course of health insurance to a direction that is more sustainable. Obama wants to make our existing situation significantly worse by not addressing the fact that healthcare services are WAY overvalued. All it's gonna do is act like a leech on the existing healthcare infrastructure and suck the life blood out of it until only a 100% tax payer system remains.

Look at the programs that currently make up 95% of our countries debt: They are all entitlement programs. Why add more? To do so is to steer into the ice berg instead of away.

I really can't make it anymore clear how bad Obama is for this country. We won't be paying for it during the four years of his presidency, we'll be paying for it in the century afterwards just like we are for FDR's Social Security and LBJ's Medicaid/Medicare. I already voted for the candidate that most resembles a lifeboat and no, it isn't the guy that wants to "spread the wealth." "That one" is the captain of the Titanic staying the course into the ice berg.


We spend $500 billion+ annually on the military. If it wasn't spent in Iraq it would have been spent elsewhere (by more F-22s, research GAYDAR, etc.). Regardless, the war in Iraq is at most $1 trillion (liberal estimates) over 5 years and is scheduled to start declining soon. That's $200 billion a year. We spend that much money just fighting off corrosion of our Naval fleet.

Whoa whoa easy buddy. Just an example of how money could be better spent. It also is an example to me of how ridiculous the world economy really is. Politics and economics, by far my least favorite human constructions, but perhaps by far the most necessary (at least to our current way of life) and unfortunately the most integral.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

Are you still voting for him??

Nothing like Obama to lie to win...
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/10/29/obama-continues-airing-false-ad/

Who's plan will create more jobs??

Are you serious? Heritage Foundation would blow McCain if he asked. Its a republican propaganda think-tank. Thats like pulling data collected by the skin heads that got caught plotting to kill Obama.

 

[Bigjohn]

read the foot notes of the study. All that pulled from GOVERNMENT DATA... Team Obama can't refute it. but they can make their friends at the LA Times hide a tape... When a republican tries to hide a tape, bad things happen... when a democrat tries to hide a tape its 'a distraction'

 

[mdm-adph]

read the foot notes of the study. All that pulled from GOVERNMENT DATA... Team Obama can't refute it. but they can make their friends at the LA Times hide a tape... When a republican tries to hide a tape, bad things happen... when a democrat tries to hide a tape its 'a distraction'

The foot notes of that image say nothing about government data. It says it's from the Heritage Foundation, which bills itself as "Conservative Policy Research and Analysis" -- hardly unbiased.

Here's a image from their front page:

(Yeah, that Regan, the one who expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit you love so much to unprecedented levels.)

And the URL for their source in the image doesn't even work, as far as I can tell.

Try again.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Whoa whoa easy buddy. Just an example of how money could be better spent. It also is an example to me of how ridiculous the world economy really is. Politics and economics, by far my least favorite human constructions, but perhaps by far the most necessary (at least to our current way of life) and unfortunately the most integral.

I'd say both are inevitable as they cater to human needs. We need politics because we seek out leadership. We need economics in order to get something we don't have from something we do (ehm, trade). Just like war, they will only go away if humans go away.


Not that I want to but I, too, have to throw a BS flag on that one. The point it is trying to prove is based completely on theoreticals. Just because you give a business a tax break doesn't mean they're going to go out and hire people. What can be proven is that the more discretionary income people and businesses have, the more likely they are to spend. The wheels of the economy are only driven when people spend money. It could result in people getting hired but those connections aren't that strong.

 

[farlex85]

I'd say both are inevitable as they cater to human needs. We need politics because we seek out leadership. We need economics in order to get something we don't have from something we do (ehm, trade). Just like war, they will only go away if humans go away.

Absolutely, like I said they are necessary and integral. They bring order, which we definitely need w/ some 6 billion people attempting to live together. However, these two parts have gotten a bit gratuitous in a way that's difficult for me to put into words. Politics in America for example are these days much more about Republican/Democrat liberal/conservative, and instead of working together they work against. It's what I've been trying to convey, it's politics for the sake of politics, both sides have valid points, both viewpoints have short-sightedness, and yet somehow inevitably end up yelling at each other about how wrong each other are. It's silly.

And economics, well, it's totally artificial. I mean, it derives from a need to trade, but has become a totally different beast. We want and need, our economy is down right now but why? Everyone points the finger, we have somehow lost control over the very driving factor of our lives, yet it is utterly and completely under our control. Money doesn't exist w/o man, so how has it come to work against us? Economics for the sake of economics.

It is OUR government it is OUR money, not in the conservative way of saying that but in the humanitarian way. Yet they are by far the biggest obstacles in our peace (of mind ). It's like current space shuttle technology, most all of the fuel is spent just propelling the fuel off the ground. Create something and then fight it tooth and nail to get it to work right. It's enough to turn someone off from the stuff.....

 

[FordGT90Concept]

...instead of working together they work against.

That's what happens when you fundamentally disagree.

...has become a totally different beast.

It hasn't "become" anything. The difference is the driving force. A thousand years ago, that driving force was necessity; today, the driving force is greed. "I want more than [name] just to have more than [name]." It is no longer "I need [item] and [name] can provide it." It is a consequence of having basic needs so "easy" to satisfy. If you need biological proof of the "easiness," look at obesity rates. XD