Who'll be the better president?

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by TUngsten

If anyone's thrown the constitution out the window, it's the republicans.

Patriot Act? Unlimited wiretapping? Holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay w/o any due process? I can go on all day...

They'd toss out a woman's right to choose as well if they had the chance. The supreme court has ruled that a woman's right to an abortion is protected by the constitution. Would you have that right removed as well? Who the hell are you (or anyone) to tell a woman what she chooses to do with her own body?

Careful -- he's just a troll trying to get a reaction out of you. He's really not trying to say anything.

[TUngsten]

Yeah, I can see that
But it's scary that he actually believes what he's saying...

[Bigjohn]

@mdm-adph

Here are your statistics.
There are FEWER people without insurance in 2007 vs 2006...
and the statistics count all the "non citizens" in the country. Basically:

There are, indeed, a total of some 45.7 million people who can, technically, be counted as not having health insurance.

However, when you look at how this total figure was arrived at, you find that the Census Bureau counted people from the following groups in their total:

1. All the many millions of illegal aliens in the U.S.--(I’ve seen figures from 12 million to 22 million)

2. People who make more than $50,000 per year but who don’t buy health insurance, usually because they are young and healthy and don’t think they need it.

3. People who are in the process of transferring from one health plan to another.

4. People who are eligible for government health care assistance under the Medicare or SCHIP programs but who do not take advantage of that care.

Bottom line; when you subtract out all of the people in these four groups from the total number of 45.7 million, you actually have only 8-10 million people who are really without health insurance as the average person might see it. Not good, but nowhere near as massive a problem as is conjured up by the total number of 46 million people that Democrats and others routinely use.

The document also includes a definition of "health insurance", and you'll note that MSA's are not included...

Congress does not want people to insure themselves... so they limited the number of available MSA's to 750,000 accounts (an account can be an individual or a familiy). do the research. John McCains plan would be MSA friendly, while Barry O just wants to take the "promote the general welfare" clause of the constitution and rewrite it to say "Provide for everyone a healthy chunk of welfare", of course at the expense of your wallet.

There is no way he can fund the 1.3TRILLION he's proposing off the backs of just the top 5%...

[mdm-adph]

Well, thanks for actually doing some research -- you look a lot less like a troll when you actually provide sources.

I skimmed through that report, trying to look for the points you made, and I found a few issues:

1) True -- illegal aliens, if they are included in this figure of ~47 million, shouldn't be included. However, I couldn't find any evidence of this in the report you linked -- do you remember where you found it?

I searched the report for the words "illegal," "migrant," "undocumented" -- nothing was returned. I hope you're not insinuating that the totals in the "hispanic" column should be considered as such, because that would be disingenuous, even for you.

Even so, since there's no way to know exactly how many illegals there are in America (even if they were included in this figure) -- could be 20 million, could be 5 million, who knows -- it's not as relevant as some would like to think.

2) I don't see how someone choosing not to buy health insurance shouldn't be included in this report -- to me, it doesn't matter. Accidents happen to everyone, and if they're not covered by a healthcare plan, they're going to go in debt (if they're able to get long term treatment at all). Besides, depending upon where you live in the US, $50k a year might be just barely enough to get by, especially if you have a family.

3) People who are changing from one healthcare plan to another? Yeah, for whatever reason, they should be considered not covered during that time. Accidents happen, and it doesn't matter if you're "in between" health care plans -- if it happens to you, you're screwed. And if the lapse in coverage is a year or more (what it would have to be for them to be included in the total figure), well when that's just looks sad (as far as the wonderfulness of a "free-market" system goes). A NHS system would make sure this never happened.

4) This point needs a bit of clarification as well -- where in the report did you find that these people were included, and how many of them were there? I find it strange that someone would have free coverage available, and wouldn't take it...

And please stop bringing up HSA's or MSA's. Creating "tax free savings accounts" to pay for ridiculously expensive healthcare doesn't mean much to the vast majority of uninsured folks in the US, who don't have the extra money to begin with. They probably weren't included because in a runaway heathcare system like in America, this kind of patchwork fix is almost laughable.

I suspect that Congress limiting the amount of these that could be created had more to do with limiting the amount of tax-free havens for wealthy folks to stash money away in, don't you think?

[iStink]

Did you guys know Joe the plumber doesn't even have his plumbing license? And from all the interviews and things I've read of this guy, he never said he works 12 hours a day.

I'm voting Obama because McCain is such a complete jerk off.

I wish I had intelligent stuff to add to this conversation, but I just don't care enough to learn about it, plus I'm stupid so I couldn't keep up anyhow.

[Bigjohn]

Illegal Alien is not a politically correct term. They're listed as "non citizens"

[farlex85]

I was pretty determined not to vote until last night's debate, and now I've pretty much resolved for Obama. He finally outlined the healthcare plan in full, and it does seem to be a solid all-around plan. I loved the look McCain's face when he tried to pull that Joe plumber crap and Obama completely invalidated his argument. All of McCain's strategy for the debate was simply attacking Obama, and being a smug and pompous ass, while Obama had to spend half his time explaining how full of it McCain's attacks really were. McCain, at least the political McCain I've seen, embodies just about everything I find repulsive in people, and I see nothing he is offering that will help curve the slide. Obama may be another sleazy politician too (he doesn't seem like it, but I can't say anyone who runs for president isn't), but at least he's got some good ideas, and he has the composure to bring respect, something McCain and Bush so sorely lack. He's got my vote.

[Polaris573]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

Illegal Alien is not a politically correct term. They're listed as "non citizens"

All I have to say is

[Bigjohn]

Originally Posted by iStink

Did you guys know Joe the plumber doesn't even have his plumbing license? And from all the interviews and things I've read of this guy, he never said he works 12 hours a day.

I'm voting Obama because McCain is such a complete jerk off.

I wish I had intelligent stuff to add to this conversation, but I just don't care enough to learn about it, plus I'm stupid so I couldn't keep up anyhow.

That is such a GREAT reason to vote for him... NOT
I bet Bill Clinton would be a great guy to hang out with in a strip club... but no way in hell I'd vote for him - HIS POLICIES make me sick.

[ckoons1]

FIND OUT WHAT THE MASSES ARE DOING AND GO THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. YOUR CHANCES ARE BETTER.
ANTHONY ROBERTS

meaning the masses are usually wrong because the masses are NOT the elite or most highly intelligent.

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

Illegal Alien is not a politically correct term. They're listed as "non citizens"

I don't think so -- they're not the same thing at all. There are plenty of noncitizens living and working in the US, completely legally, and many of them don't have health insurance either, but would (and should) be eligible in a NHS.

Have any answers to my criticism of the report, by the way?

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

That is such a GREAT reason to vote for him... NOT
I bet Bill Clinton would be a great guy to hang out with in a strip club... but no way in hell I'd vote for him - HIS POLICIES make me sick.

Strange -- most criticism I hear of President Clinton from those in the US was that his presidential policies were great (his approval rating was historically high during his time in office), but that privately the man led a deplorable life.

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by ckoons1

FIND OUT WHAT THE MASSES ARE DOING AND GO THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. YOUR CHANCES ARE BETTER.
ANTHONY ROBERTS

meaning the masses are usually wrong because the masses are NOT the elite or most highly intelligent.

What if the masses are heading away from a cliff?

[farlex85]

Originally Posted by ckoons1

FIND OUT WHAT THE MASSES ARE DOING AND GO THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. YOUR CHANCES ARE BETTER.
ANTHONY ROBERTS

meaning the masses are usually wrong because the masses are NOT the elite or most highly intelligent.

Better to listen to the masses and find out the logic behind it than merely disregarding it. There are many, many ways in which an individual can be intelligent, and a high IQ doesn't mean that person should be followed to the ends of the earth while everyone else goes the other way. The elite tend to be corrupted and selfish. Basically, that statement should not be taken literally, as the logic it dictates would be roughly equivalent to the logic it condemns.

[DaedalusHelios]

Originally Posted by farlex85

I was pretty determined not to vote until last night's debate, and now I've pretty much resolved for Obama. He finally outlined the healthcare plan in full, and it does seem to be a solid all-around plan. I loved the look McCain's face when he tried to pull that Joe plumber crap and Obama completely invalidated his argument. All of McCain's strategy for the debate was simply attacking Obama, and being a smug and pompous ass, while Obama had to spend half his time explaining how full of it McCain's attacks really were. McCain, at least the political McCain I've seen, embodies just about everything I find repulsive in people, and I see nothing he is offering that will help curve the slide. Obama may be another sleazy politician too (he doesn't seem like it, but I can't say anyone who runs for president isn't), but at least he's got some good ideas, and he has the composure to bring respect, something McCain and Bush so sorely lack. He's got my vote.

Very well said. I agree that Obama was trying to keep the debate respectful and McCain was in attack mode the whole time. I think debating policies is the only thing a presidential debate should be for. We want to know what policies the candidates are for and not how much mudslinging they can accomplish in an hour and a half etc.

Polls indicate that Biden and Obama won all the debates. Palin did better than McCain according to the polls which is pretty pathetic. I personally think McCain debates much better than Palin but atleast Palin wasn't as disrespectful. My view of McCain lowered with the debates. The debates helped Biden, Obama, and Palin. McCain lost popularity because of them. The funny part is that the "town Hall" meetings that McCain referred to would have most likely hurt McCain's campaign if they were anything like the debates were, given the poll numbers.

[Polaris573]

Here is an interesting read.

Don't Blame Capitalism by Peter Schiff

Originally Posted by Peter Schiff

Amid the chaos of recent days, as the federal government has taken gargantuan steps to stabilize the financial markets, realigning the U.S. economic system in the process, comes a nearly universal consensus: This crisis resulted from government reluctance to regulate the unbridled greed of Wall Street. Many economists and market participants who were formerly averse to government interference agree that a more robust regulatory framework must be constructed to cage the destructive forces of capitalism.
This Story

For the political left, which has long championed the need for such limits, this crisis is the opportunity of a lifetime.

Absent from such conclusions is the central role the government played in creating the crisis. Yes, many Wall Street leaders were irresponsible, and they should pay. But they were playing the distorted hand dealt them by government policies. Our leaders irrationally promoted home-buying, discouraged savings, and recklessly encouraged borrowing and lending, which together undermined our markets.

Just as prices in a free market are set by supply and demand, financial and real estate markets are governed by the opposing tension between greed and fear. Everyone wants to make money, but everyone is also afraid of losing what he has. Although few would ascribe their desire for prosperity to greed, it is simply a rose by another name. Greed is the elemental motivation for the economic risk-taking and hard work that are essential to a vibrant economy.

But over the past generation, government has removed the necessary counterbalance of fear from the equation. Policies enacted by the Federal Reserve, the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which were always government entities in disguise), and others created advantages for home-buying and selling and removed disincentives for lending and borrowing. The result was a credit and real estate bubble that could only grow -- until it could grow no more.

Prominent among these wrongheaded advantages are the mortgage interest tax deduction and the exemption of real estate capital gains from taxable income. These policies create unnatural demand for home purchases and a (tax-free) incentive to speculate in real estate.

Similarly, the FHA, Fannie and Freddie were created to encourage lending by allowing primary lenders to turn their long-term risk over to the government. Absent this implicit guarantee, lenders would probably have been much more conservative in approving borrowers and setting interest terms, and in requiring documentation of incomes and higher down payments. Market forces would have kept out unqualified buyers and prevented home-price appreciation from exceeding the growth in household income.

Interest rates contributed the most to creating the housing boom. After the dot-com crash and the slowdown following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Federal Reserve took extraordinary steps to prevent a shallow recession from deepening. By slashing interest rates to 1 percent and holding them below the rate of inflation for years, the government discouraged savings and practically distributed free money.

Artificially low interest rates invigorated the market for adjustable-rate mortgages and gave birth to the teaser rate, which made overpriced homes appear affordable. Alan Greenspan himself actively encouraged home buyers to avail themselves of these seeming benefits. As monetary policy caused houses to become more expensive, it also temporarily provided buyers with the means to overpay. Cheap money gave rise to subprime mortgages and the resulting securitization wave that made these loans appear safe for investors.

And even today, as market forces deflate the credit bubble, the government is stepping in to re-inflate it. First came the Treasury's $700 billion plan to purchase mortgage assets that no one in the private sector would buy. Now it has recapitalized banks to the tune of $250 billion, guaranteeing loans between banks and fully insuring non-interest-bearing accounts. Policymakers say that absent these steps, banks would not be able to extend loans. But given our already staggering debt burden, perhaps more loans are not the answer. That's what the free market is telling us. But the government cannot abide solutions that ask for consumer sacrifice.

Real credit can be supplied only by savings, so artificial steps to stimulate lending will only produce inflation. By refusing to allow market forces to rein in excess spending, liquidate bad investments, replenish depleted savings, fund capital investment and help workers transition from the service sector to the manufacturing sector, government is resisting the cure while exacerbating the disease.

The United States reached its economic preeminence on the strength of its free markets. So far, the economic disaster exacerbated by government policies is creating opportunities for further government interference, which will lead to bigger catastrophes. Binding the country to a tangle of socialist ideals will seal our fate as a second-rate economic power.

The writer, who was economic adviser for Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, is president of Euro Pacific Capital. He is the author of "The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets."

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by Polaris573

Here is an interesting read.

Don't Blame Capitalism by Peter Schiff

Hey, I'm usually in favor of capitalism in pretty much any market -- except healthcare. A for-profit system involving life-and-death just seems wrong (and has been shown not to work very well, anyway).

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by Polaris573

I have to take the opposite viewpoint. Education is required to reform the world. Educated people are less likely to commit crimes and are more likely to make better decisions for the betterment of their neighborhood and country. Like it or not wealth, power, and stability come to those with an education much more easily than those without. India is a prime example of this as it is making a rapid transition where more and more people are obtaining an education. Look at the cities where there is a higher percentage of educated people versus the rural areas. Is it fair to say the quality of life is better where there is a higher percentage of people with an education? Is the country as a whole not becoming more competitive worldwide as the quality of the education of the average person increases? Education is the key to ending both poverty and violence.

I'm going to take it a step further and apply the policy of education to aid for third world nations as well. Instead of simply spending millions of dollars every year in aid to third-world nations to try to solve their problems could we not invest in their education system to provide schools and teachers. Armed with an educated populace couldn't third world nations have a much greater chance of solving their problems on their own? Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

Also, since I mentioned India earlier I would just like to say it shames me to no end that the U.S. makes such a big deal out of being allies with Pakistan, an unstable possibly oppressive nation. India is just next door which is a rapidly improving, much more stable nation, that has a lot more in common with the U.S. than Pakistan. With such a great nation in the region we should work much harder to improve relations with India, not Pakistan. It could be a valuable ally for decades to come.

I would have to agree strongly with most of what you wrote, however, the most wanted terrorist on the planet is exceptionally well educated and wealthy

[Bigjohn]

Originally Posted by farlex85

I was pretty determined not to vote until last night's debate, and now I've pretty much resolved for Obama. He finally outlined the healthcare plan in full, and it does seem to be a solid all-around plan. I loved the look McCain's face when he tried to pull that Joe plumber crap and Obama completely invalidated his argument. All of McCain's strategy for the debate was simply attacking Obama, and being a smug and pompous ass, while Obama had to spend half his time explaining how full of it McCain's attacks really were. McCain, at least the political McCain I've seen, embodies just about everything I find repulsive in people, and I see nothing he is offering that will help curve the slide. Obama may be another sleazy politician too (he doesn't seem like it, but I can't say anyone who runs for president isn't), but at least he's got some good ideas, and he has the composure to bring respect, something McCain and Bush so sorely lack. He's got my vote.

The only way that you can believe Obama completely invalidated McCain's points about the flaws in Obama's tax and steal scheme is that you believe the scheme itself...

you can't cut taxes for "95% of americans" when 40% of them don't pay any taxes at all, unless you're going to open a huge new Wealth Redistribution plan...

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...uth_133633.htm

[farlex85]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

The only way that you can believe Obama completely invalidated McCain's points about the flaws in Obama's tax and steal scheme is that you believe the scheme itself...

you can't cut taxes for "95% of americans" when 40% of them don't pay any taxes at all, unless you're going to open a huge new Wealth Redistribution plan...

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...uth_133633.htm

I was actually referring to a specific point in the debate in which McCain tried to say "Joe the plumber" would have to pay a fine (for not providing healthcare) and was trying so hard to drive it home only to have Obama repeat, for the I umpteenth time, that small businesses were exempt and thus "Joe" would not be fined. McCain, somehow, seemed baffled at first at Obama's response then like a deer in headlights before regaining composure. I didn't see them speak about the tax plans in this debate, and you can whine all you want about it, we've been over that. I'm not an economist, nor am I necessarily for the government re-distributing the wealth, but there are deep rooted problems in the world's economy, and I'm not just talking now. Even when the US was booming, things have been messed up for quite a while. If the government can effectively lower the gap b/t the rich and the poor, then fine, I'm all for it. I'm not going to lose sleep over people having to live in slightly smaller houses or drive slightly less fancy cars (myself included) so the poorest (and yes, that includes some freeloaders) can have a life that is not crippling.

But that's not what Obama is proposing anyway, bigger government control maybe, but not complete wealth distribution, nor complete government control. That article is rather propaganda-ish. I'm not really worried about more taxes for myself, I'm more worried about mine and everyone's quality of life. I would rather higher taxes than all the problems disparity and poverty can bring.

[DaedalusHelios]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

The only way that you can believe Obama completely invalidated McCain's points about the flaws in Obama's tax and steal scheme is that you believe the scheme itself...

you can't cut taxes for "95% of americans" when 40% of them don't pay any taxes at all, unless you're going to open a huge new Wealth Redistribution plan...

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...uth_133633.htm

Thats an editorial, not a news post. Its just somebodies opinion. Not an unbiased article pursuing facts.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/editorial

[Tatty_One]

Well according to the British media....thats 3 - 0 to Obama is all I can say, personally, I dont care who you get......but if I had a gun to my head, based on the little I have seen, it pains me to say it.....but Obama would get my vote........before the Republicans jump down my throat, I am not as well informed as you, so I dont take into account the history and persuasion of the 2 candidates......all I have seen is the highlights of all 3 "head to heads" and based on that only, I gotta say, that McCain chap dont seem to have any idea, he cannot cope with intelligent rhetoric, he seems at both the personal and proffesional level to be intellctually flawed somewhat, least thats the way he comes across.....dont get me wrong, I am not suggesting he isnt anything but very intelligent.....he just does not show it enough, is that really the best the Republicans have got? I was a Bush senior supporter (for a couple of personal reasons....the 1st Gulf war.......really was the right thing to do then) and for a short spell I quite liked Reagan, but this?....it's a sad day when arguably the most powerful nation on the planet have got just these 2 to choose from.......I think you all deserve more!

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by Tatty_One

Well according to the British media....thats 3 - 0 to Obama is all I can say, personally, I dont care who you get......but if I had a gun to my head, based on the little I have seen, it pains me to say it.....but Obama would get my vote........before the Republicans jump down my throat, I am not as well informed as you, so I dont take into account the history and persuasion of the 2 candidates......all I have seen is the highlights of all 3 "head to heads" and based on that only, I gotta say, that McCain chap dont seem to have any idea, he cannot cope with intelligent rhetoric, he seems at both the personal and proffesional level to be intellctually flawed somewhat, least thats the way he comes across.....dont get me wrong, I am not suggesting he isnt anything but very intelligent.....he just does not show it enough, is that really the best the Republicans have got? I was a Bush senior supporter (for a couple of personal reasons....the 1st Gulf war.......really was the right thing to do then) and for a short spell I quite liked Reagan, but this?....it's a sad day when arguably the most powerful nation on the planet have got just these 2 to choose from.......I think you all deserve more!

You're right -- we deserve...

[ckoons1]

Originally Posted by farlex85

Better to listen to the masses and find out the logic behind it than merely disregarding it. There are many, many ways in which an individual can be intelligent, and a high IQ doesn't mean that person should be followed to the ends of the earth while everyone else goes the other way. The elite tend to be corrupted and selfish. Basically, that statement should not be taken literally, as the logic it dictates would be roughly equivalent to the logic it condemns.

the elite tend to be selfish and corrupt? that's nonsence. that's what people want to believe to make themselves feel better for inferiority. kind of like the kids in school making fun of the A students.
i've been in sales for over 30 years and i can spot a salesman giving a line a mile away and that is what OBAMA is doing giving you a sales pitch and people believe it because they want to believe it.talk is cheap. remember the masses put BUSH in office for 8+ years.

[farlex85]

Originally Posted by ckoons1

the elite tend to be selfish and corrupt? that's nonsence. that's what people want to believe to make themselves feel better for inferiority. kind of like the kids in school making fun of the A students in school.pure crap.

No it's a generalization that has been evidenced in society throughout history. It is of course not always the case. Hence the word "tend" although I could have said tend to be more likely to. It's also a perception thing. My main point about that was that the elite are not necessarily the best to follow, although they often have the loudest voice.

[ckoons1]

pure nonsence. that is what society WANTS to believe because it gives them an excuse for not being as succesful.
why do you think society as a whole regards us as GEEKS or NERDS because we can build a computer. does that make us corrupt .of course not. they say these things to make themselves feel better. it's all the same thing.i have dealt with extremely intelligent and successful people and they have got there through incredible hard work and a no quit attitude.