Candidates views on issues

[Shelly]

Bankrate broke them down:

2008 presidential race: the issues
By Laura Bruce • Bankrate.com




The economy appears to be the most important issue for voters in this presidential election year. Candidates from both parties express concern about the everyday costs of living in America; costs that are making each person's version of the American dream less attainable for themselves and their children.

Bankrate zeroed in on pocketbook issues and examined each candidate's positions. We identified six topics that we think are important to Bankrate readers -- health care, taxes, Social Security, education, employment and, of course, the subprime/credit crunch that has stunned the country and is threatening to push us into recession.

You'll find that some candidates have more to say on certain topics than others. Hillary Clinton, for example, has long been a proponent of changes to the health care system.

We included voting records on specific issues where available and appropriate.

Here's a rundown of the six topics and what we tried learned about each candidate's position.

Click (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/pf/20080128_issues_a1.asp)for the issues

[101A]

Nice quick reference.

Thank you.

[Shelly]

No problem! I'm glad I found it so I can remember what candidates stand for.

[CuckingFunt]

That's actually really convenient.

I've got an 18-year-old sister who is eager to participate this year but is, understandably, a bit overwhelmed by all the issues, etc. I'll be forwarding this to her.

[JoeChalupa]

There are many sites to gather information on the candidates. Thanks Shelly.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, I looked at healthcare first. I like Huckabee's and Romney's ideas. I like aqbout half of McCain's ideas, and dislike this one:



Encourage competitive pricing by safely reimporting drugs and getting cheaper, generic drugs into the U.S. market.

There is a reason why this is wrong. Pharmaceuticals are liable for problems that their medications may incur, and part of the USA market costs go to secure funds for lawsuit payouts. The Canadians who buy the medications for less, in their socialistic system, cannot turn around and sure for liable. Simple tort reform would change this for the USA market too. McCain's idea could bankrupt the pharmaceuticals if it came to light.


As for Clinton and Obama...

Get those fucking socialists out of my face.

Now for Taxes:

I the one thing I dislike about the Fair Tax is the rebate. Mike Huckabee supports the rebate. I think the savings on necessities items alone is enough, and that we just should have a zero tax on necessities.

I like Romney's tax ideas except I would prefer he support the concept of the Fair Tax or a system of the income tax we have that is a flat tax, eliminating nearly all deductibles

I have no quarrels over McCains tax ideas, but I'm not sure what the R&D tax is without researching it. I am also concerned that his stated ideas do not match his voting record.

Hillary's ides... I dislike five of the six. She just wants to tax us more. She want to micromanage everyomne.

I actually like a couple of Obama's ideas, but not the rest. I like making tax free $50,000 for seniors and simplifying the returns. I don't like his voting record on taxes at all however.

For Social Security, I have nothing bad to say about Huckabee's points. Not really any good either. It is a pretty complicated issue.

Romney's ides are probably the most cohesive for me considering what I understand the issues to be on SS. I think they could be better still.

McCain has no listed position, and his voting record for SS absolutely stinks.

Hillary's ideas are nutz...

Obama actually has one good idrea.

The subprime crdit issue...

At this point, I have not read any of the candidates positions. Before I do, I want to say this. I don't think it's the governments job to fix the issue.

OK, Now I will read the viewpoints...

I agree with Huckabee.

I disagree with Romney's FHA idea.

Not enough information to make an informed opinion about McCain's position.

Clinton... Will the socialistic BITCH ever stop? More regulations... My God. Now as much as I dislike unscrupulous actions, if it's a burden on society, make it illegal and send people to jail. We don't need more regulations where fines are laughed at.

Obama's ideas are less intrusive than Hillary's, but still in opposition to liberty.

Now, Education...

Huckabee's points seem reasonable, but if he supports states rights, why is he advocating the other points?

Romney's ideas are different, but I take the same viewpoint in that the federal government should be out of the education system. The department of Education should have never been formed, and we should abolish it.

Funny thing is I actually like McCain's ideas on education better than the others I read so far. He has only one statement on the issues, I'm going by his voting record.

Hillary comes to the rescue with more and more promised federal spending on the issue.

What a loser, trying to get the vote of the leaches.

Obama's federal intervention may be less costly than Hillary's, but more intrusive to freedoms. I have to pass on his as well.

The last issue. E,ployment. This ought to be interesting. I predict the democraps will want a more communistic (unions) approach.

OK, I have to say I am in 100% agreement with Huckabee's points here.

I am not impressed with Romney's position here. I would think as a business oriented type, he would recognize the damage our tax structure does to jobs. His points are valid, he just doesn't go far enough in the right direction.

By my surprise, I actually like most of McCain's ideas and voting record on the issue. I disagree with a few completely, but I'm surprised he has he record here that he does.

Yep, Clintoon didn't surprise me. More and more fixing the symptoms, and not the problems.

Obama's solution... More government spending and intervention... Yep... we really need more socialism... NOT!

Yep, no matter how you slice it, the democrats are commies or socialists at best.

Still, Romney for me is the best choice.

[inconvertible]

ron paul

[101A]

OK, I looked at healthcare first. I like Huckabee's and Romney's ideas. I like aqbout half of McCain's ideas, and dislike this one:

"Encourage competitive pricing by safely reimporting drugs and getting cheaper, generic drugs into the U.S. market."
There is a reason why this is wrong. Pharmaceuticals are liable for problems that their medications may incur, and part of the USA market costs go to secure funds for lawsuit payouts. The Canadians who buy the medications for less, in their socialistic system, cannot turn around and sure for liable. Simple tort reform would change this for the USA market too. McCain's idea could bankrupt the pharmaceuticals if it came to light.

"Market" and "Drug Companies" shouldn't be in the same sentence in this country. They are the single biggest source of lobbying money in Washington, and NOTHING that has to do with them has anything to do with the free-market. Feed them to the fucking wolves for all I care, let the lawyers at them. They manipulate the FDA to keep drugs from going OTC, or get them to OTC; they pay off doctors, mislead through advertisements, manipulate the whole damn nation to the point that we are a bunch of drug-dependent zombies. Just look at the recent disclosure of the anti-cholesterol meds (which damn near everyone is on); YES they lower cholesterol test scores; but NO they don't actually lower the incidence of death from cholesterol related diseases. AND THEY HAVE KNOWN IT!!! AND THAT SHIT IS EXPENSIVE!!! $200 a month for everyone on it; and with Part D, we are all paying the damned bill. Fuck 'em.

In an ideal world, I'm all for freeing everything up, and letting it fly. But the govt. has made the playing field unlevel in favor of big Pharma. Fuck 'em again.

[boutons_]

"Simple tort reform"

oh shit, not that canard again.

The tort reform program is "When we fuck up (kill, maim, injure a client), we don't want to be liable. we want to get off cheap".

The anti-tort reform program is "Quit fucking us up, OR ELSE!")

Vioxx, Avandia, etc, etc really do kill and harm people (ask The Coyote), and somehow the murderers are still in business and pocketing $Bs every quarter.

Drug companies spend $60B on promotion (most of it lies) and $30B on research. (Every $1 spent on drug advertizing returns $2.40 in drug sales, is why we are saturated with drug advertizing)

How much do they spend on liability insurance and tort payouts? $60B/year, or even $30B/year, EVERY year?

[Holt's Cat]

"Market" and "Drug Companies" shouldn't be in the same sentence in this country. They are the single biggest source of lobbying money in Washington, and NOTHING that has to do with them has anything to do with the free-market. Feed them to the fucking wolves for all I care, let the lawyers at them. They manipulate the FDA to keep drugs from going OTC, or get them to OTC; they pay off doctors, mislead through advertisements, manipulate the whole damn nation to the point that we are a bunch of drug-dependent zombies. Just look at the recent disclosure of the anti-cholesterol meds (which damn near everyone is on); YES they lower cholesterol test scores; but NO they don't actually lower the incidence of death from cholesterol related diseases. AND THEY HAVE KNOWN IT!!! AND THAT SHIT IS EXPENSIVE!!! $200 a month for everyone on it; and with Part D, we are all paying the damned bill. Fuck 'em.

In an ideal world, I'm all for freeing everything up, and letting it fly. But the govt. has made the playing field unlevel in favor of big Pharma. Fuck 'em again.

Agreed. Why else did we see a GOP president and congress engage in the single largest expansion of an entitlement program since the 60s? And now Republican conservatives are supposed to pull the lever for McCain? Where the fuck was he?

[101A]

Agreed. Why else did we see a GOP president and congress engage in the single largest expansion of an entitlement program since the 60s? And now Republican conservatives are supposed to pull the lever for McCain? Where the fuck was he?Where was the whole damned party??? What happened to it?

Also, I don't think Romney would have voted any different; he simply didn't have a chance to, not being a Senator and all. How conservative can he POSSIBLY be. He was the governor of Mass-a-fucking-chusettes!

I've decided the only way out of this is gridlock. We need a closely divided house and senate, controlled by seperate parties, and a weak WH; THEN they can't do shit to, errrrrrrr FOR, us.