So how many Obamacans do we have in here?

[JoeChalupa]

I know you are all whispering about Obabama but you don't want to admit you like the guy. I'm sure TPark would glady give Barack a funnel cake on the house if he had the opportunity. Xray would glady sit down with Barack at a town meeting and discuss the issues. Maybe Whottt would like to talk about experimenting with drugs with Barack?

Come on now......I know you are out there.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm voting for a democrat in the general election....but I am going to vote for the bitch.. she has grown on me..

[spurster]

Obama!

[nkdlunch]

Obama is my nigga!!!

[DarkReign]

Obama is my nigga!!!

Your avatar and your sig coupled together could not have been more appropriate for a response like this.

[DarkReign]

I'm voting for a democrat in the general election....but I am going to vote for the bitch.. she has grown on me..

she seems to have "grown" on a lot of things....like a mold....

[nkdlunch]

Your avatar and your sig coupled together could not have been more appropriate for a response like this.

thanks!

[xrayzebra]

[QUOTE=JoeChalupa]I Xray would glady sit down with Barack at a town meeting and discuss the issues. /QUOTE]

Yeah, I would like for him to explain his plans for
"change". Since all he talks about is expanding government
programs. Vote for him, I don't think so.

[01.20.09]

Yeah, I would like for him to explain his plans for
"change". Since all he talks about is expanding government
programs. Vote for him, I don't think so.

Vote for John McCain

For

Another 100 years in Iraq!

More wars!

Fewer jobs!

And amnesty!

[Mr. Body]

Probama.

Would vote for Clinton if I have to, even if I like McCain more as a person. But I don't think I'll have to make that choice.

Probama. Gobama!

[T Park]

If Obama would just explain how hes gonna pay for alot of the things he proposes I could get a clearer picture on him.

I agree with him on civil unions and gay marriage. I agree with him on the border fence. Researching last night, theres quite a few things that I can go with him on.

[Holt's Cat]

I could go for Obama with a GOP controlled Congress. I think that combination could actually get a few things done in DC, at least in a way that was actually good for the country. As it stands, if it's Obama v McCain, I think I may vote Libertarian, or for one of those other parties' slate of candidates.

Is the Socialist Workers party still around? When in doubt, you might as well vote for the real deal.

[BonnerDynasty]

NSFW. bad language.
mi_c6D8SPcE

[Evan]

here!

[atxrocker]

I'm voting for a democrat in the general election....but I am going to vote for the bitch.. she has grown on me..


:tu seems like a lot of people are voting against hillary rather than for obama. the dude doesn't sit right with me.

[JoeChalupa]

:tu seems like a lot of people are voting against hillary rather than for obama. the dude doesn't sit right with me.

It still counts as a vote FOR Obama. :tu

[BradLohaus]

If Obama would just explain how hes gonna pay for alot of the things he proposes I could get a clearer picture on him.

The same way Bush is paying for Iraq, the same way that we pay for all new spending without raising taxes, and the same things that will eventually cause or currency and economy to crash: debt and inflation.

He's just another candidate promising the voters the world, but I give him credit for not being a Clinton.

I only wish he'd promise to bring about change. You know, some real change that we can count on.

[T Park]

I only wish he'd promise to bring about change. You know, some real change that we can count on.



:lol


the same way that we pay for all new spending without raising taxes

Disable old and worthless social programs?

What? They don't do that?

My bad.

[JoeChalupa]

The changes are coming. Props to TPark for at least looking at Obama. :tu

[some_user86]

:lol



Disable old and worthless social programs?

What? They don't do that?

My bad.


<RANT>

No one does that. That's political kryptonite. It would take a non-politician (like, maybe, Ron Paul) to actually cut spending.

But since that isn't happening, we might as well just learn to accept government spending and a rise in taxes (it doesn't matter what McCain says/flip-flops now, he knows he's going to have to repeal the tax cuts).

Anyways, being a moderate, I can't lose. Who gives a fuck about the social crap. Who cares about illegals. It's all the same. As long as someone balances the fucking budget (raise the fucking taxes if you have to, cut the fucking social programs), I'm all for it. Economic policy trumps all.

We know that neither party will be able to fulfill most of what they are promising now. I don't expect Obama to be able to create socialized medicine (maybe just reform) just as I don't expect him to be able to buy me a pony.

As long as we get a president who thinks before he/she acts and can accept their mistakes, we'll be ok. That's not too much to ask, is it? No more neo-cons; I think the real Republican party is back. w00t! Let's just pray the neo-cons don't get back in power when the base overreacts to a probable McCain loss in November.

I can't lose.

</RANT>

[Wild Cobra]

I know you are all whispering about Obabama but you don't want to admit you like the guy. I'm sure TPark would glady give Barack a funnel cake on the house if he had the opportunity. Xray would glady sit down with Barack at a town meeting and discuss the issues. Maybe Whottt would like to talk about experimenting with drugs with Barack?

Come on now......I know you are out there.
Hell, I would do most the above with him. I would offer him some home brew, shoot 9-ball with him, discuss politics, and drugs with him, and more.

As a person, I like him for the most part. I just disagree with his political positions.



The same way Bush is paying for Iraq, the same way that we pay for all new spending without raising taxes, and the same things that will eventually cause or currency and economy to crash: debt and inflation.
Well, depending on your point of view, you could say president Bush did raise taxes. Lowering the tax rates increased the economy and raised the overall revenue to the government. Looking at it from that point, he did raise taxes. Removing the tax cuts, will decrease revenue to the government as people have less to spend, which in turn will decrease economic activity.


He's just another candidate promising the voters the world, but I give him credit for not being a Clinton.
I agree. I think when it comes to the bigger picture, he is a bit nieve. Senator Clinton however is just a lying bitch. They both actually have the same primary positions. He is just more honest about his positions, and I respect him for that.


I only wish he'd promise to bring about change. You know, some real change that we can count on.

Good change or bad? How often does the government do anything that really is better?

I want the Ron Paul approach. Do less... except for defense. If government would get out of our way, we could become a great nation again, instead of being on the downhill slide we are on. At the rate we are going, it won't be long before we lose our number one status.

Now something to think about...

If Hillary wins the democrat primaries, I will vote for whoever wins the republican primaries, likely McCain. However, if it is Obama against McCain... I cannot in good conscience vote for McCain I see him as a liberal collaborator. I might actually vote for Obama. At least with Obama, I trust he will see things differently when he actually sits in the big chair and gets the special briefings that others don't get. I don't want to hold my nose voting for McCain, I might even write in Romney.

Another thing with Obama is that it will tear the democrats apart if they can see it wasn't just their lovable democrats that were not racists, and if a black man can be president over the bitch. That's not all. If he maintains his liberal policies, it means a real desire for the conservative movement to wake up again. Maybe like the stock market, we need a political correction. We need to hit bottom, and we haven't yet. Perhaps we need a democrat congress and executive to remind people what they forgot about history...

How economically terrible it is to have the legislature and presidency controlled by demonrats.

[J.T.]

+1

Do the right thing on 3/4/08 everyone.

[jochhejaam]

My employment is due to Federal subsidies, so our budget, which has been cut by almost 20 percent, will more than likely be restored closer to pre-2004 levels.
Still, I'll end up voting for McCain over Obama, but i'm anti-Hillary, so if a Dem gets elected I'd prefer Obama.

No problem at all with having an African-American President, but they'd need to be more of a Colin Powell type to get my vote.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

i did my part in the Va primary

[smeagol]

If Obama would just explain how hes gonna pay for alot of the things he proposes I could get a clearer picture on him.

In case you haven't heard, the stupid war in Iraq sucks up billions of $.

You can do the math now.

[101A]

Hell, I would do most the above with him. I would offer him some home brew, shoot 9-ball with him, discuss politics, and drugs with him, and more.

As a person, I like him for the most part. I just disagree with his political positions.


Well, depending on your point of view, you could say president Bush did raise taxes. Lowering the tax rates increased the economy and raised the overall revenue to the government. Looking at it from that point, he did raise taxes. Removing the tax cuts, will decrease revenue to the government as people have less to spend, which in turn will decrease economic activity.


I agree. I think when it comes to the bigger picture, he is a bit nieve. Senator Clinton however is just a lying bitch. They both actually have the same primary positions. He is just more honest about his positions, and I respect him for that.


Good change or bad? How often does the government do anything that really is better?

I want the Ron Paul approach. Do less... except for defense. If government would get out of our way, we could become a great nation again, instead of being on the downhill slide we are on. At the rate we are going, it won't be long before we lose our number one status.

Now something to think about...

If Hillary wins the democrat primaries, I will vote for whoever wins the republican primaries, likely McCain. However, if it is Obama against McCain... I cannot in good conscience vote for McCain I see him as a liberal collaborator. I might actually vote for Obama. At least with Obama, I trust he will see things differently when he actually sits in the big chair and gets the special briefings that others don't get. I don't want to hold my nose voting for McCain, I might even write in Romney.

Another thing with Obama is that it will tear the democrats apart if they can see it wasn't just their lovable democrats that were not racists, and if a black man can be president over the bitch. That's not all. If he maintains his liberal policies, it means a real desire for the conservative movement to wake up again. Maybe like the stock market, we need a political correction. We need to hit bottom, and we haven't yet. Perhaps we need a democrat congress and executive to remind people what they forgot about history...

How economically terrible it is to have the legislature and presidency controlled by demonrats.Bought the Limbaugh Kool-Aid, have you?

McCain is far more conservative than you give him credit for, and a shit-load more than Obama.

McCain will NOT nationalize Healthcare. If you are for "smaller government" as you claim, this issue ALONE would preclude you doing anything other than vote AGAINST Obama. THAT piece of legislation will grow the govt. more than Medicaire and Medicaid combined - it will push govt. spending nearly to WWII levels!

That doesn't even touch the Supreme Court.

Get a fucking clue, and stop listening to the idiots on talk radio.

[101A]

In case you haven't heard, the stupid war in Iraq sucks up billions of $.

You can do the math now.The country has always spent big $$$$ on defense; right now it continues at relatively low (at least relative to post-isolationism) levels.

What has changed?

Social Programs. They have grown MORE than defense during the Bush years.

It's the war! It's the war! Bullshit.

Learn the facts; it's the entitlements.

A link provided by another poster - do some studying; learn something.

Government Spending in the U.S. (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php#usgs302)

[Holt's Cat]

Bought the Limbaugh Kool-Aid, have you?

McCain is far more conservative than you give him credit for, and a shit-load more than Obama.

McCain will NOT nationalize Healthcare. If you are for "smaller government" as you claim, this issue ALONE would preclude you doing anything other than vote AGAINST Obama. THAT piece of legislation will grow the govt. more than Medicaire and Medicaid combined - it will push govt. spending nearly to WWII levels!

That doesn't even touch the Supreme Court.

Get a fucking clue, and stop listening to the idiots on talk radio.


Where was Johnny Mac when GWB was expanding Medicare a couple years back?

That's what concerns me the most. The GOP is good at putting up defenses against broad attempts at nationalizing 15% of our economy, but weak when it comes to stopping the incremental steps. Shit, they're the ones pushing that through these days.

[101A]

Where was Johnny Mac when GWB was expanding Medicare a couple years back?

That's what concerns me the most. The GOP is good at putting up defenses against broad attempts at nationalizing 15% of our economy, but weak when it comes to stopping the incremental steps. Shit, they're the ones pushing that through these days.The drug lobby pushed for, and got, what it wanted with Medicare; no populist, grassroots push got that through. Big Pharma did. Paid off the Dems, paid off the Republicans, got what it wanted.

No such group exists to lobby for national healthcare; in fact most corps: Insurance, Pharma, Docs, etc...DON"T want it. Obama, however, looks to be a true believer in big govt. You vote for him; he's gonna push that.

McCain MUST understand the fine line he walks with his base; if he governs left in a first term; he won't even have a shot at runnig for a second; he'll get drummed out in the primaries. IF he gets in, he'll owe it to the Conservatives, not the liberals.

That said, that link that was posted to govt. expenditures shows in no uncerrtain terms that government spending, as a % of GNP has grown during Republican administrations (dramatically during Reagan). The only time it shrank? Clinton's time in office - and of course Truman after WWII. The big difference? Republican congress - with Gingrich (a true believer) at the helm, frankly.

Maybe that's the secret, actually. Let Obama have it, give the Dems control of everything for two years; count on the Republican Senators to keep things somewhat in check; then go for a switch in seats in '10, to get the REAL power back.

[Spuradicator]

Im waiting till we get to the general election. From their I'll take a good hard look at each canidate and decide from there. I will say if Hillary gets the democratic nomination I will NOT vote for her.

I like McCain and Barack as the canidates. From there on it will be their job to win me over.

[Holt's Cat]

Sure, congressional conservative Republicans can go back to being fiscal conservatives with a Demo in the White House. If it's McCain with a Democratic controlled Congress then I think we see a reversion to the 80s, with McCain garnering support for increases in military expenditures by accepting whatever new domestic spending the Demos want to push through all the while no real reform of the entitlement programs occurs. Does McCain have the stones to veto an increase in tax rates?

Let's think this through...payroll tax rate increases won't happen. Meaningful benefit cuts and/or restructuring (means testing) won't happen. If anything, benefits will be increased as seniors will no longer have their benefits reduced if they continue to work. What will happen? The maximum wage limits will increase for SS and Medicare. That will probably be a drop in the bucket, but it will forestall a need to cover entitlement benefits with general federal tax collections a couple of years.

It's amusing, frankly. People bemoan the government's fiscal ineptitude yet in the same breath want it to add new goodies for the masses. Maybe we can grow our way out of this. Maybe.

[Holt's Cat]

The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis.

That's a 24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000. Medical costs are the biggest reason. Last year, for the first time, health care and nursing homes cost the government more than Social Security payments for seniors age 65 and older. The average Social Security benefit per senior in 2007 was $13,184.

"We have a health care crisis. We don't have an entitlement crisis," says David Certner, legislative policy director of the AARP, which represents seniors.

He says seniors shouldn't be blamed for the growing cost of government retirement programs.

The federal government spent $952 billion in 2007 on elderly benefits, up from $601 billion in 2000. It's the biggest function of the federal government. States chipped in $27 billion more in 2007, mostly for nursing homes.

All three major senior programs � Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid � experienced dramatically escalating costs that outstripped inflation and the growth in the senior population.

Benefits per senior are soaring at a time when the senior population is not. The portion of the U.S. population ages 65 and older has been constant at 12% since 2000.

The senior boom, however, starts big time in 2011, when the first baby boomers � 79 million people born between 1946 and 1964 � turn 65 and qualify for Medicare health insurance. The oldest baby boomers turn 62 this year and qualify for Social Security at reduced benefits.

link (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080214/1a_lede14_dom.art.htm)

[Purple & Gold]

I'm voting Democrat no matter who's the candidate. But all Obama says it that he stands for "change". That's pretty vague. I would like to know exactly what his plans for change are.

[Purple & Gold]

NSFW. bad language.
mi_c6D8SPcE

:lol :lol Leon is classic. They better bring him back next year.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm voting Democrat no matter who's the candidate. But all Obama says it that he stands for "change". That's pretty vague. I would like to know exactly what his plans for change are.

I hear people, even Hillary saying that. If you go to his website it is all there.

[Purple & Gold]

I hear people, even Hillary saying that. If you go to his website it is all there.

My friend said the same. I tried to look, but the servers were down. :lol

His site must be getting a ton of hits. But Cali already voted and I'm voting Dem no matter what, so I'll just wait to see who the nominee is.

[JoeChalupa]

My friend said the same. I tried to look, but the servers were down. :lol

His site must be getting a ton of hits. But Cali already voted and I'm voting Dem no matter what, so I'll just wait to see who the nominee is.

:tu

[101A]

Maybe we can grow our way out of this. Maybe.With the baby-boomers retiring, and going from production to drain, gonna be tricky.

Let's hope.

You want to come live on me and DR's island?

[JoeChalupa]

I see more baby-boomers working into their later years than previous generations. Am I wrong?

[101A]

I really am impressed that all of these committed Democrat voters never get involved in any of the fiscal or policy discussions.

Just go with your gut, that'll fix everything.

[101A]

I see more baby-boomers working into their later years than previous generations. Am I wrong?Sure, "more" will. "Enough" probably won't.

Either way, 70 year olds won't be all that productive, nor will they do the things necessary for us to "grow" our way out of this.

[JoeChalupa]

There really isn't that much to be impressed about in those discussions to be honest.

[JoeChalupa]

Sure, "more" will. "Enough" probably won't.

Either way, 70 year olds won't be all that productive, nor will they do the things necessary for us to "grow" our way out of this.

I find the greeters at Wal-Mart doing enough to stay busy and pay some taxes. But I know a few who are more than ready to retire with big fat retirement funds. But not all have that great of health insurance.

[101A]

The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis.

That's a 24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000. Medical costs are the biggest reason. Last year, for the first time, health care and nursing homes cost the government more than Social Security payments for seniors age 65 and older. The average Social Security benefit per senior in 2007 was $13,184.

"We have a health care crisis. We don't have an entitlement crisis," says David Certner, legislative policy director of the AARP, which represents seniors.

He says seniors shouldn't be blamed for the growing cost of government retirement programs.

The federal government spent $952 billion in 2007 on elderly benefits, up from $601 billion in 2000. It's the biggest function of the federal government. States chipped in $27 billion more in 2007, mostly for nursing homes.

All three major senior programs � Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid � experienced dramatically escalating costs that outstripped inflation and the growth in the senior population.

Benefits per senior are soaring at a time when the senior population is not. The portion of the U.S. population ages 65 and older has been constant at 12% since 2000.

The senior boom, however, starts big time in 2011, when the first baby boomers � 79 million people born between 1946 and 1964 � turn 65 and qualify for Medicare health insurance. The oldest baby boomers turn 62 this year and qualify for Social Security at reduced benefits.

The rising cost of healthcare is something amazing to behold, from someone who makes his living in the industry, paying the bills from hospitals and doctors.


To a large degree, the increases are coming from success. Our healthcare system is getting better and better at keeping unhealthy, and elderly people alive. We can re-plumb you circulatory system; remove tumors, throw chemical cocktails at 'ya; change damn near any organ in your body (multiple times). Problem is? That shit is EXPENSIVE - VERY EXPENSIVE!

Heart Disease used to be the #1 killer; now it's cancer - Cancer is $$$$$$ more than Heart Disease; kills slower, more treatment options, multiple specialists, etc. etc....and there are examples like that all over the place. Premature babies survival rate not that long ago, at 27 weeks gestation was iffy at best. Now? 24 weeks, and we can nurse them along - (what's 750,000,000 vs. the life of a baby?). Worth it, if you ask me - but those kinds of numbers aren't what is talked about in the media when they talk about the healthcare "crisis", are they?

Hell, look at how much more we, as a nation, spend on IT than we did a quarter century ago. Does anyone call that a crisis? It's cost increase have outpaced healthcare, but nobody is talking about nationalizing it. I would argue the advances in healthcare have been as dramatic as the advances in PC's since the '70s. That advancement has a cost.

[101A]

I find the greeters at Wal-Mart doing enough to stay busy and pay some taxes. But I know a few who are more than ready to retire with big fat retirement funds. But not all have that great of health insurance.Um... They ALL have Medicare (if they are 65 or older).

If that's not "great" healthcare, why the hell are you an Obama supporter; he's gonna give you, me, and everyone else something similar.

[JoeChalupa]

Um... They ALL have Medicare (if they are 65 or older).

If that's not "great" healthcare, why the hell are you an Obama supporter; he's gonna give you, me, and everyone else something similar.

NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO GIVE UP YOUR PRIVATIZED HEALTHCARE. And I know they have medicare.

[101A]

NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO GIVE UP YOUR PRIVATIZED HEALTHCARE. And I know they have medicare.Yes, he is.

His plan FORCES private healthcare to offer the same set of benefits that his govt. plan will offer, without the tax subsidies.

If I have a big wad of cash and want a high deductible, low premium plan? Illegal.

And that's just as his plan begins. NO government program stays as it is originally designed. Go back and look at the original Social Security plan - they ALL grow, and change as the politicians grasp at ways to make a bad plan, poorly run, keep working. That will require, eventually, EVERY American to under it; so that the govt. can capture ALL the healthcare $$$$ to feed is ever more glutonous pig.

You do the math.

[DarkReign]

I really am impressed that all of these committed Democrat voters never get involved in any of the fiscal or policy discussions.

Just go with your gut, that'll fix everything.

Well put.

In another thread, I tried to find numbers to back up US oil demands and where we buy it from...while looking for those numbers, I stumbled upon what our government spends its money on in totality (btw, I was dead wrong about the oil...its not as severe as people claim it be and I admitted as much in the thread).

But I never found those cool graphs.

Speaking only for myself, there isnt a candidate in the field that is going to address the problems I have with our government.

But I will not relinquish my vote this year, or any other, for that reason.

Im going to vote, I just dont know for whom yet. Like I said, the Dem primary needs to shake itself out first (Rep primary has been decided). If Obama wins, then he needs to start fleshing out his plans for office in much greater detail in contrast with McCain's.

Afterword, I will sift thru the various details of each candidates "promises", weigh the financial impact of both, and base my decision wholly on that fact.

Whott has Iraq. I have domestic fiscal policy. Anything that advances our debt, increases our taxes and has a financial projection that says our spending on the program will eventually outspend its revenue stream, I'll vote against.

Unfortunately, thats politics, here and abroad. Youre not going to agree with one candidate on everything. If you do, then youre a stark minority anyway and your candidate probably doesnt have a chance in hell or reality.

Me personally, my voting pattern has always been adversarial. That is, Im not necessarily voting FOR someone (ie McCain), I am voting against someone (ie Hillary if she gets the nod).

If Obama takes the nomination, this will be the first time in my life that I might not have to vote that way. I said might...if Obama is serious about HealthCare, I am damn interested in his method of paying for it. If its anything short of radical reform, Im back to square one...voting against someone (Obama) instead of for someone (McCain).

But that is a bridge I will cross when we get there.

[JoeChalupa]

But that doesn't mean you have to drop your current insurance plan. But I agree that the costs will grow. You need some strong heads to work on this and that in itself will costs millions.

[JoeChalupa]

Well put.

In another thread, I tried to find numbers to back up US oil demands and where we buy it from...while looking for those numbers, I stumbled upon what our government spends its money on in totality (btw, I was dead wrong about the oil...its not as severe as people claim it be and I admitted as much in the thread).

But I never found those cool graphs.

Speaking only for myself, there isnt a candidate in the field that is going to address the problems I have with our government.

But I will not relinquish my vote this year, or any other, for that reason.

Im going to vote, I just dont know for whom yet. Like I said, the Dem primary needs to shake itself out first (Rep primary has been decided). If Obama wins, then he needs to start fleshing out his plans for office in much greater detail in contrast with McCain's.

Afterword, I will sift thru the various details of each candidates "promises", weigh the financial impact of both, and base my decision wholly on that fact.

Whott has Iraq. I have domestic fiscal policy. Anything that advances our debt, increases our taxes and has a financial projection that says our spending on the program will eventually outspend its revenue stream, I'll vote against.

Unfortunately, thats politics, here and abroad. Youre not going to agree with one candidate on everything. If you do, then youre a stark minority anyway and your candidate probably doesnt have a chance in hell or reality.

Me personally, my voting pattern has always been adversarial. That is, Im not necessarily voting FOR someone (ie McCain), I am voting against someone (ie Hillary if she gets the nod).

If Obama takes the nomination, this will be the first time in my life that I might not have to vote that way. I said might...if Obama is serious about HealthCare, I am damn interested in his method of paying for it. If its anything short of radical reform, Im back to square one...voting against someone (Obama) instead of for someone (McCain).

But that is a bridge I will cross when we get there.

I may also go with McCain if Hillary wins. I agree that no candidate is perfect and I disagree on issues with all of them. Only time will tell.

[101A]

But that doesn't mean you have to drop your current insurance plan. My current plan will no longer be legal.

[101A]

Well put.

In another thread, I tried to find numbers to back up US oil demands and where we buy it from...while looking for those numbers, I stumbled upon what our government spends its money on in totality (btw, I was dead wrong about the oil...its not as severe as people claim it be and I admitted as much in the thread).

But I never found those cool graphs.

Speaking only for myself, there isnt a candidate in the field that is going to address the problems I have with our government.

But I will not relinquish my vote this year, or any other, for that reason.

Im going to vote, I just dont know for whom yet. Like I said, the Dem primary needs to shake itself out first (Rep primary has been decided). If Obama wins, then he needs to start fleshing out his plans for office in much greater detail in contrast with McCain's.

Afterword, I will sift thru the various details of each candidates "promises", weigh the financial impact of both, and base my decision wholly on that fact.

Whott has Iraq. I have domestic fiscal policy. Anything that advances our debt, increases our taxes and has a financial projection that says our spending on the program will eventually outspend its revenue stream, I'll vote against.

Unfortunately, thats politics, here and abroad. Youre not going to agree with one candidate on everything. If you do, then youre a stark minority anyway and your candidate probably doesnt have a chance in hell or reality.

Me personally, my voting pattern has always been adversarial. That is, Im not necessarily voting FOR someone (ie McCain), I am voting against someone (ie Hillary if she gets the nod).

If Obama takes the nomination, this will be the first time in my life that I might not have to vote that way. I said might...if Obama is serious about HealthCare, I am damn interested in his method of paying for it. If its anything short of radical reform, Im back to square one...voting against someone (Obama) instead of for someone (McCain).

But that is a bridge I will cross when we get there.In some recent thread I did a point by point critique of Obama's plan from his website, and I did a damn fine job (if I do say so myself). Unfortunately "search" is turned off...can't find it.

[atxrocker]

I'm voting Democrat no matter who's the candidate. But all Obama says it that he stands for "change". That's pretty vague. I would like to know exactly what his plans for change are.


apparently since the great black hope has brainwashed just about everybody into voting for him, his actual plans don't matter.

[Holt's Cat]

The rising cost of healthcare is something amazing to behold, from someone who makes his living in the industry, paying the bills from hospitals and doctors.


To a large degree, the increases are coming from success. Our healthcare system is getting better and better at keeping unhealthy, and elderly people alive. We can re-plumb you circulatory system; remove tumors, throw chemical cocktails at 'ya; change damn near any organ in your body (multiple times). Problem is? That shit is EXPENSIVE - VERY EXPENSIVE!

Heart Disease used to be the #1 killer; now it's cancer - Cancer is $$$$$$ more than Heart Disease; kills slower, more treatment options, multiple specialists, etc. etc....and there are examples like that all over the place. Premature babies survival rate not that long ago, at 27 weeks gestation was iffy at best. Now? 24 weeks, and we can nurse them along - (what's 750,000,000 vs. the life of a baby?). Worth it, if you ask me - but those kinds of numbers aren't what is talked about in the media when they talk about the healthcare "crisis", are they?

Hell, look at how much more we, as a nation, spend on IT than we did a quarter century ago. Does anyone call that a crisis? It's cost increase have outpaced healthcare, but nobody is talking about nationalizing it. I would argue the advances in healthcare have been as dramatic as the advances in PC's since the '70s. That advancement has a cost.


True, but what is screwy is that we pay for a large amount of our health care purchases with insurance and that it is so tied to our employment. A big part of the reason is that those benefits are pre-tax. If the government opted to make those taxable I think you'd see a move away from that.

Anyways, if you pay for your purchases with health care then you are paying a fraction of their true cost. What incentive does one have to economize when someone else is picking up a huge part of its true cost?

But this is the American way, government screws something up and then compounds the proper with even greater involvement.

[DarkReign]

Here is my National Healtcare Plan, without even thinking about it...

Blow up the Federal tax system as we know it. Its all dead, no more FICA (SS and Med), no more Withholding. Finito.

Blow up all entitlement programs. Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Single Mothers Who Dont Want to Work Program, all of them. Finito.

All non essential goods (essential goods being food, housing, electricity, natural gas, etc...I would include Media in essential as well, no tax on local papers, tv or internet, but thats just me) purchased would have a N% sales tax attached to it from now until forever.

You want that Xbox360 that costs $399.99? Add N% + state sales tax.
Car? Boat? New table? Furniture? Lawn service? Computer? Coffee mug? New tires? Gas? Wagon? you get the idea....Add N% + state sales tax

I left the percentage as "N%" on purpose. I dont know what that % would be, and I dont care. It could be 20% and I wouldnt bat an eye (although, I would downsize government to make a more equitable tax percentage, but thats half my point, Im not there yet....)

I would encourage State's to do the same, but I am The Dictator and I still believe in State's Rights. They want to tax your income? Whatever. They want to just add another Y%? Cool, too. Not my business.

Healthcare could be afforded two ways (maybe more, Im not thinking about it enough).

1) Either add the cost as another +% on the existing sales tax, or...
2) Take it from income (healthcare would be an apportioned tax, seeing as it is given back to the People) plus a contribution from employers of Z% (minimal at best).

Obviously, the aggregate amount of HealthCare revenue would need to exceed our current total spending on health care nationwide. The excess revenue would be refunded at years end based on amoutn paid into the program. If youre not contributing, you dont get a refund. If you contributed $5,000 this year, and another person contributed only $2500, obviously the former person gets more of a refund.

Now, there is obviously the shortfall of those who wouldnt normally go to a hospital/doctor under the current system because they lack insurance, who would now go to a hospital/doctor much more often under a global program where everyone is insured.

This could be hedged two ways. For those people not paying into the system, the following rules apply:

1) Only preventative care will be provided under the condition that the prevention tactics laid out by the doctor/physician are met by the patient.
2) No repeated visits for frivilous ailments. (your back hurts and there isnt a surgery in the known world that can make it better, heres some vicodin, deal with it like every other person who works for a living).

The point of my non-thought out system is the direct financial evidence the People would have over the government.

If the % Tax is too high, people will demand it to be lowered. In droves. As it is, the tax system is hard and complicated on purpose. Its designed to hide its ever-expanding tentacles through back-door taxes like Estate, Death, Inheritance, Investments, etc all the while still taking from your income.

If everyone is subject to the same +% on non-essential goods, everyone rich and poor, in unison will have a vested interest in its status. And it will be incredibly easy to understand.

After Healthcare is sorted out and implemented, it will render older social programs obsolete right off the bat (medicare and medicaid specifically). The only BIG social program left would be welfare.

That could be accounted for on a state level, IMO. Let the individual states figure out how theyre going to pay for their poor.

----------------

Im going to stop there. Im sure this "plan" is full of holes and will be junk by the time the first response has hit the "Submit Reply" button. I realize that.

But it can be done...only with a complete overhaul of our tax system.

To me, an even simpler solution is that of no Federal Tax at all, with a very small % on all non-essential goods.

Everyone would get a raise of (lower income groups) ~10-20% and (higher income groups) ~30-40%.

That extra money can buy you a very hearty health insurance plan. A damn fine one indeed.

I dont know the Total Income Earned by all Americans for year 2007 (nor does the government yet, I think). But the Federal government and its entire sphere should be able to operate itself (including the military) with less than 10% of that figure.

If it cant, then programs need to be slashed. Period. Whether it be welfare, SS, Medicare/Medicaid or all of them.

I'd be interested to see that figure. If right now all this crap is costing even less than 10%, than the figure should be reduced even further.

Bare bones, baby. Bare bones.

[101A]

True, but what is screwy is that we pay for a large amount of our health care purchases with insurance and that it is so tied to our employment. A big part of the reason is that those benefits are pre-tax. If the government opted to make those taxable I think you'd see a move away from that.

Anyways, if you pay for your purchases with health care then you are paying a fraction of their true cost. What incentive does one have to economize when someone else is picking up a huge part of its true cost?

But this is the American way, government screws something up and then compounds the proper with even greater involvement.You ever wonder why the government makes employer funded health plans tax free, but not individual ones?

Because the Federal government can regulate group plans via the interstate commerce clause in the constitution; they CANNOT do the same with individual plans; those are the sole dominion of the state's DOI.

Congressmen like POWER; by getting people into group plans, they have the power.

Your points are spot-on.

Bring the market into play; make people better consumers, and you can control (somewhat) the costs.

[101A]

Here is my National Healtcare Plan, without even thinking about it...

Blow up the Federal tax system as we know it. Its all dead, no more FICA (SS and Med), no more Withholding. Finito.

Blow up all entitlement programs. Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Single Mothers Who Dont Want to Work Program, all of them. Finito.

All non essential goods (essential goods being food, housing, electricity, natural gas, etc...I would include Media in essential as well, no tax on local papers, tv or internet, but thats just me) purchased would have a N% sales tax attached to it from now until forever.

You want that Xbox360 that costs $399.99? Add N% + state sales tax.
Car? Boat? New table? Furniture? Lawn service? Computer? Coffee mug? New tires? Gas? Wagon? you get the idea....Add N% + state sales tax

I left the percentage as "N%" on purpose. I dont know what that % would be, and I dont care. It could be 20% and I wouldnt bat an eye (although, I would downsize government to make a more equitable tax percentage, but thats half my point, Im not there yet....)

I would encourage State's to do the same, but I am The Dictator and I still believe in State's Rights. They want to tax your income? Whatever. They want to just add another Y%? Cool, too. Not my business.

Healthcare could be afforded two ways (maybe more, Im not thinking about it enough).

1) Either add the cost as another +% on the existing sales tax, or...
2) Take it from income (healthcare would be an apportioned tax, seeing as it is given back to the People) plus a contribution from employers of Z% (minimal at best).

Obviously, the aggregate amount of HealthCare revenue would need to exceed our current total spending on health care nationwide. The excess revenue would be refunded at years end based on amoutn paid into the program. If youre not contributing, you dont get a refund. If you contributed $5,000 this year, and another person contributed only $2500, obviously the former person gets more of a refund.

Now, there is obviously the shortfall of those who wouldnt normally go to a hospital/doctor under the current system because they lack insurance, who would now go to a hospital/doctor much more often under a global program where everyone is insured.

This could be hedged two ways. For those people not paying into the system, the following rules apply:

1) Only preventative care will be provided under the condition that the prevention tactics laid out by the doctor/physician are met by the patient.
2) No repeated visits for frivilous ailments. (your back hurts and there isnt a surgery in the known world that can make it better, heres some vicodin, deal with it like every other person who works for a living).

The point of my non-thought out system is the direct financial evidence the People would have over the government.

If the % Tax is too high, people will demand it to be lowered. In droves. As it is, the tax system is hard and complicated on purpose. Its designed to hide its ever-expanding tentacles through back-door taxes like Estate, Death, Inheritance, Investments, etc all the while still taking from your income.

If everyone is subject to the same +% on non-essential goods, everyone rich and poor, in unison will have a vested interest in its status. And it will be incredibly easy to understand.

After Healthcare is sorted out and implemented, it will render older social programs obsolete right off the bat (medicare and medicaid specifically). The only BIG social program left would be welfare.

That could be accounted for on a state level, IMO. Let the individual states figure out how theyre going to pay for their poor.

----------------

Im going to stop there. Im sure this "plan" is full of holes and will be junk by the time the first response has hit the "Submit Reply" button. I realize that.

But it can be done...only with a complete overhaul of our tax system.

To me, an even simpler solution is that of no Federal Tax at all, with a very small % on all non-essential goods.

Everyone would get a raise of (lower income groups) ~10-20% and (higher income groups) ~30-40%.

That extra money can buy you a very hearty health insurance plan. A damn fine one indeed.

I dont know the Total Income Earned by all Americans for year 2007 (nor does the government yet, I think). But the Federal government and its entire sphere should be able to operate itself (including the military) with less than 10% of that figure.

If it cant, then programs need to be slashed. Period. Whether it be welfare, SS, Medicare/Medicaid or all of them.

I'd be interested to see that figure. If right now all this crap is costing even less than 10%, than the figure should be reduced even further.

Bare bones, baby. Bare bones.There will be no cost control.

This country will never abandon the progressive tax; therefore, the majority will alway be on the take (taking more of the service than they are paying for) - they won't give two shits about what the higher rates are - it WILL spiral out of control.

You want universal coverage?

Have a national pool that the non-insured sign up for (they must meet certain income/family criteria to qualify).

Then individuals/churches/businesses go to the pool, and choose the number of people they will directly provide health insurance for. Those entities get a tax CREDIT for that expenditure.

There.

[Wild Cobra]

Bought the Limbaugh Kool-Aid, have you?
That doesn't even touch the Supreme Court.
I don't listen to Rush. I never have those hours free. I'm sorry if I agree with him. It's not because he says so. My thoughts are my own.


Get a fucking clue, and stop listening to the idiots on talk radio.
Those so called idiots are less biased than you might think. I seldom hear any of them these days. They are said to support the republicans, but to speak out against them... what does that say?

The ones I listen to seem real reasonable to me.

I agree with the supreme court aspect. If nominees come up, we really need a president who won't elect activists. Still, I don't think McCain's word on this is any good. I think he would appoint liberal activists anyway.

[Holt's Cat]

You ever wonder why the government makes employer funded health plans tax free, but not individual ones?

Because the Federal government can regulate group plans via the interstate commerce clause in the constitution; they CANNOT do the same with individual plans; those are the sole dominion of the state's DOI.

Congressmen like POWER; by getting people into group plans, they have the power.

Your points are spot-on.

Bring the market into play; make people better consumers, and you can control (somewhat) the costs.

Sure, businesses get to offer pre-tax health insurance benefits that their workers like as part of their compensation and then deduct it. Then, of course, when the premiums begin to become too expensive then there's a "crisis"...

I believe Romney advocated making individual health care plan premiums deductible. Of course, that makes too much sense.

[Holt's Cat]

It's odd how somehow the health care industry is that different. "It's vital to one's life"...Well, so are a host of other items we leave to the vagaries of the market. Does that mean we will start socializing grocery stores? Perhaps a single payer model for grocery store purchases is the way to go. Americans are spending far too much at grocery stores. Not all can afford to buy everything in the store. We need to rationalize the cost, impose controls, & wring out the inefficiencies. After all, Uncle Sam knows better.

[DarkReign]

It's odd how somehow the health care industry is that different. "It's vital to one's life"...Well, so are a host of other items we leave to the vagaries of the market. Does that mean we will start socializing grocery stores? Perhaps a single payer model for grocery store purchases is the way to go. Americans are spending far too much at grocery stores. Not all can afford to buy everything in the store. We need to rationalize the cost, impose controls, & wring out the inefficiencies. After all, Uncle Sam knows better.

Hmmm, good points. Something for me to consider...

[101A]

Sure, businesses get to offer pre-tax health insurance benefits that their workers like as part of their compensation and then deduct it. Then, of course, when the premiums begin to become too expensive then there's a "crisis"...

I believe Romney advocated making individual health care plan premiums deductible. Of course, that makes too much sense.It's not that the employees deduct it; it's that the businesses get to (they fund the vast majority of premium cost)


It does make a great deal of sense t make individual health care premiums deductible; McCain supports this as well.

BTW: If Romney is so conservative:

1. How did he get elected governor of Massachusettes?
2. Why is he endorsing McCain?

[Holt's Cat]

It's not that the employees deduct it; it's that the businesses get to (they fund the vast majority of premium cost)


Right, but I think what makes sense is to move away from insurance being tied to employment as well as using insurance to pay for routine, relatively small, health care expenses by individuals. Make health care benefits taxable for employees. You can bet that would change things.



It does make a great deal of sense t make individual health care premiums deductible; McCain supports this as well.


Well, that's a start.




BTW: If Romney is so conservative:

1. How did he get elected governor of Massachusettes?


Feigning liberal social positions.



2. Why is he endorsing McCain?

Good question.

[2Blonde]

I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary. As for the genreal election it will either be Clinton or Obama (whoever wins the democratic nomination.

[PixelPusher]

BTW: If Romney is so conservative:

1. How did he get elected governor of Massachusettes?
2. Why is he endorsing McCain?
Romneybot 2008 Election Ed. with Conservative SP3 is neither liberal nor conservative; he is an android constructed by a team of political and cybernetic scientists from the future as part of an anthropology experiment.

[Nbadan]

It's odd how somehow the health care industry is that different. "It's vital to one's life"...Well, so are a host of other items we leave to the vagaries of the market. Does that mean we will start socializing grocery stores? Perhaps a single payer model for grocery store purchases is the way to go. Americans are spending far too much at grocery stores. Not all can afford to buy everything in the store. We need to rationalize the cost, impose controls, & wring out the inefficiencies. After all, Uncle Sam knows better.

What's the avg. profit margin of your typical grocery store? 1%....also, your comparison would be more realistic if there were no legal alternatives to shopping in a grocery store, like Sam's or wholesalers, no matter what price they charged for their products....

[Nbadan]

If everyone is subject to the same +% on non-essential goods, everyone rich and poor, in unison will have a vested interest in its status. And it will be incredibly easy to understand.

I like your idea of simplification, but realistically your plan is unworkable....the % tax on non-essential goods would have to be so expensive that people would do without those goods and that would throw the economy into a deep depression...

[Nbadan]

It's odd how somehow the health care industry is that different. "It's vital to one's life"...Well, so are a host of other items we leave to the vagaries of the market. Does that mean we will start socializing grocery stores? Perhaps a single payer model for grocery store purchases is the way to go. Americans are spending far too much at grocery stores. Not all can afford to buy everything in the store. We need to rationalize the cost, impose controls, & wring out the inefficiencies. After all, Uncle Sam knows better.

it's time for you folks who worship at the Goddess of Globalization's alter that there are some things that the government does better than the free economy...for instance...fight wars...just think the trillions in dollars we could have have been over-charged by war profiteers had our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines been Halliburtoned.....you think $200-300 billion per year is a lot, that could have easily been $500-750 billion per year, or more....

[Holt's Cat]

What's the avg. profit margin of your typical grocery store? 1%....also, your comparison would be more realistic if there were no legal alternatives to shopping in a grocery store, like Sam's or wholesalers, no matter what price they charged for their products....

You see the trees, but not the forest.

[Holt's Cat]

when private companies and public monies intersect, that's where you get problems

govt may be inefficient, but they are accountable to the voters (as long as there's transparency)

Good luck with that.



private companies are more efficient and are not accountable to anyone but their wallets

when private companies get an infinite supply of wealth with no accountability....

Firms are accountable to various agents in various markets, which, if government doesn't constitute favors upon certain firms and/or industries, are a superior method of holding larger enterprises accountable as opposed to the electorate. Consumers and shareholders are able to vote every day on a particular firm. For politicians, it's once every two years if we're lucky.

[Doc Jerome]

Obama is indeed the chosen one. :fro

[spurster]

A new poll. [Edit: for Texas]

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2008/02/11/daily34.html

Hillary Clinton has a slight lead over Barack Obama, 49 percent to 41 percent statewide. Eight percent of Democrats are undecided.

[spurster]

One for Ohio, too.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2008/02/11/daily28.html

A Quinnipiac University Poll, which surveyed 1,748 Ohio voters, found that Clinton is favored by 55 percent of Ohio Democratic voters, versus Barack Obama's 34 percent. Hypothetically paired with likely Republican contender McCain, however, Clinton would lose with 43 percent support from voters along both party lines, versus 44 percent for McCain. Obama trailed McCain with 40 percent support, versus the Republican's 42 percent, in a similar pairing.

[Holt's Cat]

Will Texas and Ohio Democrats vote for a black man? Hillary will make the yellow dogs happy.

[JoeChalupa]

So how many of you have jumped off the straight talk express and are ready to jump aboard the Change express and ride it to a brighter future for America!!!!


YES WE CAN!!!!!

[xrayzebra]

So how many of you have jumped off the straight talk express and are ready to jump aboard the Change express and ride it to a brighter future for America!!!!


YES WE CAN!!!!!

You Can What? Please tell me. It seems to elude your
candidate what he wants to change, well except higher
taxes and pit the one group against another.

[jcrod]

Nope, He's full of crap. He just doesn't sit well with me.....He's a great speaker