Obama '08?

I just read that Sen. Mary Landrieu received $1.6 M from the health care industry. Strangely, she suddenly decided that there should not be a public health care option.

She, and Ben Nelson, are being called out on this by certain groups. It will be interesting to see whether they change their stances, and whether the voter punishes them in the future.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Since both ran and were elected as conservative Democrats, I rather think they will be rewarded for that position rather than punished.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

If more people were responsible for paying taxes, I'm pretty sure you'd see more politicians working towards a responsible budget. I don't like paying taxes for things I don't support either, but it's going to be that way regardless of what you or I do.

However, Foxy, you and will differ on how our tax monies should be spent. For example, I think our defense budget is much too large. I think we can reduce by at least 30% and still maintain by far the most advanced military in the world and hold on to our sole-superpower status (at least regarding military might).

I would invest that money into national healthcare, and I prefer single payer.

Exactly, if most Americans suffered the consequences of their votes, they would be far more particular, and take much more sensible interest, in how they cast it. As for the Defense industry, I am not for reducing the size or ability of the military, but I know first hand how much money could be saved by simply eliminating payola and exercising true fiscal discipline.

I am not for single payer health insurance because I have also seen first hand the problems and abuses and deficiencies inherent in that, and do not trust the government to run our healthcare system effectively or efficiently. They never have.

But then I don't require anybody to agree with me in order for them to be an honest or reasonable or cool person, and I do believe reasonable people can disagree and remain reasonable.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

I'm not being entirely flippant. I really do think that 40% of the population not paying income taxes is a problem.

It's not that I don't think they should have a voice...it's that I think that they should have to bear some of the responsibility of their vote. It's like the people in California right now, who vote for tons of spending, but then aren't willing to pay for it.

I don't think people who pay more should have more of a vote, but I think that people who don't have any skin in the game shouldn't be voting to take other peoples money away if they're not willing to give their own.

And this opinion of mine doesn't extend beyond financial issues. A person who pays no taxes has the same rights as those that do.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I understand where you're coming from.

I truly want to believe Obama; but he's doing far too much talking and not nearly enough action. And what's disgusting is that his talking, much of the time, hasn't been matching his action.

1 Reply

@parados,

I would have no problem on giving these people a vote on Medicare/SS issues, since they are paying for those.

But they get no vote on anything budget related beyond that.

And of course, I recognize that our election system doesn't work this way, but we're talking 40% of the country doesn't pay for ANYTHING the federal government does(beyond Medicare/SS, which they will get back when they retire).

Do you think that this is a problem?

2 Replies

@maporsche,

What difference would it make. Everybody hates congress; everybody votes their own congressperson back into office.

2 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

What difference would it make. Everybody hates congress; everybody votes their own congressperson back into office.

not exactly, the claim is usually that congress sucks but their congressman is not too bad. It is like Lake Wobegon, where every child is above average according to each child's parents.

1 Reply

@roger,

I'm thinking that from now on, I'm just going to vote for the challenger in every election. Their policies don't even matter to me anymore (since they ALL lie, and cannot be trusted).

If they are an incumbent, I will vote against them.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

What angered me about Obama is that he continues to lie about who will benefit from his tax cuts. To me, this is a major lie that now makes me skeptical about his honesty, and I told him that in my communication to him.

I know all politicians "lie," but we expect some ethics from a man who claims he is a religious person, and said his administration will be "transparent." It's not transparency when he lies.

Now you understand why so many conservatives had reservations about him.
I'm not saying he is lying about everything, but he has shown that he is simply another politician, not the "change" in politics that he promised to be.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye, I agree; most constituents think their congressman/woman is good - all above average. The dynamics in how we elect them are lost to the voters.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

His talking is fine; but I can't handle his lies. Also, he's doing too much on social programs at a time when our federal deficit continues to grow out of control. Something about government that makes all of them spenders without regards to income. It's a disease of most people in our country; they didn't know how to save, and bought everything on credit.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Maporsche likes this.

;-)

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

His talking is fine; but I can't handle his lies. Also, he's doing too much on social programs at a time when our federal deficit continues to grow out of control. Something about government that makes all of them spenders without regards to income. It's a disease of most people in our country; they didn't know how to save, and bought everything on credit.

how about the wildly optimistic assumptions which are used as rational for cutting income or spending money?? Obama for instance assumes that he can pay for expanded medical access in large part by increased efficiencies though out the medical system, yet has produced not a single line were the cost per unit will be cheaper. Drugs will continue to eat up more cash per unit no matter what the drug companies claim (they are a well known quantity, they never do anything that is not in their financial best interests), Doctors will still over doctor out of fear of the courts and to bulk up their income, preventative medicine will still not happen on the scale that it needs to so problems will fester and get more expensive to treat, we will still have the wrong kind of doctors which will make sure that preventive medicine can not happen and the treatment will be expensive, there is not a single effort being made to cut the use of hugely expensive technology nor the over buying of hugely expensive technology that when bought must be paid for by treating patients with it.

Adding more access by the underclass to the failed medical system does not fix the medical system, but it will cost a ton of money they we don't have. The correct road would be to fix medicine, and THEN work to make sure that everyone has access.

0 Replies

I note today that for the 1st time since he took office, President Obama's Approval Index (strongly approve minus strongly disapprove) went to -1 according to Rasmussen.
As near as I can tell, the health care issue is the driver, although his response to the situation in Iran could also factor in.
Financial reform discussions are fine for congresspeople to talk about, but all talk.
On a broader poll, Mr Obama is at something like 56%-44%.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Well maporsche, if you want to implement that then the first step is you have to take any FICA tax out of the general fund. Most people that pay no income tax DO pay FICA since FICA is on GROSS income and not on the taxable income.

Simple example.
A family with 2 kids that earns $20,000.
You would pay zero in income taxes.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/individual_rates.pdf
(A family making $26,000 would pay nothing in income taxes.)

However, the government would have received $2480 in revenues from the $20,000 that the family earned.

The "paid no taxes" argument is usually full of **** because they ignore 50% of the federal revenues when they make such an argument.

Again, Parados, back it up. Are you sure you aren't posting taxes paid on taxable income instead of merely income. I know people that make about 23000 before deductions, that received more than 4 or 5,000 back, which would also wipe out any Social Security taxes paid in. Even including Social Security and Medicare taxes, they end up in the plus side of things.

This subject has so much disinformation, and the press is absolutely worthless in providing any useful information. Another point here, poverty figures do not include tax rebates, which would reduce the percentage of people living in poverty, as calcualated by the Census Bureau, which is another worthless money drain of a bureaucracy.

All of this is so frustrating that so-called educated people cannot understand what is going on.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, What you have never figured out and never will is that I calls em the way I sees em; it doesn't matter which party. Do I have bias? Who doesn't? You're always asleep; your posts rarely have any reality.

You know what. Your drivel makes me sick. You come on here and call people names on a constant basis for months, mainly about how stupid everyone else is except for you, then last night in response to a simple fact about percentage of people that pay taxes, you suddenly get indignant at Obama and write him a letter, then brag about how unbiased you are. If you are that ignorant about what has been going on and did not have a clue Obama was lying to you until last night, you have more explaining to do about how smart you are.

No wonder the country is in the fix that it is in. You elected a Chicago street organizer that knows virtually nothing about anything except what Saul Alinsky taught him how to gain a following, so why should you have expected any better? If I sound indignant, I am.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

I note today that for the 1st time since he took office, President Obama's Approval Index (strongly approve minus strongly disapprove) went to -1 according to Rasmussen.
As near as I can tell, the health care issue is the driver, although his response to the situation in Iran could also factor in.
Financial reform discussions are fine for congresspeople to talk about, but all talk.
On a broader poll, Mr Obama is at something like 56%-44%.

I think its minus two and headed down, rjb. Also his overall approval rating by Rasmussen is down to just 53%, which I think is as low as he has shown. I think Iran is really showing Obama for the gutless wonder the man is, plus his budget busting medical plan is anything but assured, plus the economy continues to tank.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/images/obama_approval_index_20080621/227178-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_20080621.jpg

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

You know what. Your drivel makes me sick

have you ever considered looking into dale carnegie? Normally is is considered wise to congratulate people who for the first time show a willingness to agree with you on something. You go the opposite direction and attack? What's up with that?

1 Reply

@okie,

It's because I calls em the way I sees em; and you are dumb. You continue post drivel that has no reality in them except in your own brain.

When you get down to earth like everybody else on a2k, I'll have no need to continue challenging your ignorant posts that arrives at conclusions nobody else agrees with.

You lambast Obama as if you have some crystal ball that nobody else has; how do you know his programs are all failures? How do you know that Obama's presidency is a failure before he has finished his first 100-days in office?

You also arrive at conclusions about economics that even skilled economists do not claim. What's your background in economics? You seem incapable of the simplest concepts about economics, and yet you post drivel as if you have some insight that nobody else has.

You are a joke. Quit making stupid comments, and I'll leave you alone.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know