USA Presidential Poll

Rocky Anderson, Justice Party is my choice. Google him - he's the solution to many of our problems. We need legitimate third and fourth parties to get the Dems and Repubs off their asses.

Every Canadian that I have talked to view the Republican party as an unbelievably bad choice.

The Republicans created the financial mess that Obama had to inherit.

The Republicans seem more interested in blocking the Democrats every move than working together for the good of the USA.

SSG

That financial mess was created by both parties, government got to big, every incumbent should go bye-bye.

I agree with SSG. The republicans are trying to buy the election they have more money than they know what to with and like SSG mentioned they are trying to suppress the RIGHT to VOTE. They are limiting poll hours with ridiculous times. Making up rules to keep people of voting is inhumane. It is obvious the republicans are scared otherwise why are they going to this measure. Level the playing field and go at this man to man.

Montecore:

Supress voting, you have been listening to much CNN. So, I would tend to think that any person can walk into a voting station, not show proof of ID and we should believe that they are who they say they are? I shutter everytime I vote and am not even asked for my voter registration card or any ID.

The people watching me have no idea who I am, until I tell them who I am.

Heck, you even had to show photo ID just to get into the DNC Convention.

There are too many crooked people in this world, and if I wanted to I could vote whereever I wanted to on voting day, as long as I had a list of the registered voters.

"They are limiting poll hours with ridiculous times", In almost every state you can go an vote early or vote via absentee ballot. I do not see this as suppressing the right to vote.

I figure with two months to go to the election, it is time to get this blog rolling.

I must admit most of my view of American politics is through the eyes of CNN, CNBC and CBC Canada.

Having said that the Republicans hard liners (Tea Party) are too extreme for the good of the country. Politics is compromise. Tea Party to me is portrayed as it has to be 100% my way or I will block your motion.

I like Obama because he has a young family that must influence his decisions. Romney seems to be a very rich white guy with five adult children.

The other thing that really bugs me about American politics is the political pandering to religious groups. Religion should have no place in democratic politics. I understand how religious interest groups in the USA try to influence politicians by using the threat of block votes.

Obama is a very rich black guy, so what's the point? Just because you have younger children does that make your thought or decision process different when governing?

Romney is a businessman, and he is proven, thus the reason for his wealth! With 1.6 trillion owed to China, and 1.1 trillion owed to Japan and a 16 trillion dollar debt, waste in government needs to be cut.

The Tea Party does not control the republican party, it is an extreme element of the Reuplican Party, although they have become very vocal in recent years.

I recommend you listening or watching FOX news everyone in awhile, CNN and CNBC express the extreme left views of the democratic party.

Personally, I am voting for change... many on TV have stated the the US maybe entering another recession, wait....we've never come out of the first recession.

Art

I do get the impression that CNN is a little bit left of center towards the Democrats but hardly extreme. I think that is somewhat because the Republican party make so many non factual statements they are easy to pick on.

CNBC is definitely much more pro Republican.

I do not have access to Fox.

Yes, I definitely think that if you have young children living at home, this puts you way more in touch with a different demographic that would influence your decisions.

I guess my point about rich Presidential candidates is that Romney seems much more from the Corporate elite and Obama does not. Obama seems to me more in touch with lower income people.

If you are not very familiar with Obama's backgound and upbringing, see the movie 2016. It is an honest look at his past, and how and why he belives what he does. It looks heavily at Obama's own writings, and the people he credits with influencing him. Obama wrote " the Dreams of My Father", and those are now his dreams. It is not the dream for our country that most Americans have. It's a nightmare that will bring us down, if we don't make a change.

I have some catching up to do on all these posts so this will be a lot of rambling.

To SSG: Canadians (and NE US) are by nature, much more liberal than the rest of the USA so your views are not surprising...saying that CNBC is more pro Republican is like saying Hitler was more compassionate than Stalin.

The whole "young children vs adult children" argument might be valid in a school board election but the president of the USA is the president of all people of all ages and so
should their perspectives be.

Religion has no place in politics? We would still be under British rule if it weren't for the "Black Robed Regiment" of the Revolutionary War. That's a whole other discussion.
When government or activist judges are mandating that religious institutions must perform abortions on demand, that they have to provide birth control, or hire sexual deviants, that marriage can be something (anything?) other than between a man and a woman, the religious have no choice but to become politically active. Is there a place in politics for homosexuals? Is there a place in politics for Environmentalists? I assume your answer is yes. What makes my cause any less appropriate?

re: Tea Party being extreme...TEA represents "Taxed Enough Already" What is extreme about that.

The flip-side of that is our massive and growing debt. Our debt to GDP ratio is worse than Greece is right now and look at them. We simply can't afford to go further and further in debt.

The Republicans created the financial mess??? I agree that the Republicans have made mistakes but the Democrats took control of the House and Senate on January 3rd, 2007. January 3rd, 2007, was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES! If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

Lastly, there was mention of Republican lies. Don't get me started on the Democrat lies but I would be curious to know specifically what lies you feel the Republicans are saying.

OLD Glory:

Nice post and I agree with every point, btw was not aware the TEA stood for "taxed Enough already", thanx for that.

I am not studied enough in American politics to be able to defend my personal views against obvious pro republican sentiment.

I do feel that the Bush era Republicans paved the way for the financial melt down of the US banking and mortgage system. The Obama administration had no choice but to take on major amounts of new debt to try and contain the crisis.

This was closely followed by the auto crisis forcing more huge amounts of debt to bail out the industry.

Everyone knew at the time, the bill would come due next election.

What is obvious, is, whoever wins the election, I hope they win a majority in both the Congress and Senate. I think, unfortunately, this is not likely.

The USA political system is currently barely functional. The country cannot afford four more years of political gridlock in DC.

The latest poll(for what it is worth) puts the Democrats increasing their lead on the Republicans by 4% with growing support from women, blacks, latinos and US veterans.

I apologize for using the phrase "Republican lies" as it is too incendiary for meaningful discussion.

Bush asked Congress 17 times (starting in 2001)for an end to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as requests for internal audits. I feel the United Auto Worker Union is what took GM down.
I disagree with your opinion about gridlock. More gridlock would have saved us from Obamacare. Gridlock can be a very good thing.
I don't put any stock in polls, especially this far out. The wording of the questions and the demographics of the sampling can create just about any result you want to see and for the most part, it is the left wing media that does the polling.
Apology Accepted. I too want meaningful discussion. I just wish there were more participants.

You can't seriously think the recent debt ceiling debacle, the loss of USA AAA Credit rating, the American public's lowest opinion of the effectiveness of Congress ever recorded somehow makes gridlock a good thing.

I agree the poll thing is very momentary. After I made the post, I reviewed the source and it was a poll of 1,000 people.

Also, I did take some time to read Fox News.

I was shocked to read it as so politically one sided and very pro Republican. I then read a few articles from CNN and realized perhaps it is a little more pro Democrat than I first thought.

Reality has a liberal bias.

You are assuming that gridlock made those issues worse. I contend that many things would be worse if it weren't for gridlock. Take the debt ceiling for instance. A law was passed that established that any increases in the debt ceiling would be offset by budget cuts. The Republicans, some of them anyway, wanted Congress to uphold that law under the belief that we can't keep going the way we have been. They fought valiantly but enough of them eventually caved. Incidently, the increased debt is what caused the lower credit rating so you are helping to prove my point.
On polls, it isn't so much the number of people polled as it is their political tendencies and the likeliness that they will vote. A poll skewed with more people from either party is likely to have the opposite result from a poll skewed towards the opposite party. A poll of people not likely to vote isn't very meaningful at all.
I think Fox appears more skewed than they really are because the rest of the media is Sooo left but even I acknowledge that their right side is dominant. They do however do a better job of giving the left a voice in my opinion. Usually the debates are one-on-one where the other networks have a token right vs a panal of several left. By the way, Fox's ratings are way ahead of the others so whatever they are doing, the public seems to be reacting favorably. Of course, it may be more due to the fact that Fox gets 100% of us conservatives where the liberals have dozens of networks to choose from.

The "lowest opinion of Congress" might have more to do with what they did than what they didn't do. Dozens of bankrupt companies like Solyndra, open border policies, Fast and Furious, Executive Orders and Cabinet Appointments in the dead of the night without due process, no budget for three years even though our Constitution mandates that there be one, passing Obamacare even though the majority of the US does not want it, blocking the Canadian Oil Pipeline...I could go on-and-on. However, when you speak of the low opinion of Congress, you have to realize that is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways. You can't tell me that there isn't also some dissatisfaction coming from the radical left that aren't happy that Gitmo is still open, that we still have troops in Afganistan, that we still show minor support for Isreal, etc.

On a seperate note...Bloomberg is reporting today that 79% of General Motors sales last month were to the US Government. What they don't report is whether they were purchased at a fair price. The US Gov't is obviously not getting bids so why should they be discounted?
Anyway, keep this in mind when Obama/Biden tout their role in the GM "turnaround".

quote:

Originally posted by JasonR:
Reality has a liberal bias.

Only if you are liberal.

Old Glory, you must have loved debating back in your High School days.

Old Glory, I heard that the Defense Department is getting ready to buy a whole bunch of GM Volts. Not sure if that is true. Anyway, so the tax payers "bail out" GM and in order to keep them a float the taxk payers have to buy the majority of their cars and trucks. The GM turn around is a farce.

Just confirmed that the defense department is buying 1500 Chevy Volts. What a joke. They want the military to be more Green. Can just see it now when our brave men and women in uniform have to stop to plug in thier volt to charge it. I am sure that electricity is no problem in a war zone. So the Government is going to spend $30K+ per volt to help prop up government motors who loses $49K on each volt sold. That makes the total somewhere around $79k per car since we essentially own GM. I would love for someone to investigate how this was "competetivley bid". Where are the Dems now? When GW was in offfice all we heard was how out military was not equiped properly. Well a $79K Volt will really help!

The way I look at a re-election bid is sort of like a job review. How have you done? Did you hit your key performance indicators and should we keep you on? If you had the record below would you expect to keep your job?
1. 23 million unemployed
2. 43 straight months of 8+% unemployment
3. 45 million on food stamps
4. African American poverty at record highs
5. 1 in 6 Americans living in poverty
6. The middle class has lost 40% of its net worth
7. Youth unemployment over 50%
8. Hispanic unemployment at 11.3%
9. Food prices up 15%
10. Gas prices doubled
11. The worst job creation record since 1945
12. Obama recovery the worst in 75 years
13. Median household income declined $4,300
14. Family health insurance up $1,500
15. Obama added $6 trillion to our debt…more than all previous administrations combined.
16. Only President to see a US credit downgrade
In full disclosure I did not compile the above facts.

It is easy to list 16 reasons why you do not like the Obama administration but you give no thought as to why those reasons exist.

Do you really think there is anything that the Republicans or democrats could do about the price of fuel? The price of fuel in Canada and the rest of the world is much higher.

Do you really think the credit downgrade was caused solely by the Democrats?

Do you really think the Democrats are responsible for this years drought which has caused food prices to rise?

The tone of these blogs only reinforces my belief that American politics is very polarized and those who like to call themselves conservatives are anything but.

quote:

Originally posted by Jrlz:
So the Government is going to spend $30K+ per volt to help prop up government motors who loses $49K on each volt sold.

In agreement with SSG, crazy things being thrown around here.

As a veteran, I think I can see through your claim that the military would be using the Chevy Volts actually IN a war. They obviously will be using them domestically.

As a consumer, I understand it costs X amount of money to develop a radically different new car and when you divide X by the number of cars that have already been sold instead of dividing it by all the cars sold in the life of the program (which is ongoing and unknowable at this time) you arrive at a crazy number (like $49,000 per car).

As an example, Toyota "lost" money on the Prius for the first few years because of the same factor, but once the number of cars sold reaches a high enough number, the formula works out and the Prius is now quite profitable.

The Government is buying US-made cars, that don't use (as much) foreign produced oil, cutting government expenditures and you are upset about it?

SSG,
I agree with you that the US Political scene is polarized. There is too much us versus them. Each side thinks their “guy” can do no wrong and the other side’s “guy” can do no right. I do not believe that the issues facing the US are the fault of just one political party. Poor leadership from both sides has created many issues. However, at a Federal level one party has been in control over congress and the white house during much of the latest round of problems. In addition, the state I live in has been under the control (Governor and House) of one party for many years.
I believe it is time for a change. In my opinion President Obama is in over his head. He lacks the background and skills to be a chief executive. He inherited problems, no argument there. However his policies are heading the country in the wrong direction. He is the Chief Executive of the US and with that job comes sole responsibility. Blaming problems on past administrations does no good, we need a leader who can fix things.
The biggest issue facing the US is unemployment. We need an administration that is business friendly and will stop creating uncertainty with the talk of tax increases, costly new regulations and the uncertainty of how Obama care will impact them. One party’s answer to every problem that faces us is a tax increase. Not sure about you, but everyone I have ever worked for was wealthy. How does taking more money from the wealthy help? You are taking money from the job creators. Steve Jobs, no conservative by any means, even told President Obama that the US Government was making it too hard for businesses. Here is another fact; we could confiscate all of the income from everyone earning more than 108,000 per year and it would fund the federal government for 10 months!
It is my opinion that we need a government that will operate leanly, get out of the way of business, stop spending more than we take in, stop sending our military all over the world, decrease the size of the Federal Government (we are after all a republic of UNITED STATES), and let the states handle everything that was not granted to the Federal Government in our Constitution. But maybe I am alone on that.

quote:

Originally posted by JasonR:
The Government is buying US-made cars, that don't use (as much) foreign produced oil, cutting government expenditures and you are upset about it?

Wow, I did some more searches on this and people (on right-wing websites) are going CRAZY over this calling it things like "the biggest scandal of the Obama Administration" and someone posted "since they lose $79k per car let's all go out and buy one and bankrupt them!"

So um... (I'm really askin' here) why would you make it your goal as a conservative American to bankrupt an American automobile manufacturer?

Seems to be somewhat contrary to your stated goals.

I personally think that we should have let GM go through Banckruptcy reorganization. I was against the Auto Bail out, which started at the tail end of the Bush Administration. I was against it then and am against it now. Free market economics makes businesses stronger not weaker. The government should not pick the "winners".

Jason, Let's not quote nameless radicals and then place their words in our mouths as if all conservatives share those views. There are full-fledged communists supporting the Democratic party that you wouldn't want equated to you.

I agree that it was wrong to associate Chevy Volt purchases with combat forces. However, Volts are not selling well because the high purchase price cannot be justified by the low operating cost, otherwise more people would be buying them. If it isn't cost effective for us, then it isn't for the US Government and we can't afford to continue to fund ideas only because they are "politically correct." On a side note, I don't understand what makes coal powered cars so politically correct to begin with. Obviously, I say coal powered because 71% of our electricity is derived from coal.

To SSG: I don't blame the cost of food on the Democrats although ethanol has been a major culprit over the years. I do blame the cost of gas on anyone who has interfered with domestic exploration in the past which can be blamed on the Democrats.

Also to SSG: Again with the unsubstantiated accusations..."those who like to call themselves conservatives are anything but." What about any of this do you believe is not a conservative issue?

To Jrlz: The Constitution is what has made us survive as a country this long. The further we get away from it, the closer we get to having the same problems the European Union is having.

Jason R, Good point on the Volt. It would help on lower our dependence on foreing oil. However, would not a hybrid from say Ford like a fusion not accomplish the same thing. To me it looks like the Federal Government just helping to prop up GM which they own a large piece of. The appearance of a conflict of interest is just too big. Another reason that the government should not own the means of production.

I agree Old Glory. Our constitution is what has kept us around for so long. Much of what the Federal Government has been doing over the last 100 years is not one of the powers that is entrusted to it.

I believe what you describe as Conservative, Wikipedia describes as:

Fiscal conservatism

Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt.[37] Edmund Burke, in his 'Reflections on the Revolution in France', argued that a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer:

What I describe as conservative is someone from the political center. Some of the opinions voiced on this forum are obviously far to the right of center.

On the Chevy Volt issue, GM admits they had to introduce breakthrough technology on this car to try and leap frog the Toyota Prius to maintain American high tech auto dominance. GM admits they cannot breakeven on this car as it is first generation technology. GM is optimistic that their next generation of electric cars will be profitable.

Like it or not, Obama saved Detroit and the USA auto industry with countless spin off American jobs.

Also, please correct my less than great understanding of the USA political system but does not the Republicans control Congress and the Democrats control the Senate?

Does not the Congress try and shoot down 95%+ of what the President proposes? and then does not the Congress pass motions that they know are crafted in a way that the Senate can only reject?

A quick check of Wikipedia once again reveals that it was President Bush who signed into law
the Clean Energy Act of 2007 that launched the USA into an accelerated Ethanol production program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...Security_Act_of_2007

Five years later, I have read many sources that seem to think this was a well intentioned but misguided move for the USA.

Obviously, some people on this board believe in "Drill, Baby Drill!" despite the harsh lessons of the Gulf Oil disaster.

SSG,
Regarding, Obama saving the US auto industry. If we contend that the bailouts saved the Auto Industry, then some credit should go to President Bush who initiated the Auto Bailouts of GM and Chrysler in December 2007. More bailouts followed, but it was President Bush who started the process. . I would contend that the bailout was not the right thing to do; we should have let the free market work its process. Stronger companies are made through free market competition. Perhaps a new American Auto giant would have emerged . We will never know.
Currently the White House and Senate are controlled by the Democratic Party and the Congress is Republican Controlled. My comments were about the fact that for the first two years of Obama’s Administration the democrats controlled it all. What did they do to help turn things around with the economy? The only thing they did was ram through Obama care, without even reading the law. Nancy Pelosi famously said they would have to pass the bill so they could see what was in the bill.
For better or worse, Obama is the President. If we are going to heap praise on him when things go right, then he is equally responsible when things do not go right. The economy and employment are not going well. He is in charge, that is his responsibility and it is more than fair for voters to hold him accountable

quote:

Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
I believe what you describe as Conservative, Wikipedia describes as:

Fiscal conservatism

What I describe as conservative is someone from the political center. Some of the opinions voiced on this forum are obviously far to the right of center.

The political center is most often called a moderate. I am definately conservative and I am far right from center. I am not only a fiscal conservative. I am a social conservative as well.

Obama didn't save Detroit, he saved the unions.

quote:

Obama didn't save Detroit, he saved the unions.

Did not save the non unoin workers for GMs Delphi division though. They had thier pensions cut. Huh.

quote:

Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
A quick check of Wikipedia once again reveals that it was President Bush who signed into law
the Clean Energy Act of 2007 that launched the USA into an accelerated Ethanol production program.

Obviously, some people on this board believe in "Drill, Baby Drill!" despite the harsh lessons of the Gulf Oil disaster.

It was actually the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and although I do blame Bush (sorry I din't make that clear earlier) it passed with greater than a two-thirds majority so his veto would have been over-ridden anyway.

Regarding Drill Baby Drill...keep in mind that new wells are being built in the gulf all the time, they just aren't ours. Drill Baby Drill stands for much more than just deep water drilling in the Gulf. In the mountainous Green River Basin of the American West, running through Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, the American people own lands containing an estimated one trillion barrels of oil, more than triple the amount of Saudi Arabia's proven oil reserves. Then, of course, there is the Keystone (Canadian) Pipeline.

quote:

Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:

Does not the Congress try and shoot down 95%+ of what the President proposes? and then does not the Congress pass motions that they know are crafted in a way that the Senate can only reject?

First of all, don't sell yourself short on your understanding of the US politica system. You have proven that you know more than probably 90% of the US.

It is interesting how you paint the Republicans in a negative light when they oppose the Democrats but say that the Democrats have no choice but to oppose the Republicans.

Is not the US political process set up in a way that a new bill has to be introduced in and approved by Congress, then pass through the Senate and be signed by the President before it can become law?

I was recently watching two interesting CNN biographies of both Obama and Romney that showed each person in a positive light. I learned a lot of good things about Romney.

But there was a point where Obama and Boehner were deadlocked on some big political issue. The two men eventually reached what was called the "Grand Bargin" and considered the deal done. A day or two later the deal fell though because Boehner could not get his own party to agree to the deal. It was blocked dead by the uncompromising TEA party.

The last two years have been gridlock and a dog fight between Congress and the Senate, all at a great disservice to the USA.

Too take a little break from all of the political discussion, watch this video.

http://edge.liveleak.com/80281...ed=1%26extra_params=

Try not to feel dizzy!

SSG,
I saw an interview with Bob Woodward last night. He wrote a new book and talked specifically about the Obama and Boehner deal. His investigation discovered that after an agreement was reached that Obama, on advise from those close to him, went back to Boehner and asked for more tax increases. He did this becuase, in Woodwards opinion, Obama was more interested in not looking weak rather than agreeing to a compromise. Why is it that if the Republicans dont give into everything than they are being uncompromising? When Harry Reid refuses to debate a bill passed in the house to repleal Obama care was that being uncompromising also? HOw about when the Democrates did not have enough votes to pass Obama care they used reconciliation as a means to run an end around normal bill passage, is that being uncompromising?
Woodward also discussed how Obama does not like the business of working with Congress. Not sure why he wanted the job if a core responsability for the job is one he does not like! Bill Clinton, George Bush and Ronald Reagan famously reached across the isle to work through things. I have yet to see Obama do that.

I met with a business owner today, was with his doctor earlier in the week. The doctor stated that if the democrats win the election. He is going close his business, fire his employees and go to work in a hospital, since the burden of his compliance with the new healthcare law will be too much for him to bear. Why put up with the headaches, regulations he could work for the hospital and have no headaches and regulations that will mandate how much he can earn and how his business is conducted.

Also spoke with a VP of BOA, his department is now being told by reglulators that they can't launch this product or that product because it would ....... don't remember the rest, but most folks who WANT TO work hard and have the ability to run their own business are now considering packing it in and working for someone or something else.

It's truly a sad state of affairs. Bring back the 80's!

This country is headed down the path of Ricoh and SHARP, due to lack of Leadership, just like those companies.

quote:

Originally posted by GMAN:
This country is headed down the path of Ricoh and SHARP, due to lack of Leadership, just like those companies.

GMAN, you summed it up nicely. Centralized command and control does not allow the local field do what they do best - Get and Keep customers. The Federal Government wants to control everything we do. They need to get out of the way of the American worker and great things will happen.

Reminds me of something I heard the other day. When we buy something with our own money that we will personally consume we care about both price and quality. That is a first party purchase.

If we are buying a gift for someone, we care about price but might not be as concerned about quality. That is a second party purchase.

If we are consuming something that we don't have to pay for, we may care about quality but not how much it costs...also a second party purchase.

If we are buying something that we will not personally consume and it is being purchased with someone else's money, that is a third party purchase and we will care little about price or quality.

Here is the kicker. By definition, all government purchases are third party purchases...products (or services) that they will not personally consume and paid for with money that is not thiers. Consequently, there is little concern about price or quality.

quote:

Originally posted by Old Glory:
Jason, Let's not quote nameless radicals and then place their words in our mouths as if all conservatives share those views. There are full-fledged communists supporting the Democratic party that you wouldn't want equated to you.

I apologize, I can see how what I posted could be interpreted that way and that wasn't what I intended.

As far as the coal burning cars, that is certainly something that needs to be addressed, but remember that the amount of energy produced by Wind and Solar doubled under Obama, so that is changing.

As as far as the point about electric cars not being worth the investment (the higher cost isn't off-set by the savings on fuel) that is actually true, and something I've pointed out to my friends on several occasions.

The calculation tips if you can hang onto a car for a longer time than a normal consumer does (as the military has with their previous cars). If that happens again, it would be a good investment or a great investment if the price of gas continues to climb and more electricity is replaced with more renewable energy.

I don't think many of us think the price of gas will fall, so seems like an OK assumption to me.

JRLZ mentioned why not the Ford hybrid and that's a decent point, but for use on a military base, the Volt actually makes more sense because unlike a traditional hybrid, it uses ONLY the battery for the first 35 miles, so for trips around base, etc, it would never use the gas, saving even more money.

Overall, I still don't see the problem with this purchase.

I have an active copier service technician in my territory who was just diagnosed with Terminal Cancer. He has very modest financial resources. In Canada, he is able to access almost free medical care and immediately apply for long term disability.

Not really knowing the details of "Obamacare", what would happen to this tech in the USA?

quote:

Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
I have an active copier service technician in my territory who was just diagnosed with Terminal Cancer. He has very modest financial resources. In Canada, he is able to access almost free medical care and immediately apply for long term disability.

Not really knowing the details of "Obamacare", what would happen to this tech in the USA?

Depends upon the insurance he has, assuming he has any. (Obamacare includes a mandate to buy insurance, which is implemented as a fine (scaling up to $695 a year in 2016) but it doesn't go into effect until 2014).

Under most plans, the patient would have a deductible (wildly different on different plans, but probably more than $500 and less than $5,000) that he would have to cover, then the insurance will (probably) cover 70-80% of the charges.

In the end, depending upon what treatment was needed, how long it took, etc., the patient would probably wind up with a bill between $10k and $50k. It could be more, but it most likely wouldn't be less.

Those are results from an "average" plan, the actual plan he had could be much better or much worse, impossible to say.

Worth noting, Obamacare isn't universal coverage, so the consumer still faces these issues.

Before Obamacare, most plans also included a "maximum lifetime payout" the patient could have hit and if he left his job and changed insurance he could have been hit with the "pre-existing condition" meaning they wouldn't pay for something that was wrong with him before the insurance started. Both of those were eliminated in Obamacare.

Long Term Disability is a separate plan, so again, it depends on if such a plan was available and if he elected to purchase it as to whether he would be covered.

Long Term Disability would come from Social Security, at least until its insolvency.

Prior to ObamaCare he would be given care based on the Terms and Conditions of his policy but he could not be denied coverage and Hospitals would have worked out a payment plan, probably significantly reducing the charge in the process. Under ObamaCare, someone in Health and Human Services will decide what if any treatment he would receive.

quote:

Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
I have an active copier service technician in my territory who was just diagnosed with Terminal Cancer. He has very modest financial resources. In Canada, he is able to access almost free medical care and immediately apply for long term disability.

Not really knowing the details of "Obamacare", what would happen to this tech in the USA?

First, my heart goes out to your friend. My prayers go out to him and his family.
Second, Obama care is not actually health insurance, it merely mandates , among other things, that everyone is required to purchase health insurance. What would happen to a person who is diagnosed with terminal cancer under “Obama Care” will then vary according to the insurance that they have.
In general terms, there would be co-pays for office visits and perhaps additional out of pocket co-insurance payments. Most health insurance plans include a maximum out of pocket cost for the insured. Most also include a life time maximum of benefits. Most benefits plans would also include long-term disability coverage. There are also a number of charities in the US that help to defray costs for those affected.
In the United States we also have government funded health insurance such as Medicare for retirees, Medicaid for the poor and the Veterans Affairs Department who offers coverage for veterans.

quote:

Originally posted by Old Glory:
Long Term Disability would come from Social Security, at least until its insolvency.

Prior to ObamaCare he would be given care based on the Terms and Conditions of his policy but he could not be denied coverage and Hospitals would have worked out a payment plan, probably significantly reducing the charge in the process. Under ObamaCare, someone in Health and Human Services will decide what if any treatment he would receive.

One argument I have against Socialized Medicine is that is offers a lower quality of care than the current system in the United States. For example, a study of the 5 year survival rates for Breast, Colon, Rectal and Prostate cancers found that the US had the highest survivability rate at 73.8%. Great Britain, often recognized for their National Health Program, has a 5-year survivability rate of 52%. Canada was a close second at 70.5%. To put this into perspective – for every 10,000 people diagnosed with cancer 2,180 more people will be alive in the U.S. versus the U.K. and 330 more versus Canada. Those numbers represent real people. Simply put the U.S. has a better record of health care out comes when compared to the rest of the world.
Many of the studies done on health care note that waiting times to see a physician are longer in other countries versus the U.S. and the U.S. has greater diagnostic resources. The U.S. has Doctors per 1,000 people ratio of 2.3, the U.K. is 2.2 and Canada is 2.1. The U.S. has 25.9 MRI machines per million versus 8 for Canada and 5.6 for the UK. The U.S. has 34.3 CT Scanners per million versus Canada at 13.9 and the U.K. at 7.4.
The above numbers back up the stories I have heard from an Aunt of mine who is Canadian. She has told me that waiting times to get into an MRI or some other diagnostic tool are much longer in Canada than in the U.S. . It is this time from physician to MRI or other diagnostic tool that can mean the difference between life and death.

quote:

Originally posted by Old Glory: Under ObamaCare, someone in Health and Human Services will decide what if any treatment he would receive.

Obamacare is not universal health care, so this is not true, The treatment will be determined by his doctors and the payment determined by his private health insurance plan.

quote:

Originally posted by Old Glory:
Long Term Disability would come from Social Security, at least until its insolvency.

Social Security (which of course this working person has paid into all his life) would indeed kick in when he was unable to work.

quote:

Originally posted by Old Glory:
he could not be denied coverage

Well, if he changed jobs or left his job and didn't continue his insurance, he could certainly be denied coverage. Even Mitt Romney has come out in favor of continuing the elimination of pre-existing conditions as specified in Obamacare.

quote:

Originally posted by Jrlz:
Those numbers represent real people. Simply put the U.S. has a better record of health care out comes when compared to the rest of the world.

Except when it comes to Infant Mortality, in that case, we're 34th.

Oh, or overall lifespan, in that one we are 38th.

Politifact examined the cancer claims you made and said that while it was true, the US ranked much worse in other areas, so it's a wash. http://www.politifact.com/trut...e-system-best-world/

Life expectancies and mortality rates are not a good indicator of health care. There are too many factors that effect life expectancies such as automobile accidents, violent crimes, etc... I think the best way to measure the quality of health care is by outcomes, how does the system work when a patient accesses it? The study you reference put heavy weight on "fairness" in the system. Unfortunatly socialists are more interested in making sure a system is fair, rather than effective. It is shared misery. Take the UK for example. They have a more "fair" system than the US. Everyone gets the same level of care, excpet of course the elite who operate outside the system. Socalism is always for the people, not the socalists. I think the 2,180 people who are alive in the US 5 years after a cnacer diagnosis that would not be alove in the UK might prefer the US system, they might not call that a wash. That is 2,180 mothers, fathers, and grand parents. Another factoid - 5 year death rate for heart attack patients in the US is 19.6% versus 21.4% in Canada. So in the US 180 more heart attack patients will be alive in 5 years than in Canada.

quote:

Originally posted by Jrlz:
That is 2,180 mothers, fathers, and grand parents.

Doing math here, correct me if I've added incorrectly.

Infant mortality: US is at 7 per 1,000, best in the world is around 3, which means in the US 4 more babies die than where it could be.

Annual births in US 4.1 million so there are ~16,000+ babies that died here vs. the countries with the lowest infant mortality.

I think calling it a "wash" is more than fair.

quote:

Originally posted by JasonR:

quote:

Originally posted by Jrlz:
That is 2,180 mothers, fathers, and grand parents.

Doing math here, correct me if I've added incorrectly.

Infant mortality: US is at 7 per 1,000, best in the world is around 3, which means in the US 4 more babies die than where it could be.

Annual births in US 4.1 million so there are ~16,000+ babies that died here vs. the countries with the lowest infant mortality.

I think calling it a "wash" is more than fair.

I would disagree, the CDC notes that there is a disparity in infant mortality rates.

Examples of Important Disparities
Infant mortality among African Americans in 2000 occurred at a rate of 14.1 deaths per 1,000 live births.2 This is more than twice the national average of 6.9 deaths per 1,000 live births. The leading causes of infant death include congenital abnormalities, pre-term/low birth weight, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), problems related to complications of pregnancy, and respiratory distress syndrome.3 SIDS deaths among American Indian and Alaska Natives is 2.3 times the rate for non-Hispanic white mothers

In summary there are factors that drive up the infant mortality that are not related to the health care system. Many of the above disparities are effected more by the parent(s) than the health care system. A poor diet of the mother, not following back to sleep reccomendations, not taking pre-natal viatamins amonng a host of other factors would all effect the above disparities. These are not a result of our heatlh care system, rather poor decisions by adults.

We will have to agree to disagree. I happen to think our system, although with issues, is the best in the World. I know if heaven forbid I needed quality health care I would stay in the US. I dont believe I would go to Europe or even our fine neighbors to the north in Canada.

quote:

Originally posted by Jrlz:
We will have to agree to disagree. I happen to think...

I agree! (to disagree)

I do not think our health "care" is bad, but I don't think it is the best.

The real issue is not the quality of the care for those who can afford it, but being able to afford it in the first place.

If you don't have a job that offers insurance (for example, if you are a farmer) then buying insurance is expensive and then when you have a problem (such as cancer since we were discussing it) you can easily wind up with a bill for a million dollars.

Old joke: A farmer wins a million dollars and they ask him what he'll do with the money and he says "I guess I'll just keep farming until it's all gone".

Obamacare addresses these issues: Everyone has to have insurance and insurance is more affordable for those outside the current system.

Obamacare does not address in any real way the core issue to healthcare the U.S. faces which is spiraling healthcare costs. I haven't heard of any way that actually does address this EXCEPT single payer or single provider (please feel free to suggest one). Of those two, single payer is the lesser of the evils. That's a fight for another day

I live in Massachusetts where we have had a version of universal health insurance for some time. Not sure what the impact has been, I can say that it has blown a big hole in the budget. I would have preferred to see each state do thier own thing. I think 50 individual states would build a better system than the federal government.

JasonR, you say Obamacare will be less expensive. I disagree. It certainly won't be less expensive for all the people whose employer drops their employer paid insurance because now the government will provide it.

When has the government lowered the cost of anything?

I understand that there is a catastrophic component that exits with health insurance that doesn't exist with auto , home, life insurance but if competitive factors are allowed to come into play with health insurance, I feel prices will come down and quality will improve. It works only every time it is tried. ObamaCare is socialized medicine which is the complete opposite of capitalism and competition. When has Socialism ever produced more or better anything?

A Premier of a Canadian Province (like a US Governor)recently visited the USA for Health care (Heart issues) because he could easily afford it and the wait times were much shorter. There are more than a few Canadians who do go to the USA for Healthcare.

I recently had to wait three months for an MRI. It cost me $10.00 .

... and yes Healthcare does take up an alarmingly big and growing part of the Canadian budget.

quote:

Originally posted by Old Glory:
JasonR, you say Obamacare will be less expensive. I disagree. It certainly won't be less expensive for all the people whose employer drops their employer paid insurance because now the government will provide it.

When has the government lowered the cost of anything?

I understand that there is a catastrophic component that exits with health insurance that doesn't exist with auto , home, life insurance but if competitive factors are allowed to come into play with health insurance, I feel prices will come down and quality will improve. It works only every time it is tried. ObamaCare is socialized medicine which is the complete opposite of capitalism and competition. When has Socialism ever produced more or better anything?

To Old Glory's Point - I live in Massachuseetts who has Universal Health Care. Obama said he used our plan as a blueprint for his. We were promised it would lower premiums for everyone. Guess what? It did not. My premiums are still increasing as fast as the national average.

quote:

Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
A Premier of a Canadian Province (like a US Governor)recently visited the USA for Health care (Heart issues) because he could easily afford it and the wait times were much shorter. There are more than a few Canadians who do go to the USA for Healthcare.

I recently had to wait three months for an MRI. It cost me $10.00 .

... and yes Healthcare does take up an alarmingly big and growing part of the Canadian budget.

SSG, you back up what I have heard about the Canadian system regarding wait times. Hopefully, you did not need an MRI for a severe issue such as a cancer diagnosis. A three month wait for an MRI could be the differnce between life and death. The reason for the long wait times is that there are a low number of MRIs/capita. THis is becuase the Canadian government needs to ration thier funds and can not afford to support more MRIs or CT scanners. This is what we will see in the US under Obamacare. Obama Care will decrease payment rates to health care providers. So how will health care providers respond to lower revenue? They will need to lower costs by decreasing capital expenditures.

From CNBC:

There are now 49 million people without health insurance in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Under the Affordable Care Act, better known to the public as "Obamacare," more than 30 million people would become eligible to buy subsidized private insurance or receive Medicaid coverage in 2014.

The law requires most Americans to have some form of health insurance - known as the individual mandate. The law stipulates that those who do not acquire health coverage will face a penalty.

I wonderhow people will be able to buy (afford) healthcare when they are not working

From the Motley Fool:

"Simplified, Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act/ ACA) does a few big things:

Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions.
Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26.
Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers.
Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits.
Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead).
Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it."

"The measuring of political wins and losses misses the point altogether. The winners here are the nearly 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. They're the majority of personal bankruptcy cases linked to medical bills, and those who couldn't quit their job because they can't afford to lose employer-provided coverage."

"Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal the ACA if elected president. One of the biggest complaints about the ACA is that it causes uncertainty. No one knows what might happen next, or what health-care costs will be a year or two from now. Alas, that hasn't gone away."



From this I would interpret that if you are unemployed with no income, you can fall back upon Medicaid for Health care. Of course, this probably means long lines, lots of paper work and probably not the best quality healthcare.

quote:

Originally posted by Jrlz:
We were promised it would lower premiums for everyone. Guess what? It did not. My premiums are still increasing as fast as the national average.

Well, I would make sure never to vote for whoever lied to you in that way ever again!

SSG says, "The winners here are the nearly 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. They're the majority of personal bankruptcy cases linked to medical bills, and those who couldn't quit their job because they can't afford to lose employer-provided coverage."

It all boils down to socialism vs capitalism and both sides believe in helping those who can't help themselves. The biggest problem I have is paying for other people's obligations so that they can better afford luxeries I can't afford for myself. I drive a 10 year old car and still watch TV's that have tubes. If someone can't make it despite cancelling their cable, quiting smoking, canceling their cell phone, etc. then I will know that they truly need help.
A very large portion of the 50 million that don't have health insurance are people who would rather have their big screen TV's and new cars and are playing Russian Roulette with their families health. I have a problem with paying for that in the form of higher taxes and less effective health care.

Every time you hear, "Prevents insurance companies from..." their is a steep price to be paid either in cost or reduced effectiveness. I have a problem with paying for 26 year-olds to be on their parents policy, I have a problem with insurance companies being forced to cover the uninsurable. Remember when banks were forced to loan to the non-credit worthy? Look where that got us. I just don't believe that the best way to help those who can't help themselves is for the government to take over 1/3rd of the US economy.

By the way, insurance companies have caps and annual limits because you and I wanted lower premiums so this was their way of getting there. You can get truly unlimited if you are willing to pay for it. Don't put that on the insurance companies. And do you really want them to have a cap on their overhead? That probably means less customer service...you like that?

If Obama wins re-election I fully expect copier sales to go off a cliff as bad or worse than they did in 2008.

Our economy is teetering on the edge. They just started pumping the money supply again. An Obama win and the economy will plunge into a full blown depression.

Since 2009, $4 Billion has been added to the national debt every day. That means we are paying $4 billion that we don't have to somebody every day. Where is that money coming from? China? Not any longer. The answer is, we are just printing it.

Under Obama care some one could go with out insurance, pay the fine and if they get sick they can then sign up for insurance and the insurance compnay can not deny them. Does this make sense. It's like getting auto insurance after you crash your car.

quote:

Originally posted by JasonR:

quote:

Originally posted by Jrlz:
We were promised it would lower premiums for everyone. Guess what? It did not. My premiums are still increasing as fast as the national average.

Well, I would make sure never to vote for whoever lied to you in that way ever again!

Well the law was singed in by Romney, however we had and still have a democratically controlled house in Mass. Currently the whole state is being run by the Democractic Party - Governor and House. Believe me I am not going to vote for any of the democrats that are in charge now. I will vote for Romney. He is a little to big government for me, but it is better than having the Marxist in Cheif we have now.

I read today that the average penalty will get all the way up to $1,200 by 2016. Who is going to pay a guaranteed premium that is higher vs a possible penalty that is only $1,200. Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if the government doesn't step in and even pay the penalty for those who can't.

quote:

Our economy is teetering on the edge. They just started pumping the money supply again. An Obama win and the economy will plunge into a full blown depression.

Look for larger price increases during the first quarter of 2013 from all of the overseas manufacturers, I would not be surprised to see increases of 8% or more. Pumping money into buying mortgages will have the dollar go even lower vs the yen, thus that means price increase.

I'm thinking if the dollar goes low enough, maybe manufacturing will come back to the US (I'm being stupid with this one)

quote:

Originally posted by Old Glory:
I read today that the average penalty will get all the way up to $1,200 by 2016. Who is going to pay a guaranteed premium that is higher vs a possible penalty that is only $1,200. Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if the government doesn't step in and even pay the penalty for those who can't.

You are right on the mark. In Massachusetts there are plenty of people who pay the penalty rather than insurance premiums. To add insult to injury, if you get laid off from a job and dont have health insurance coverage you get fined. In Massachusetts you need to have coverage all year long, any lapses get you fined. Real nice. You lose your job then the state fines you becuase you dont have insurance. Now that is compassion. Dont worry, the other 49 states will soon enjoy this.

Let not this shake your faith in the Democratic party, but Mitt just released his tax returns and contrary to what Harry Reid said on the Senate floor, Mitt has paid taxes. Good thing for Reid that he can not be sued for Slander because he was on the Senate floor when he lied. I wonder if Harry can grow a pair and slander someone when he is not protected from the law by the Senate floor. How quickly do you think that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will issue an apology? My guess would be never.

Haven't fact checked this but:
in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of
his income....

Just for comparison purposes, Obama gave 1% and Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013%.

Romney is on the front page once again with disclosure that he paid effectively 14% personal tax rate in 2011.

But contrary to popular perception, Romney's effective federal income tax rate is still higher than that of most Americans -- 80% of whom have an effective rate below 15%. That number, however, does not include other federal taxes such as the payroll tax.

The reason Romney's rate is so low -- despite having one of the highest incomes in the country -- is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners.

The average tax rate for Canadians is over 20%. Mine was 23% last year and I had a lot deductions.

I think the USA should have a minimum tax rate on all citizens of at least 17-18% no matter how many deductions or entitlements you have.

From CNN Money:

"Romney and his wife, Ann, gave just over $4 million to charity, the campaign said. The amount includes more than $1 million in cash to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and more than $200,000 to the Tyler Foundation, which serves families of children undergoing treatment for epilepsy. They also reported more than $900,000 in non cash contributions.

But the couple chose to deduct only $2.25 million of their charitable contributions. The reason was "to conform" to Romney's statement last month that he never paid less than 13% in income taxes over the past 10 years, Brad Malt, a lawyer who presides over the Romneys' blind trust, said in a statement.

Indeed, if the Romneys had declared the full $4 million it likely would have pushed their effective tax rate below 13%, said tax attorney Martin Press of the law firm Gunster.

"It is quite unusual for people not to take tax deductions that they're entitled to," Press said. '

Guess what Mitt Romney's real first name is, at least, on his tax return?

His middle initial is M.

The White House just posted President Barack Obama's his 2011 federal income tax returns online.

According to the returns, Obama and the First Lady earned $789,674 last year. About half of that — $394,821 — comes from the President's salary, and the other half — $441,369 — is from Obama's book sales.

The returns show that the Obamas paid $162,074 in federal income tax, as well as $31,941 in Illinois state income tax.

The returns also reveal that the First Family donated a whopping 20.5% of their income to charity. The biggest contribution — $117,130 — went to the Fisher House Foundation, which provides assistance to the families of wounded service men and women. According to the White House blog, the President is donating after-tax proceeds from his children's book to the Fisher House scholarship fund for the children of fallen and disabled veterans.

Obama also donated the entire $1M he received for being awarded the 2009 Noble Peace Prize to various USA charities.

From Forbes:

"The 2011 tax return released today by Vice President Joseph Biden shows two things about him: He’s more in hock than average Americans of his income level, and he’s chintzier with the charitable donations.

Biden’s return shows $379,178 in adjusted gross income, along with $30,019 in mortgage interest and $5,350 in donations. He’s spending five bucks in interest for every dollar in charity. A more typical ratio for families at that income level is 2-to-1.

How do I know what’s typical for American taxpayers? By deconstructing IRS statistics showing aggregate income and itemized deductions in different income ranges. These statistics display patterns from which I was able to extrapolate different itemized deduction averages for each income level.

For an average U.S. return at the $379,000 income level, mortgage interest comes to $21,960 and charitable donations to $9,520.

Biden’s stiff mortgage payments are particularly noteworthy in light of the fact that at his age, 68, you should own your house free and clear. He should be getting ready for retirement."

and on the lighter side:

from CNBC:

"The Prison View Golf Course at the Louisiana State Penitentiary made Cheapflights’ Top 10 Hazardous Golf Courses. And lest you think this is some mamby pamby Camp Cupcake prison, the LSP is the largest maximum security prison in the US. In addition to serious security measures, it also features a 9-hole golf course and you can play it for the low greens fee of $10 plus $5 per person if you want a cart.

You don’t even have to commit a felony to get in!

A couple notes: The background check will take 48 hours, you may have your vehicle or person searched at any time and no alcohol or firearms allowed.

For your peace of mind, the golf course’s web site says convicted felons and anyone on the inmates’ visitors list will not be allowed access to the golf course. The prisoners do, however, do all of the groundskeeping work — everything from cutting the grass to fetching balls out of the water.

And Warden Burl Cain told The Advocate that they have never had a riot. However, you should be warned that additional hazards include alligators, rattlesnakes and water moccasins.

And unlike most golf courses, Cain reserves the right to suspend play at any time.

And yes, they’ll let you out! "

Let me put all of the salary stuff into perspective. Mitt has 20 more years on Obama to add to his wealth. 20 years is a lot of time to develop wealth.

Both in my eyes are very rich men, look into the future and you'll see the wealth Obama's wealth skyrocket and equal Romneys when you look at their wealth compared to the same age.

Bill Clinton was a lowley governor from Arkansas when he took office, and in the last 10 years of his private life just from speaking engagements he has earned $44.9 million, http://politicalticker.blogs.c...fter-lucrative-2010/ and there was a rumor he spend 13 million on his daughters wedding.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of hearing the media proclaim Obama as the annointed one. Both Romney and Obama are ricj when compared to my meager earnings. They both deserve to be rich, and personally I couldn't give a rats ass what theydo with their money!

I want someone who can lead, someone who can take care of the debt and someone who won't tax the crap out of me. OBAMA will continue social programs that will add to the debt not decrease the debt, you can go on past history for this.

A report today on the wire stated that Obamas healthcare "tax" was under estimated at how many people will be afftected. I think the figure was 4 million and has jumped to 8 million. I'm thinking everyone has no clue to how many will be affected.

Look at this also does Romney pay for healthcare, tou be your dam ass he does, how about Obama, nope he hasn't paid for healthcare since he entered politcal office.

I do not know but I would not be surprised if most residing politicians and bureaucrats get their health care costs covered by the state as an employment benefit.

quote:

Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
Romney is on the front page once again with disclosure that he paid effectively 14% personal tax rate in 2011.

But contrary to popular perception, Romney's effective federal income tax rate is still higher than that of most Americans -- 80% of whom have an effective rate below 15%. That number, however, does not include other federal taxes such as the payroll tax.

The reason Romney's rate is so low -- despite having one of the highest incomes in the country -- is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners.

The average tax rate for Canadians is over 20%. Mine was 23% last year and I had a lot deductions.

I think the USA should have a minimum tax rate on all citizens of at least 17-18% no matter how many deductions or entitlements you have.

SSG I agree that the US should have some sort of minimum tax. However 17-18% would hit low income families really hard. The government needs to decrease spending and then adjust the tax codes so that everyone is paying at least a little bit of taxes. The federal government spends way too much money, some if it they do not even have. Right now our treasury is printing money. This will cause inflation. Inflation will increase the costs of everyday goods effectivng everyone, but those with low incomes will be more effected.

The only way the USA is going to get out of it's major deficit is to increase revenues and reduce spending. To think the USA can entirely solve it's budget mess by reducing expenses alone is simply an election ploy.

I understand most citizens fear that increased taxes will only fund bigger Gov't. Those new revenues have got to be earkmarked to reduce the deficit in the same year that they are accumulated.

TWe can bring down the deficit by reducing spending and increasing GDP growth. A positive GDP growth coupled with reduced spending aka reuced governement can make a dramatic impact on the bottom line.

Wow, whole lotta opinions supported by facts and not so factual statements (unless you have a crystal ball). No one has even mentioned the REAL problem . . . that the process of GOVERNING in the US has been hijacked by the moneyed interests. They are throwing out "false-flag" issues such as War on Women, Mitt's Taxes, Obamacare, ad infinitum, to obfuscate the real problem - The Money Party is running everything and everyone.

The US Department of Defense budget is MORE than the rest of the world combined, yes COMBINED, and there are elected idiots that want more for them. For me it's about time someone (many, many someones) from the Financial Sector be held accountable and be forced to give up their bonuses they received from 2007-2012, for nearly screwing the world economy beyond hope.

My vote still goes to Rocky Anderson because the sooner we all come to the realization that The Money Party gets whatever it wants, will we realize we need additional people in Washington (like Sen Bernie Sanders) that are really interested in changing the system that the moneyed interests have bought with our money (Savings, 401k, Investments, etc.). Obama will be President for another 4 years and the Republican Party will start moving back to where Ronald Reagan left them. The Dems will continue to occupy the middle and sustain the status quo and those of us hoping for change will continue to search for a leader that can lead and not follow the money.

Who's going to win the World Series?

quote:

Originally posted by Jrlz:
Let not this shake your faith in the Democratic party, but Mitt just released his tax returns

Mitt released his 2011 tax return, not the 10 years of returns his father said should be released, not the returns Harry Reid was speaking of. (btw, Harry Reid is an idiot to be quoting some unknown source the might be saying Mitt might have paid nothing.)

I applaud Mitt for his $4million in charitable donations, even if he did give $1m to a cult.

Funny thing is, as mentioned above, he only claimed part of those donations, raising his tax rate to 14%. If he'd claimed all his donations, his tax rate would have been 10.2%, meaning he paid $500,000 more in taxes than he was legally required to.

“I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president,” - Guess who said that?

Jason R, the Democtractic talking points, lead by Harry Reid were that Mitt paid no taxes for 10 years. He proved them wrong. Now they want to once again change the argument. I would not consider the Mormon Religion a cult either. I really could care less about Mitt's or anyones taxes for that matter. Mitt earned a lot of money paid his taxes according to the current laws, enough said. Our country is facing mounting debts, we have become the world's police, we just had a terriost attack on a US Embassy and 4 citizens murdered, high unemployment, a record amount of people on food stamps, and many of the entiltment programs are headed towawrds bankruptcy. Those are some of the many real issues facing the country. The Democratic Party has nothing to run on except the typical class warfare. Mitt is rich I get it. Funny they never seemed to have a problem with Teddy Kennedy or John Kerry.

I was simply pointing out the fact that Harry Reid said Mitt had not paid taxes in the last 10 years. Mitt proved that he has. In my opinion Harry Reid was lying on the Senate floor and he knew it. Where is the Democratic leadership in response to Harry Reid's behaviour?

If Obama or Romney can increase the USA's GDP over the next four years it will be an economic Houdini.

From CNBC:

"Caterpillar, the world's largest maker of earth-moving equipment, has cut its 2015 earnings forecast, citing weak global economic conditions that are hampering its expansion into mining and China."

"We've seen a slowing in economic growth more than we expected," Caterpillar CEO Doug Oberhelman told analysts and reporters on Monday. "We expect fairly anemic and modest growth through 2015."

The forecast cut is "a realistic reflection of the slowdown in the global economy," said Oliver Pursche of the GMG Defensive Beta Fund, which owns Caterpillar shares. "We're not overly surprised by the announcement."

Caterpillar's warning about its profits three years from now sends an ominous message about the global economy — that the current slowdown is likely to be long-term regardless of what policy makers do now.

As the world's premier manufacturer of construction equipment, Caterpillar [CAT 87.01 -3.86 (-4.25%) ] serves as a bellwether for growth.

So when the company Monday cut its guidance not for the coming quarter or coming year but rather all the way into 2015 based on weak global growth, it implied that even if the U.S. solves its fiscal issues, the euro zone escapes its debt crisis and China avoids a hard landing, business conditions likely will be tepid for some time ahead.

Unfortunately I have first hand experiense with cancer under the american system. Our accumulated medical bills were over $2,000,000 in a 6-month period. Ultimately our insurance company paid every penny. We were definately afraid we would be on the hook for the bill since the treatment was considered experimental but in the end the insurance paid.

The technician, I described earlier with terminal cancer passed away today at 52. He lasted six weeks from his initial prognosis. Maybe it is a blessing in disguise for his wife and son.

$2M in six months is a mind boggling number.

quote:

Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
The technician, I described earlier with terminal cancer passed away today at 52. He lasted six weeks from his initial prognosis. Maybe it is a blessing in disguise for his wife and son.

$2M in six months is a mind boggling number.

Very Sorry, SSG. 52 is way too young. My prayers go out to his wife and son. Stories like this put the trival challenges of daily work, etc.. into perspective.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
The technician, I described earlier with terminal cancer passed away today at 52. He lasted six weeks from his initial prognosis. Maybe it is a blessing in disguise for his wife and son.

$2M in six months is a mind boggling number.

same here sorry to hear about such a loss for someone so young, there are two primaries in life health & family they are both equal and everything else really doesn't matter much.

SSG - Indeed gone at 52 is tragic loss and another person spending an accumulated $2million is also tragic. But these amounts are "chump change" or "rounding errors" in the Defense Budget. The US could learn from many countries how to do Medical Care and Defense Spending. And many thousands of service personnel since 2001 would have had great lives if they had lived to be 52 instead of 18-19-20 etc. If we had not decided to enter Iraq, Afghanistan, Yeman, Pakistan we sure could've saved blood and treasure. Priorities folks, priorities. Again, sorry for the loss, it's still monumental for those close.

quote:

Originally posted by Jrlz:
Jason R, the Democtractic talking points, lead by Harry Reid were that Mitt paid no taxes for 10 years. He proved them wrong.

Incorrect.

The (idiotic) quote from Harry Reid was that he had spoken to an unnamed source who knew Romney while he was working at Bain Capital. Romney left Bain Capital in 2002, or 1999, or even earlier depending upon which defintition you use, but he's been gone for at least 10 years. Those are the years in question, not last year. Releasing last years taxes does not refute this (moronic) claim by Reid in any way.

We can agree to disagree, but let's at least agree to agree about what we are disagreeing on!

Please. Class warfare, helping the "middle class".These are tactics from the radical 60's. We have no classes this is America and we dont define ourselves this way. We should have the freedom to be upwardly or downwardly mobile. Oppressive taxes and intervention in every aspect of our lives combined with reckless spending has gotten us into this hole.