Cast your vote
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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!
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 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!
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. '
"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.
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.
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."
"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! "
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
$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.
It seems the Democrats have lost a lot of their momentum to win the election. The election now seems to be a 50/50 toss up with the Democrats having a better "ground game" as the News anchors like to describe it. If the election turns out to be very close, hopefully there will not be another Florida fiasco over "hanging chad" that cost Al Gore the presidency.
Remember that in the US the Electoral College elects the President while the Popular Vote elects everyone else (Senate, House, Dog Catcher, School Boards etc.) and because of this and Mr Obama's leads in those states he must win I predict (based on the experts I read) Mr Obama will govern again and with a majority in the Senate again. To bastardize Kipling . . . On to the Fiscal Cliff rode the light brigade . . .
quote:Originally posted by bill w:
We have no classes this is America and we dont define ourselves this way. Oppressive taxes and intervention in every aspect of our lives combined with reckless spending has gotten us into this hole.
We don't define ourselves this way??? How would you define the poor, the Middle Class and the very wealthy? As for "oppresive taxes" what would you call the taxes of Denmark, Norway, Sweden etc. - those should be considered oppressive by Americans but those countries are always the "Happiest People on Earth". Do you understand why? They prefer the lifestyle and freedoms their way of life (and tax structure) provided them. You mentioned the '60's - go look at the Corporate and Individual Tax Rates then compared to your "oppressive taxes" of today. Sorry Bill but I strongly disagree.
They have started yelling "Where is Obama?" in the streets of Staten Island, NY and down on the Jersey Shore, just like the Katrina victims began to blame Bush. People with no power, no warmth, and running out of food are asking why Obama has not sent in FEMA and the American Red Cross. Taylor Swift just said on television that President Obama does not like middle-class white people! The people waiting in line for gas are starting to brawl and police intervention has been required in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Bread lines might be next!
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
As for "oppresive taxes" what would you call the taxes of Denmark, Norway, Sweden etc.
Well said! This is just part of the myth the right is trying to get spread out as truth.
FYI, in 1969, the top tax rate (on $200,000 or more) was 77%. 35% looks pretty reasonable now doesn't it?
Old Glory that is a very ugly and inappropriate comparison you made.
I really hope that if Romney gets elected that he does not cut FEMA. He suggested this earlier in the campaign but flip flopped with Superstorm Sandy.
Hopefully, Sandy will bring back to life real concerns in the US political system over global warming. Both parties, but especially the Republicans, are guilty of side stepping this issue during the election.
I really hope that if Romney gets elected that he does not cut FEMA. He suggested this earlier in the campaign but flip flopped with Superstorm Sandy.
Hopefully, Sandy will bring back to life real concerns in the US political system over global warming. Both parties, but especially the Republicans, are guilty of side stepping this issue during the election.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
Old Glory that is a very ugly and inappropriate comparison you made.
I really hope that if Romney gets elected that he does not cut FEMA. He suggested this earlier in the campaign but flip flopped with Superstorm Sandy.
Hopefully, Sandy will bring back to life real concerns in the US political system over global warming. Both parties, but especially the Republicans, are guilty of side stepping this issue during the election.
Yea, it was pretty ugly but it was illustrative. Just like the saying that the best of two evils is still evil, the best of two bads is still bad.
As far as FEMA and any other cuts, there is no way we can eliminate the deficit without everyone being adversily affected but think of how much better we could respond to catastrophies such as Hurricane Sandy if we weren't sending billions to the Chinese in interest payments.
Side stepping the issue of Sandy or global warming? Because I don't think global warming was side stepped by the Republicans. I think it was ignored and with good reason.
Old Glory, are you suggesting that the USA should default on it's interest payments to China? Are you suggesting that Global warming is not real?
No, we need to pay our debts and yes, I do not believe global warming is real, not in the way you do anyway. I do not believe that there is such a thing as man made global warming and I seriously question whether any current fluctuations are anything but the normal ebb and flow of cyclical events that have gone on since the beginning of time.
http://www.sunjournal.com/news...ieve-big-lie/1275666
According to a 2009 Pew Research Center Poll, only 36 percent of Americans believe there is “solid evidence” the earth is warming because of human activity, down from 47 percent in 2008 and 41 percent in 2006. Only 57 percent believe there is solid evidence the earth is warming at all, a significant drop from 71 percent the previous year.
Those who have accepted the big lie as truth are fervent, unquestioning and unshakable in their belief. For many others, the campaign has simply taken the bloom off the rose of green energy, creating confusion and apathy about the issue.
The increasing influence of this propaganda campaign helps to explain why the 2012 presidential candidates have barely mentioned global warming as a campaign issue and why few incumbent congressmen or senators will even comment on the issue anymore, let alone sponsor or vote for bills that address it. Politically, global warming has become too hot to touch.
According to a 2009 Pew Research Center Poll, only 36 percent of Americans believe there is “solid evidence” the earth is warming because of human activity, down from 47 percent in 2008 and 41 percent in 2006. Only 57 percent believe there is solid evidence the earth is warming at all, a significant drop from 71 percent the previous year.
Those who have accepted the big lie as truth are fervent, unquestioning and unshakable in their belief. For many others, the campaign has simply taken the bloom off the rose of green energy, creating confusion and apathy about the issue.
The increasing influence of this propaganda campaign helps to explain why the 2012 presidential candidates have barely mentioned global warming as a campaign issue and why few incumbent congressmen or senators will even comment on the issue anymore, let alone sponsor or vote for bills that address it. Politically, global warming has become too hot to touch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04...ather-poll-says.html
A poll released in April 2012 shows that a large majority of Americans believe that this year’s unusually warm winter, last year’s blistering summer and some other weather disasters were probably made worse by global warming. And by a 2-to-1 margin, the public says the weather has been getting worse, rather than better, in recent years.
A large majority of climate scientists say the climate is shifting in ways that could cause serious impacts, and they cite the human release of greenhouse gases as a principal cause. But a tiny, vocal minority of researchers contests that view, and has seemed in the last few years to be winning the battle of public opinion despite slim scientific evidence for their position.
How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Global warming is affecting the weather in the United States.
Nat’l Avg Northeast Midwest South West
Strongly agree 26 37 22 22 28
Somewhat agree 43 34 49 44 43
Somewhat disagree 19 22 17 21 17
Strongly disagree 11 7 12 13 12
A poll released in April 2012 shows that a large majority of Americans believe that this year’s unusually warm winter, last year’s blistering summer and some other weather disasters were probably made worse by global warming. And by a 2-to-1 margin, the public says the weather has been getting worse, rather than better, in recent years.
A large majority of climate scientists say the climate is shifting in ways that could cause serious impacts, and they cite the human release of greenhouse gases as a principal cause. But a tiny, vocal minority of researchers contests that view, and has seemed in the last few years to be winning the battle of public opinion despite slim scientific evidence for their position.
How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Global warming is affecting the weather in the United States.
Nat’l Avg Northeast Midwest South West
Strongly agree 26 37 22 22 28
Somewhat agree 43 34 49 44 43
Somewhat disagree 19 22 17 21 17
Strongly disagree 11 7 12 13 12
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory:
No, we need to pay our debts and yes, I do not believe global warming is real, not in the way you do anyway. I do not believe that there is such a thing as man made global warming and I seriously question whether any current fluctuations are anything but the normal ebb and flow of cyclical events that have gone on since the beginning of time.
I agree with Old Glory.
First on the US debt and deficit spending has to be dealt with, we cannot continue down the path we are on. While we need to pay our current debts we should look at cutting spending. Everything must be cut – social spending, defense, foreign aid, everything. I don’t understand why we are sending billions to other countries for foreign aid when we cannot pay our bills. It is like someone not being able to pay their mortgage but using their credit card to give money to charity. If we confiscated all the income from everyone earning more than $250,000/year we would not fund the federal government for a year. Spending cuts, not tax increases are what we need.
On global warming. Our planet has gone through many warming and cooling periods over its history. I am not convinced that what we are seeing is because of anything we are doing. How does a hurricane prove man-made global warming? Hurricanes have existed since before man was here. We even have a hurricane season which is June 1 – November 30. I vividly recall when I was in 1st or 2nd grade being taught in school that the earth was cooling and we might be headed for the next ice age. I remember because it scared the hell out of me. 30 years latter all of a sudden the scientific community is now saying we are warming? How is it that scientists cannot tell me with certainty exactly what the weather is going to be tomorrow, but yet they can tell me that the earth is warming and it’s our fault. I am not convinced.
quote:Originally posted by Jrlz:
First on the US debt and deficit spending has to be dealt with, we cannot continue down the path we are on. While we need to pay our current debts we should look at cutting spending. Everything must be cut – social spending, defense, foreign aid, everything.
I totally agree with this. Cutting spending should be a high priority.
However, if you are trying to pay your bills at home, cutting expenses is important, but having money coming in is equally important.
I'm not for "increasing" taxes, but saying you are paying too much when you are paying less than any time in the last 50 years just sounds crazy.
If the Ryan tax plan were adopted, Romney's tax rate would be 0.82%. How can that be presented as a responsible option considering our crushing debt?
Salesserviceguy, I'm confused about what your position is on Global Warmimg. With your last two posts, one seems to have a bias against an one a bias for. Being in Novia Scotia, I would expect that you face a global warming bias in the media although I was surprised to see in the poll numbers that you site that various areas of the country seem to poll pretty similar.
Food for thought...if the dustbowl years of the 1930's happened today, it would be blamed on man-made global warming. It obviously wasn't man-made then. Why would it be today?
Food for thought...if the dustbowl years of the 1930's happened today, it would be blamed on man-made global warming. It obviously wasn't man-made then. Why would it be today?
quote:Originally posted by JasonR:
However, if you are trying to pay your bills at home, cutting expenses is important, but having money coming in is equally important.
I'm not for "increasing" taxes, but saying you are paying too much when you are paying less than any time in the last 50 years just sounds crazy.
If the Ryan tax plan were adopted, Romney's tax rate would be 0.82%. How can that be presented as a responsible option considering our crushing debt?
First of all, I question your data but regardless, If you donate enough money to charity, you can reduce your tax burden to nothing. Romney donated 29.4%, over $4 million to charity. Also, his income comes largely from Capital Gains, not income which makes a difference.
I totally agree with..."if you are trying to pay your bills at home, cutting expenses is important, but having money coming in is equally important." However, increasing taxes can be detremental.
“In short, it is a paradoxical truth that … the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference
The theme I was trying to convey was that the polling indicates between 2009 and 2012, Americans attitude towards global warming is that it is not some fuzzy far off threat but real and much closer to home.
Basically, the prevailing research indicates that while 67% of Americans believe that global warming is a growing problem, 98% of politicians avoid the issue.
"Global warming skepticism is still alive and well, thanks to an effective campaign of public disinformation — one heavily financed by oil, gas, electric utility and coal interests, and employing tactics pioneered by the tobacco industry."
"Climate scientists have been warning for more than two decades that global warming is accelerating as a result of human activity, primarily from burning of fossil fuels; and contributing to extreme weather patterns, including longer droughts, more violent storms, rising sea levels and bigger coastal surges. Sandy and the drought that gripped the southern and western United States this summer should be exhibits “A” and “B” to that prediction."
Basically, the prevailing research indicates that while 67% of Americans believe that global warming is a growing problem, 98% of politicians avoid the issue.
"Global warming skepticism is still alive and well, thanks to an effective campaign of public disinformation — one heavily financed by oil, gas, electric utility and coal interests, and employing tactics pioneered by the tobacco industry."
"Climate scientists have been warning for more than two decades that global warming is accelerating as a result of human activity, primarily from burning of fossil fuels; and contributing to extreme weather patterns, including longer droughts, more violent storms, rising sea levels and bigger coastal surges. Sandy and the drought that gripped the southern and western United States this summer should be exhibits “A” and “B” to that prediction."
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
"Climate scientists have been warning for more than two decades that global warming is accelerating as a result of human activity, primarily from burning of fossil fuels; and contributing to extreme weather patterns, including longer droughts, more violent storms, rising sea levels and bigger coastal surges. Sandy and the drought that gripped the southern and western United States this summer should be exhibits “A” and “B” to that prediction."
So huricanes and droughts are both the result of global warming? It appears that all significant weather activity, droughts and floods, heat and even cold spells are blamed on global warming. But only the skeptics are subject to "disinformation"?
No one is saying hurricanes and droughts are the exclusive result of global warming only that the increasing frequency and severity of such weather events appear to be related.
2/3rds of Americans somewhat to strongly believe global warming is effecting the weather in the USA.
Skeptics are always free to voice their opinion and can believe what they wish. Just like the tobacco industry wants people to believe that smoking does not cause cancer.
2/3rds of Americans somewhat to strongly believe global warming is effecting the weather in the USA.
Skeptics are always free to voice their opinion and can believe what they wish. Just like the tobacco industry wants people to believe that smoking does not cause cancer.
If the world could vote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...tml#slide=more260869
According to a 21-nation poll conducted by GlobeScan/PIPA for the BBC World Service, an average of 50 percent of people surveyed abroad favor Obama. Only 9 percent of those polled prefer Romney, and in 20 out of 21 countries voters would chose Obama, the exception being Pakistan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...tml#slide=more260869
According to a 21-nation poll conducted by GlobeScan/PIPA for the BBC World Service, an average of 50 percent of people surveyed abroad favor Obama. Only 9 percent of those polled prefer Romney, and in 20 out of 21 countries voters would chose Obama, the exception being Pakistan.
AS I get ready to retire for the night, it seems the USA will be in Obamas hands for the next four years. I hope I wake up and it's not true....of course I won't be happy as a matter of fact I will feel sorry that our continued debt will force us to follow others. I hope I'm wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Art Post:
AS I get ready to retire for the night, it seems the USA will be in Obamas hands for the next four years. I hope I wake up and it's not true....of course I won't be happy as a matter of fact I will feel sorry that our continued debt will force us to follow others. I hope I'm wrong.
I am with you Art. It is clear now from the exit polls that Obama's bail out of the UAW and his pandering to the typical liberal special interest groups bought him the presidency. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic". Seems we have two parties with extremely different visions for the country. One party says if you vote for me I will take money from one group and give it to you. The other party says vote for me and I will let you keep more of your money.
I hope that Washington will grow up and stop spending our childrens money, but I dont think that will happen. We are headed the way of the Europeon Socialist nanny state. Get ready for increased taxes and Obamacare, no turning back now.
While the Republican message clearly resonated with a lot of voters on the fiscal issues it was out of touch on many social issues.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
While the Republican message clearly resonated with a lot of voters on the fiscal issues it was out of touch on many social issues.
That's because there are too many people that are receiving social services, they will vote for thier way of like. If I were on foodstamps or needed a social service then I would be a dumbass to vote for someone who will cut the cut the fat. Over the last 16 years Democtrats have been able to expand services and have more voters depenedent on the governments services,
Don't get me wrong I beleive that most of these services are good, the problem is that there are way to many people and businesses that are abusing the services and plainly put, ripping of the US. Democrats will continue to expand services to ensure that they have additional voters.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
While the Republican message clearly resonated with a lot of voters on the fiscal issues it was out of touch on many social issues.
McCain was definately not a social conservative and he lost too.
I now believe that there are two things that pretty much have sealed the fate of the Republican Party...1.)The left wing media is too powerful to overcome and 2.) The social re-engineering happening in our educational institutions, lower as well as higher, have been in place long enough to indoctrinate the electorate.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
While the Republican message clearly resonated with a lot of voters on the fiscal issues it was out of touch on many social issues.
How is Mitt Romney out of touch on social issues? He is one of the most moderate republicans out there. This election was not about social issues, fiscal issues topped the exit polls. Unfortunatly there are way too many people who depend on the government and they are not going to vote against the thier self interest. More people are now in the wagon then pulling the wagon.
quote:Originally posted by Art Post:
Don't get me wrong I beleive that most of these services are good, the problem is that there are way to many people and businesses that are abusing the services and plainly put, ripping of the US.
That's the issue I'd really like to see addressed. Let's implement a one-strike policy. You knowingly defraud the government, you get blacklisted.
The Republican party was out of touch on women's issues, Gay Rights, Blacks, Latinos, environmentalists, Foreign affairs and young people.
Romney being a devout Mormon did not help.
The Republicans did appeal to white males 35+ years old.
Romney being a devout Mormon did not help.
The Republicans did appeal to white males 35+ years old.
There was a two million vote gap in the popular vote...obviously more appeal than just white males 35+.
You say out of touch with gay rights and environmentalists...well yea, that is th platform, that was the point. I disagree on the Foreign Affairs. The blacks, nothing the Republicans can say or do could have changed that. I feel the Democrats pandered to the Latinos just to get their vote by ignoring the issue of illegals and immigration just like they ignored the debt, the defecit, a nuclear Iran, an insolvant Social Security, and 4 dead in Bengazi...
By the way, you left off of your list the druggies. The Republicans also are out of touch with those who want to legalize marijuana.
You say out of touch with gay rights and environmentalists...well yea, that is th platform, that was the point. I disagree on the Foreign Affairs. The blacks, nothing the Republicans can say or do could have changed that. I feel the Democrats pandered to the Latinos just to get their vote by ignoring the issue of illegals and immigration just like they ignored the debt, the defecit, a nuclear Iran, an insolvant Social Security, and 4 dead in Bengazi...
By the way, you left off of your list the druggies. The Republicans also are out of touch with those who want to legalize marijuana.
Republican senator Lindsey Graham’s remark that there weren’t enough “angry white guys” to bring Republicans to power seemed prophetic in the light of President Barack Obama’s victory.
A decline in the number of white voters and a surge in voters from ethnic minorities and women helped Obama on election night. Ohio, one of the key battleground states, was captured in part through a rise in turnout among African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
Back in August, Graham had said: “The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”
This year is likely to be the first in recent history when the majority of babies born in the U.S. are born to families from an “ethnic minority” background. That demographic shift is already being felt at polling stations – 72 percent of those who cast their vote this year were white, down from 74 percent in 2008, according to exit polls by the Associated Press.
The Republican Party has tried to make the point that it is not just the party of white voters, via high-profile speeches at the GOP convention from Republicans of an ethnic minority background, but early signs are that it has failed to convert voters.
A decline in the number of white voters and a surge in voters from ethnic minorities and women helped Obama on election night. Ohio, one of the key battleground states, was captured in part through a rise in turnout among African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
Back in August, Graham had said: “The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”
This year is likely to be the first in recent history when the majority of babies born in the U.S. are born to families from an “ethnic minority” background. That demographic shift is already being felt at polling stations – 72 percent of those who cast their vote this year were white, down from 74 percent in 2008, according to exit polls by the Associated Press.
The Republican Party has tried to make the point that it is not just the party of white voters, via high-profile speeches at the GOP convention from Republicans of an ethnic minority background, but early signs are that it has failed to convert voters.
All true but what would be the point of adopting the Democratic talking points. Even if the Republicans promised free healthcare, free cell phones, unlimited unemployment checks, food stamps, college education, (sex-change operations, legalized drugs...), etc. like the Democrats do you really think they would get the votes? All that would happen would be a third party which seals their fate anyway.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
Republican senator Lindsey Graham’s remark that there weren’t enough “angry white guys” to bring Republicans to power seemed prophetic in the light of President Barack Obama’s victory.
A decline in the number of white voters and a surge in voters from ethnic minorities and women helped Obama on election night. Ohio, one of the key battleground states, was captured in part through a rise in turnout among African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
Back in August, Graham had said: “The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”
This year is likely to be the first in recent history when the majority of babies born in the U.S. are born to families from an “ethnic minority” background. That demographic shift is already being felt at polling stations – 72 percent of those who cast their vote this year were white, down from 74 percent in 2008, according to exit polls by the Associated Press.
The Republican Party has tried to make the point that it is not just the party of white voters, via high-profile speeches at the GOP convention from Republicans of an ethnic minority background, but early signs are that it has failed to convert voters.
I would agree that the republican party failed to win over some minority groups. The answer is not to change the platform, but to continue to reach out to those groups. The values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not values that are only held by white males.
You may want to check on the exit polling with women. I read that married women went for Romney.
It is clear that Obama's pandering worked. We have the bail out of the UAW that bought Ohio and Michigan, the executive order fiat of the dream act (which the democrats would not pass) to buy the hispanic vote effecting florida and Colordo, and the whole discussion of how birth control should be paid for by health insurance companies and then there is the whole I am now for sames sex marriage "evolution" of Obama. He said and did what he needed to do to get re-elected. That is a great way to run a campaign, but not the qualities of a leader.
Here's a real horses ass that was thankful for Sandy:
Chris Matthews: 'I'm So Glad We Had That Storm Last Week' (Video)
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/colu...ast-week-video-64061
Chris Matthews: 'I'm So Glad We Had That Storm Last Week' (Video)
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/colu...ast-week-video-64061
That is one way to put it Art. Chris is so blind with his support of Obama that we does not care about anything about his re-election. Does he think? People died and a lot of people are still suffering and this guy is glad becuase it helped to re-elect his guy. His comments are disturbing. Imagine what thoughts he has that he censors himself from saying.
Art/Jrlz - go back and read what Matthews said b/c you missed his point.
This is all so very simple and easy to solve . . .
If you don't like the LEFT leaning media OR the RIGHT leaning media don't watch them (I don't)and encourage others to do the same.
If you don't believe that Climate Change is man-made and real, so be it - that's easy, now let's see what we can do about the effects of what the routine weather cycles are doing to our world since it's not man-made.
If we don't like what the DEM's are doing or the REP's then disassociate yourselves from them (I did) and quit sending them money - I mean come on, $6 billion was spent so some of you must've sent them money (I didn't) b/c there's not that many fat-cats out there are there? Are there really?
If the party you supported lost, I can only suggest you that didn't spend enough time collecting money or organizing your supporters b/c like it or not, the Community Organizer won doing what the money collectors ridiculed him for in 2007. (my guy lost but then again I didn't do a lot to help his cause).
If you think we're running off the fiscal cliff then you have to help us find an answer and there are many, many available; I'd start with Defense by limiting expenditures to 1/2 that of the rest of the world's combined expenditures - and if we can somehow refrain from sending our troops and treasure to far off lands maybe the downline costs of the Veterans Administration will be lowered; we can eliminate farm subsidies to any individual or corporation with income before expenses of $1 million - they don't need it; foreign aid to Israel and Egypt, you have to be kidding me but I'm sure there's a way to defeat the lobbying groups associated with those countries; we can raise the retirement age, gradually, to 70; modify the passed Healthcare act so that it is single-payor, a la Medicare - don't worry with all the healthy, younger folks the costs per capita will be much lower - Medicare is not cost-effective b/c only the old and infirm can participate driving up the p/c costs; from the revenue side (this is the easiest of all)raise taxes on those most able to pay them and no it's not the poor or middle class - I'd suggest we start by looking at the tax rates during the boom years of the 1950's-60's when our economic growth was second to none (when Japan was building and China was a third-world country; most importantly we need to seek out and find all the source of tax avoidance, welfare fraud, medicare fraud, business tax fraud, immigration fraud (both employers and employee alike).
This is just a starter list of course. How do we do these things you ask - CONSENSUS - but having Mr Obama tell Mr's McConnell and Boehner that unless thay agree to serious compromise then every department of the federal government with regulatory powers will come down on Kentucky and Ohio and examine very closely, just how much compliance there is by the businesses in their respective states to the various rules, regulations and tax audits.
I said it was Easy!
This is all so very simple and easy to solve . . .
If you don't like the LEFT leaning media OR the RIGHT leaning media don't watch them (I don't)and encourage others to do the same.
If you don't believe that Climate Change is man-made and real, so be it - that's easy, now let's see what we can do about the effects of what the routine weather cycles are doing to our world since it's not man-made.
If we don't like what the DEM's are doing or the REP's then disassociate yourselves from them (I did) and quit sending them money - I mean come on, $6 billion was spent so some of you must've sent them money (I didn't) b/c there's not that many fat-cats out there are there? Are there really?
If the party you supported lost, I can only suggest you that didn't spend enough time collecting money or organizing your supporters b/c like it or not, the Community Organizer won doing what the money collectors ridiculed him for in 2007. (my guy lost but then again I didn't do a lot to help his cause).
If you think we're running off the fiscal cliff then you have to help us find an answer and there are many, many available; I'd start with Defense by limiting expenditures to 1/2 that of the rest of the world's combined expenditures - and if we can somehow refrain from sending our troops and treasure to far off lands maybe the downline costs of the Veterans Administration will be lowered; we can eliminate farm subsidies to any individual or corporation with income before expenses of $1 million - they don't need it; foreign aid to Israel and Egypt, you have to be kidding me but I'm sure there's a way to defeat the lobbying groups associated with those countries; we can raise the retirement age, gradually, to 70; modify the passed Healthcare act so that it is single-payor, a la Medicare - don't worry with all the healthy, younger folks the costs per capita will be much lower - Medicare is not cost-effective b/c only the old and infirm can participate driving up the p/c costs; from the revenue side (this is the easiest of all)raise taxes on those most able to pay them and no it's not the poor or middle class - I'd suggest we start by looking at the tax rates during the boom years of the 1950's-60's when our economic growth was second to none (when Japan was building and China was a third-world country; most importantly we need to seek out and find all the source of tax avoidance, welfare fraud, medicare fraud, business tax fraud, immigration fraud (both employers and employee alike).
This is just a starter list of course. How do we do these things you ask - CONSENSUS - but having Mr Obama tell Mr's McConnell and Boehner that unless thay agree to serious compromise then every department of the federal government with regulatory powers will come down on Kentucky and Ohio and examine very closely, just how much compliance there is by the businesses in their respective states to the various rules, regulations and tax audits.
I said it was Easy!
From CNN:
"White men comprised just 34% of the electorate on Tuesday."
"The big picture is this: Democrats are continuing to win big with the demographic groups that are growing; Republicans are still struggling to increase support with shrinking base voter groups."
"White men comprised just 34% of the electorate on Tuesday."
"The big picture is this: Democrats are continuing to win big with the demographic groups that are growing; Republicans are still struggling to increase support with shrinking base voter groups."
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Art/Jrlz - go back and read what Matthews said b/c you missed his point.
This is all so very simple and easy to solve . . .
If you don't like the LEFT leaning media OR the RIGHT leaning media don't watch them (I don't)and encourage others to do the same.
If you don't believe that Climate Change is man-made and real, so be it - that's easy, now let's see what we can do about the effects of what the routine weather cycles are doing to our world since it's not man-made.
If we don't like what the DEM's are doing or the REP's then disassociate yourselves from them (I did) and quit sending them money - I mean come on, $6 billion was spent so some of you must've sent them money (I didn't) b/c there's not that many fat-cats out there are there? Are there really?
If the party you supported lost, I can only suggest you that didn't spend enough time collecting money or organizing your supporters b/c like it or not, the Community Organizer won doing what the money collectors ridiculed him for in 2007. (my guy lost but then again I didn't do a lot to help his cause).
If you think we're running off the fiscal cliff then you have to help us find an answer and there are many, many available; I'd start with Defense by limiting expenditures to 1/2 that of the rest of the world's combined expenditures - and if we can somehow refrain from sending our troops and treasure to far off lands maybe the downline costs of the Veterans Administration will be lowered; we can eliminate farm subsidies to any individual or corporation with income before expenses of $1 million - they don't need it; foreign aid to Israel and Egypt, you have to be kidding me but I'm sure there's a way to defeat the lobbying groups associated with those countries; we can raise the retirement age, gradually, to 70; modify the passed Healthcare act so that it is single-payor, a la Medicare - don't worry with all the healthy, younger folks the costs per capita will be much lower - Medicare is not cost-effective b/c only the old and infirm can participate driving up the p/c costs; from the revenue side (this is the easiest of all)raise taxes on those most able to pay them and no it's not the poor or middle class - I'd suggest we start by looking at the tax rates during the boom years of the 1950's-60's when our economic growth was second to none (when Japan was building and China was a third-world country; most importantly we need to seek out and find all the source of tax avoidance, welfare fraud, medicare fraud, business tax fraud, immigration fraud (both employers and employee alike).
This is just a starter list of course. How do we do these things you ask - CONSENSUS - but having Mr Obama tell Mr's McConnell and Boehner that unless thay agree to serious compromise then every department of the federal government with regulatory powers will come down on Kentucky and Ohio and examine very closely, just how much compliance there is by the businesses in their respective states to the various rules, regulations and tax audits.
I said it was Easy!
I am with you on everything but the single payer health care system. I am a conservative, but the Republican parties position on defense spending bothers me too. We spedn way too much and any talk of cuts is treated like the end of the world. We need to decrease spending on defense, stop being the world's police force and continue to bolster our militaries rapid special operations ability.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
From CNN:
"White men comprised just 34% of the electorate on Tuesday."
"The big picture is this: Democrats are continuing to win big with the demographic groups that are growing; Republicans are still struggling to increase support with shrinking base voter groups."
The GOP needs to make in roads into the growing demographic bases. They need to do this by talking about thier message and not become the democrat lite party. The core message of liberty, personal responsability and personal freedom to make choices resonate with many people, regardless of demographics.
QUOTE]The GOP needs to make in roads into the growing demographic bases. They need to do this by talking about thier message and not become the democrat lite party. The core message of liberty, personal responsability and personal freedom to make choices resonate with many people, regardless of demographics.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately a big part of the growing demographic base are people riding in the wagon, not the ones pulling it.
17 million NEW Food Stamp recipients is definately enough to sway any election. How do you suggest the Republicans go about pandering to them? I don't think liberty, personal responsability and personal freedom to make choices is going to resonate with them.
Unfortunately a big part of the growing demographic base are people riding in the wagon, not the ones pulling it.
17 million NEW Food Stamp recipients is definately enough to sway any election. How do you suggest the Republicans go about pandering to them? I don't think liberty, personal responsability and personal freedom to make choices is going to resonate with them.
Unfortunately a big part of the growing demographic base are people riding in the wagon, not the ones pulling it.
17 million NEW Food Stamp recipients is definately enough to sway any election. How do you suggest the Republicans go about pandering to them? I don't think liberty, personal responsability and personal freedom to make choices is going to resonate with them.[/QUOTE]
I hope you are not correct Old Glory. I often say that there are more people in the wagon than pulling it also, mostly out of frustration. I have faith that the human spirit wants freedom, not tyranny. Last week I thought to mself - Do communist countries have an illegal immigration problem? Do people wait for years to be admitted into a communist Eutopia like Cuba? I dont believe they do, so that must mean that human beings by nature yearn for freedom. The democratic party has become the party of socialists and communists. They are all about "shared sacrafice" and "shared prosperity". They are all about the government taking care of your needs. They live the whole from each according to his means and to each according to his needs philosophy. Dependency on the government is not freedom and deep down every knows that.
The republican party needs to focus on it's routes of limited federal government and personal freedom. I believe that with the right leadership that message will attract many to the GOP.
17 million NEW Food Stamp recipients is definately enough to sway any election. How do you suggest the Republicans go about pandering to them? I don't think liberty, personal responsability and personal freedom to make choices is going to resonate with them.[/QUOTE]
I hope you are not correct Old Glory. I often say that there are more people in the wagon than pulling it also, mostly out of frustration. I have faith that the human spirit wants freedom, not tyranny. Last week I thought to mself - Do communist countries have an illegal immigration problem? Do people wait for years to be admitted into a communist Eutopia like Cuba? I dont believe they do, so that must mean that human beings by nature yearn for freedom. The democratic party has become the party of socialists and communists. They are all about "shared sacrafice" and "shared prosperity". They are all about the government taking care of your needs. They live the whole from each according to his means and to each according to his needs philosophy. Dependency on the government is not freedom and deep down every knows that.
The republican party needs to focus on it's routes of limited federal government and personal freedom. I believe that with the right leadership that message will attract many to the GOP.
The government and the people have become so corrupt that we are doomed as a nation. I beleve we will collapse within our lifetimes in the way that old Russia did.
Glory/Jrlz: When you lose your job and you're about to lose everything you've worked your life for, Food Stamps will help you feed your children - no child in the US should be hungry. If you're going to vote are you going to vote for the guy and party that wants to do away with Food Stamps, the party that wants to deregulate the Banksters that are trying to take your house, the party that says "we can't raise taxes on the rich, they're the job creators when they're the ones that got rid of you or do you vote for the guy that helping you feed your children? Its easy for me to see why not you guys?
Jrlz: as for Communist countries and immigration there are only five left in the world and of those, Cuba and No Korea are so corrupt no one wants to go there. Leaving Vietnam where most NIKE products are made there's huge demand for workers where they're treated decently as with China. Laos, bordering Vietnam and China is so isolated as to almost not exist.
Fisher: you're onto something here. I can concur that things will dramatically change in the US in the next 50-75 years as it has since Ronald Reagan's time. We, as a country, are not doomed but we as a Middle Class will continue to exist but with little upward mobility unless those in power realize that those that can afford to, should be the ones that take up the cause and help.
Jrlz: as for Communist countries and immigration there are only five left in the world and of those, Cuba and No Korea are so corrupt no one wants to go there. Leaving Vietnam where most NIKE products are made there's huge demand for workers where they're treated decently as with China. Laos, bordering Vietnam and China is so isolated as to almost not exist.
Fisher: you're onto something here. I can concur that things will dramatically change in the US in the next 50-75 years as it has since Ronald Reagan's time. We, as a country, are not doomed but we as a Middle Class will continue to exist but with little upward mobility unless those in power realize that those that can afford to, should be the ones that take up the cause and help.
Here is a very well stated explanation for the election results.
http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012...the-american-empire/
http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012...the-american-empire/
"vote for the guy and party that wants to do away with Food Stamps, the party that wants to deregulate the Banksters that are trying to take your house, the party that says "we can't raise taxes on the rich, they're the job creators when they're the ones that got rid of you or do you vote for the guy that helping you feed your children?"
Do away with Food Stamps? Deregulate Banks? You forgot poisen the water and kill off the elderly.
Do away with Food Stamps? Deregulate Banks? You forgot poisen the water and kill off the elderly.
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Glory/Jrlz: When you lose your job and you're about to lose everything you've worked your life for, Food Stamps will help you feed your children - no child in the US should be hungry. If you're going to vote are you going to vote for the guy and party that wants to do away with Food Stamps, the party that wants to deregulate the Banksters that are trying to take your house, the party that says "we can't raise taxes on the rich, they're the job creators when they're the ones that got rid of you or do you vote for the guy that helping you feed your children? Its easy for me to see why not you guys?
Jrlz: as for Communist countries and immigration there are only five left in the world and of those, Cuba and No Korea are so corrupt no one wants to go there. Leaving Vietnam where most NIKE products are made there's huge demand for workers where they're treated decently as with China. Laos, bordering Vietnam and China is so isolated as to almost not exist.
Fisher: you're onto something here. I can concur that things will dramatically change in the US in the next 50-75 years as it has since Ronald Reagan's time. We, as a country, are not doomed but we as a Middle Class will continue to exist but with little upward mobility unless those in power realize that those that can afford to, should be the ones that take up the cause and help.
I must have missed something and certainly did not explain my position well. Was someone advocating getting rid of food stamps? I contend that we need to dramatically decrease the size of the Federal Government. That does not mean that people who are in need should not have a saftey net. That saftey net should come from state government, local government and charities, not the Federal government. The most efficient way to help people is at the local level. Sending tax dollars to DC to fund a big federal organization is inefficient. Example: a local charity in my area that helps to feed the elderly who live on thier own has been ordered to stop using their food supply vendor and instead use the governments chosen vendor, even though they are more expensive, because that is the policy. How does that make sense? Prime example of government getting in the way.
As far as there being only five communist countries left in the workd and no one wanting to go there, that makes my point. Why do we want to go down the socialist/communist route with our country? National socialism has never worked and never will.
Jrlz: your Example: a local charity in my area that helps to feed the elderly who live on thier own has been ordered to stop using their food supply vendor and instead use the governments chosen vendor, even though they are more expensive, because that is the policy. This sorta shoots that local being more efficient thing out of the water. By keeping the Feds in the social insurance business (that's what Food Stamps are and Medicare and Social Security) it makes sure that State and Local govts are not overwhelmed in the event an industry (be it coal, auto etc.) are taken out. Right now Unemployment Insurance rules and length of coverage are all over the place but I agree that there are huge improvements to be gained in this area.
As for your socialist/communist comment. People think they are one and the same - not so. Communism involves Central Planning and Control of all area of production and distribution whereas the socialized countries are quite a bit less structured in those areas.
And Glory my defense of Food Stamp recipients was in reaction to your comment about 17 million additional Takers (not your words but I thought that's where you were going - regardless, I don't fault anyone for voting for the guy that's going to make things easier for his family and NOT VOTE for the guy that's gonna make them worse. No child should go hungry regardless how uneducated, lazy or whatever their parents are. Now if I was wrong about you 17 million comment it's MY BAD and sorry goes back to you . . . but I didn't realize Romney was poisioning the water (oh yes that Fracking thing and Natural Gas, he sure is).
As for your socialist/communist comment. People think they are one and the same - not so. Communism involves Central Planning and Control of all area of production and distribution whereas the socialized countries are quite a bit less structured in those areas.
And Glory my defense of Food Stamp recipients was in reaction to your comment about 17 million additional Takers (not your words but I thought that's where you were going - regardless, I don't fault anyone for voting for the guy that's going to make things easier for his family and NOT VOTE for the guy that's gonna make them worse. No child should go hungry regardless how uneducated, lazy or whatever their parents are. Now if I was wrong about you 17 million comment it's MY BAD and sorry goes back to you . . . but I didn't realize Romney was poisioning the water (oh yes that Fracking thing and Natural Gas, he sure is).
I see that 90 thousand Texans have signed a petition to secede from the Union. Not even 1%, however I like their spirit!
Chuck, You assume that all Food Stamp recipients are needy and that they have children and that those children will go hungry without the Food Stamp Program. Certainly true of some but an additional 17 million? Do really think that there is no fraud in the Food Stamp Program? How many of these recipients have big screen TV's with cable, cell phones, high car payments, etc.? That means they would rather have those things than feed their children. That also means that indirectly, I am funding their TV's etc.
My point with the poisen water comment was that if you believe anybody wants to take away food stamps, you probably believe all the other lies as well which of course is proven by your subsequent comment regarding fracking.
My point with the poisen water comment was that if you believe anybody wants to take away food stamps, you probably believe all the other lies as well which of course is proven by your subsequent comment regarding fracking.
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Jrlz: your Example: a local charity in my area that helps to feed the elderly who live on thier own has been ordered to stop using their food supply vendor and instead use the governments chosen vendor, even though they are more expensive, because that is the policy. This sorta shoots that local being more efficient thing out of the water. By keeping the Feds in the social insurance business (that's what Food Stamps are and Medicare and Social Security) it makes sure that State and Local govts are not overwhelmed in the event an industry (be it coal, auto etc.) are taken out. Right now Unemployment Insurance rules and length of coverage are all over the place but I agree that there are huge improvements to be gained in this area.
As for your socialist/communist comment. People think they are one and the same - not so. Communism involves Central Planning and Control of all area of production and distribution whereas the socialized countries are quite a bit less structured in those areas.
And Glory my defense of Food Stamp recipients was in reaction to your comment about 17 million additional Takers (not your words but I thought that's where you were going - regardless, I don't fault anyone for voting for the guy that's going to make things easier for his family and NOT VOTE for the guy that's gonna make them worse. No child should go hungry regardless how uneducated, lazy or whatever their parents are. Now if I was wrong about you 17 million comment it's MY BAD and sorry goes back to you . . . but I didn't realize Romney was poisioning the water (oh yes that Fracking thing and Natural Gas, he sure is).
Chuck I am not shure how that shows that the local government si not more efficient. In this case a town if being ordered to us the government "approved" vendor. That vendor is more expensive than the one the town had been using. The added expense may cause the town to have to rethink how many meals a week they can provide.
It appears that one of the presidential canidates did want to cut food stamps. The Toledo blade is reporting that the USDA will be cutting funding for food stamps to Ohio residents. The change will affect approximately 869,000 recipients and could mean a drop of $50 per month in benefits. How is that hope and change working out for the folks in Ohio? This change was not announced until after the election. The change is linked to how the USDA calculates benefits based on utility bills. Ohio did appeal the decision, but the USDA rejected it. So families that are struggling to feed thier children can look forward to $50 less per month in help.
Glory, check my post above where I said there were some easy answers and I stated that "most importantly we need to seek out and find all the source of tax avoidance, welfare fraud, medicare fraud, business tax fraud, immigration fraud (both employers and employee alike)" - I know how important it is to end the fraud, misuse, overbilling, unnecessary tests, unneeded farm subsidies etc.
Jrlz, your exapmle just showed that state/local involvement isn't the answer - I propose we give the money to religious and community orgs and let 'em know that if an audit finds waste, graft, corruption or whatever then BINGO, there goes the tax-exempt status.
As for the Toledo Blade article (gotta go read it) but just how does the amount you get for food stamps equate to, or is related to utility bills? I propose USDA ag subsidies be drastically cut (large corporate farms don't need it just small farmers since they're at huge risk due to market, weather, pests etc.) and food stamps funding go into H&HS (its a health issue not agriculture).
What we need, very desparately, is a leader - someone who can get these elected idiots away from the cameras and microphones and to the study tables to hash out a solution. We're in for an Austerity Crisis (why call it a fiscal cliff when the rest of the world calls it Austerity Crisis?) and it won't be pretty. I hope it happens because unfortunately I have no confidence in our elected or appointed officials to do anything more than kick the can down the road so they can get back in front of the cameras and talk about Benghazi again or is Susan Rice gonna be confirmed.
Jrlz, your exapmle just showed that state/local involvement isn't the answer - I propose we give the money to religious and community orgs and let 'em know that if an audit finds waste, graft, corruption or whatever then BINGO, there goes the tax-exempt status.
As for the Toledo Blade article (gotta go read it) but just how does the amount you get for food stamps equate to, or is related to utility bills? I propose USDA ag subsidies be drastically cut (large corporate farms don't need it just small farmers since they're at huge risk due to market, weather, pests etc.) and food stamps funding go into H&HS (its a health issue not agriculture).
What we need, very desparately, is a leader - someone who can get these elected idiots away from the cameras and microphones and to the study tables to hash out a solution. We're in for an Austerity Crisis (why call it a fiscal cliff when the rest of the world calls it Austerity Crisis?) and it won't be pretty. I hope it happens because unfortunately I have no confidence in our elected or appointed officials to do anything more than kick the can down the road so they can get back in front of the cameras and talk about Benghazi again or is Susan Rice gonna be confirmed.
Art:
Been there, done that, didn't work out so well! But hell, why not try it, at least you'll see if things are better then or not. They gotta keep the Cowboys though!
quote:I see that 90 thousand Texans have signed a petition to secede from the Union. Not even 1%, however I like their spirit!
Been there, done that, didn't work out so well! But hell, why not try it, at least you'll see if things are better then or not. They gotta keep the Cowboys though!
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
What we need, very desparately, is a leader - someone who can get these elected idiots away from the cameras and microphones and to the study tables to hash out a solution.
From your lips to God's ears Chuck.
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Art:quote:I see that 90 thousand Texans have signed a petition to secede from the Union. Not even 1%, however I like their spirit!
Been there, done that, didn't work out so well! But hell, why not try it, at least you'll see if things are better then or not. They gotta keep the Cowboys though!
If Texas actually does seperate I would seriously consider moving there.
Texas has everything it needs to be it's own country. Texas has shipping ports, oil, natural gas, decent size land mass and some natural borders.
Remember when the Conservatives told the Liberals "America, Love It or Leave It"? Wow, times have sure changed.
ACTUAL INCOME TAX PAID
| % of Americans | Tax Liability | ||
| 47% |  |
$0 (47% of Americans pay no income tax at all) | |
| 37% | |
$1-$10,000 | |
| 15% | |
$10,000-$50,000 | |
| 1% | |
$50,000+ | |
The top 5% most productive Americans pay 59% of all income tax collected by the Fed Government. Despite the media labeling this category of taxpayers as "wealthy" - over half of those most productive Americans are actually small business owners taxed at the personal income tax rates.
quote:Originally posted by Art Post:
<html><div class="rendom_title">ACTUAL INCOME TAX PAID</div>
<div class="text">
<div class="pool_result_container">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="2%"> </td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>% of Americans </strong></td>
<td width="47%"><strong>Tax Liability</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" height="10"> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="sel_color">
<td> </td>
<td width="5%">47%</td>
<td width="46%"><img src="http://www.section179.org/images/pollbar_red.jpg" /></td>
<td>$0 (47% of Americans pay no income tax at all)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="sel_color_none">
<td> </td>
<td>37%</td>
<td><img src="http://www.section179.org/images/pollbar_red.jpg" /></td>
<td>$1-$10,000</td>
</tr>
<tr class="sel_color">
<td> </td>
<td>15%</td>
<td><img src="http://www.section179.org/images/pollbar_red.jpg" /></td>
<td>$10,000-$50,000</td>
</tr>
<tr class="sel_color_none">
<td> </td>
<td>1%</td>
<td><img src="http://www.section179.org/images/pollbar_red.jpg" /></td>
<td>$50,000+</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
The top 5% most productive Americans pay 59% of all income tax collected by the Fed Government. Despite the media labeling this category of taxpayers as "wealthy" - over half of those most productive Americans are actually small business owners taxed at the personal income tax rates.</p>
</div></html>
Startling is it not. I researched it once and if you took 100% of the income from everyone earning more than $112,000/year we could only fund the federal givernment for something like 10 months. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem. I say this is not that much different from someone with an additcition. You have to hit rock bottom before you can recover. The government & the country has to hit rock bottom, realize they have a problem and then recover. Look at Europe with thier Austerity problems. That is the US in the near future.
Who makes up that 47% anyway? Check this link out for a surprise answer . . .
http://www.businessinsider.com...no-income-tax-2012-9
http://www.businessinsider.com...no-income-tax-2012-9
Of course it's not JUST the very wealthy that pay no taxes, take a look at this link . . .
http://payupnow.org/
Easy to solve these issues if we could just get the elected officials that work for us to do their jobs.
http://payupnow.org/
Easy to solve these issues if we could just get the elected officials that work for us to do their jobs.
chuck
The rich pay taxes period, and yes they can get substanial deductions depending on how they spent or earned that money. But to have that article state they paid zero tax is absurd. We all pay taxes every day and so do they when the buy fuel, clothing, payroll deductions, etc.
I do admit that the current IRS thing is hokie and I'm in favor of a National Sales Tax to eliminate the IRS, this way everyone pays their fair share (yes even the people who are in the country illegally).
The US has 3.1 millionaires, to say 7,000 paid zero taxes, means that 99.75% paid taxes according to that web sites math. I'd take 99.75% all of the time. Again the current IRS tax system stinks and it is not fair.
The rich pay taxes period, and yes they can get substanial deductions depending on how they spent or earned that money. But to have that article state they paid zero tax is absurd. We all pay taxes every day and so do they when the buy fuel, clothing, payroll deductions, etc.
I do admit that the current IRS thing is hokie and I'm in favor of a National Sales Tax to eliminate the IRS, this way everyone pays their fair share (yes even the people who are in the country illegally).
The US has 3.1 millionaires, to say 7,000 paid zero taxes, means that 99.75% paid taxes according to that web sites math. I'd take 99.75% all of the time. Again the current IRS tax system stinks and it is not fair.
Art, there are only 433,000 people making $1,000,000 or more per year in the US in 2011 (321,000 in 2008). This is income that is taxed not net worth which isn't taxed, earnings are taxed. A National Sales Tax is NOT a fair tax as it inordinately places a heavier burden on Middle Income and below since they spend all they make. Wealthy families (say $1,000,000) don't spend 20 times what a family making $50,000 spends. If we'd simply use the taxes rates in effect during Ronald Reagan's first term and close up the graft and corruption of tax cheats (make them HURT) and base Corporate taxes on revenues received BEFORE expenses we could capture quite a bit of "hidden" profits and taxes that individuals should be willing to pay.
Chuck
You're wrong the WSJ reported that there is 3.1 millionaires in the US. I'll believe the WSJ before I believe a rogue web site.
I'm middle income and I have no problem with National Sales Tax, you see that's the problem we are in..... x amount of people are NOT paying taxes and that's not the way our tax code was meant to be. EVERYONE would pay their FAIR share and the FAIREST way for EVERYONE to pay taxes is a national sales tax.
There could be exemptions for those on disability, but if you can work you need to pay taxes
You're wrong the WSJ reported that there is 3.1 millionaires in the US. I'll believe the WSJ before I believe a rogue web site.
I'm middle income and I have no problem with National Sales Tax, you see that's the problem we are in..... x amount of people are NOT paying taxes and that's not the way our tax code was meant to be. EVERYONE would pay their FAIR share and the FAIREST way for EVERYONE to pay taxes is a national sales tax.
There could be exemptions for those on disability, but if you can work you need to pay taxes
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Art, there are only 433,000 people making $1,000,000 or more per year in the US in 2011 (321,000 in 2008). This is income that is taxed not net worth which isn't taxed, earnings are taxed. A National Sales Tax is NOT a fair tax as it inordinately places a heavier burden on Middle Income and below since they spend all they make. Wealthy families (say $1,000,000) don't spend 20 times what a family making $50,000 spends. If we'd simply use the taxes rates in effect during Ronald Reagan's first term and close up the graft and corruption of tax cheats (make them HURT) and base Corporate taxes on revenues received BEFORE expenses we could capture quite a bit of "hidden" profits and taxes that individuals should be willing to pay.
Chuck, by tax cheats I hope you mean people are not paying taxes according to the law and not those paying taxes according to the current law. I would disagree with taxing companies based on revenue and not taking into account expenses. What happens when profits fall and companies struggle, like they are now? This will make matters worse and companies will be forced to cut even more jobs just to pay the tax bill. Furthermore, taxing companies is actually taxing the poor. If we increase taxes on say "big oil", a popular target of the left. What is big oil going to do? They will pass that increase on to the wholesalers. The wholesalers will pass that cost onto the retailers. The retailers will pass that cost onto the consumer. This will result in gas, heating oil, anything delivered viz a truck costing more. This results in taking more money from the consumer. This hurts the middle class and the poor more than it will hurt the wealthy. There are a lot of struggling middle class and poor familes. Increasing thier fuel costs, fuel costs and the cost of all sorts of other items will hurt them. A law of business is that they will always pass increased costs onto the next level down. That is unless you go totally communist and start controlling what business can charge for something.
A National Sales Tax is basically a consumption tax. It is not a progressive tax as it impacts lower income people much more than higher income people.
Although personal and corporate income taxes provide the bulk of revenue to the federal government, consumption taxes continue to be a primary source of income for state and local governments.
Are you proposing a new Federal tax on top of existing State and Municipal taxes in exchange for greatly simplifying the Federal tax code?
Although a National Tax is a fairly simple concept it would probably be a monster to litigate.
Although personal and corporate income taxes provide the bulk of revenue to the federal government, consumption taxes continue to be a primary source of income for state and local governments.
Are you proposing a new Federal tax on top of existing State and Municipal taxes in exchange for greatly simplifying the Federal tax code?
Although a National Tax is a fairly simple concept it would probably be a monster to litigate.
Jrlz: if I may use your quote
By tax cheats I was referring to those who manipulate their cash flows and revenues to avoid taxes, e.g. Apple's Irish revenues and profits.
The "Fair Tax" Art mentioned has some merit but more as a Value Added Tax (a la Europe) than as a Nat'l Sales Tax but proponents of the "Fair Tax/Nat'l Sales Tax" concede that we'd need a rate of 30-35% unless there are rebates to lower income families.
. Please don't use Big Oil as your example because they are the industry (along with Finance/Banking/Investment) that need the most adjustment. Can you in any way justify the "Oil Depletion Allowance" given to Big Oil permitting them to essentially "depreciate" the Oil they're taking from the ground andselling to us? They're billions of dollars of profits IN A FISCAL QTR is terrible. Is oil costly to produce, sure but those costs are passed on to consumers. I was saying to tax their revenue so that when their rev decreases so do the taxes they owe but when they are selling more and more oil products they pay higher and higher taxes. But to allow deductions for sold inventory, its not right - an MFP dealer can't offset his SOLD inventory against his PROFITS can he?quote:If we increase taxes on say "big oil", a popular target of the left. What is big oil going to do? They will pass that increase on to the wholesalers. The wholesalers will pass that cost onto the retailers. The retailers will pass that cost onto the consumer. This will result in gas, heating oil, anything delivered viz a truck costing more. This results in taking more money from the consumer. This hurts the middle class and the poor more than it will hurt the wealthy. There are a lot of struggling middle class and poor familes. Increasing thier fuel costs, fuel costs and the cost of all sorts of other items will hurt them
By tax cheats I was referring to those who manipulate their cash flows and revenues to avoid taxes, e.g. Apple's Irish revenues and profits.
The "Fair Tax" Art mentioned has some merit but more as a Value Added Tax (a la Europe) than as a Nat'l Sales Tax but proponents of the "Fair Tax/Nat'l Sales Tax" concede that we'd need a rate of 30-35% unless there are rebates to lower income families.
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Jrlz: if I may use your quote. Please don't use Big Oil as your example because they are the industry (along with Finance/Banking/Investment) that need the most adjustment. Can you in any way justify the "Oil Depletion Allowance" given to Big Oil permitting them to essentially "depreciate" the Oil they're taking from the ground andselling to us? They're billions of dollars of profits IN A FISCAL QTR is terrible. Is oil costly to produce, sure but those costs are passed on to consumers. I was saying to tax their revenue so that when their rev decreases so do the taxes they owe but when they are selling more and more oil products they pay higher and higher taxes. But to allow deductions for sold inventory, its not right - an MFP dealer can't offset his SOLD inventory against his PROFITS can he?quote:If we increase taxes on say "big oil", a popular target of the left. What is big oil going to do? They will pass that increase on to the wholesalers. The wholesalers will pass that cost onto the retailers. The retailers will pass that cost onto the consumer. This will result in gas, heating oil, anything delivered viz a truck costing more. This results in taking more money from the consumer. This hurts the middle class and the poor more than it will hurt the wealthy. There are a lot of struggling middle class and poor familes. Increasing thier fuel costs, fuel costs and the cost of all sorts of other items will hurt them
By tax cheats I was referring to those who manipulate their cash flows and revenues to avoid taxes, e.g. Apple's Irish revenues and profits.
The "Fair Tax" Art mentioned has some merit but more as a Value Added Tax (a la Europe) than as a Nat'l Sales Tax but proponents of the "Fair Tax/Nat'l Sales Tax" concede that we'd need a rate of 30-35% unless there are rebates to lower income families.
I can justify the oil depletion allowance. It is a form of depreciation built into the tax code. Also, billions in profits in a fiscal quarter is great, not terrible. Why is profit bad? Profit helps companies to grow, create more jobs, buy more equipment again creating more jobs, and pay dividends to share holders. An MFP dealer can use depreciation on their inventory. In addition at this time of year many companies will use the depreciation allowance to justify end of year purchases, hopefully giving the economy a boost. I wonder why the democrats did not change the tax code regarding the oil industry when they had control of congress and the whitehouse for the first two years of the Obama administration. They obviously want a target to beat up and create class warfare with rather than fixing what they say is a problem. How much tax revenue does the government make from the various taxes on oil? My guess is that it is also in the billions, may even be more than the oil companies make. Why is that not terrible? The government who had no hand in extracting and refining is profiting greatly, but that is ok?
Art my friend, if you'll trust the WSJ then go here: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/20...n-50-million-a-year/
then Click on the Social Security link. In 2009 those with earnings in excess of $1,000,000 amounted to 77,607 and I stand corrected. Again you may be referring to a NET WORTH number but you pay taxes on earned income not your NET WORTH.
Jrlz: Profit IS good, but oil companies are a little "over the top" (Exxon $47 BILLION in profit while we pay $3.75 a gallon). High gas prices is why many Americans buy Korean and Japanese autos. And FWIW, I never sold any devices to oil companies.
I think we all can agree that from a revenue standpoint there much that needs to be addressed and many ways to address it AND from the spending side thare are also many ways to address this but the answers are relatively easy. The HARD PART is getting our elected officials to 1) Address the issues and 2) Negotiate a compromise. I see no hope in solving the issues just them kicking the can further down the block till we have Europe style austerity, heaven forbid.
then Click on the Social Security link. In 2009 those with earnings in excess of $1,000,000 amounted to 77,607 and I stand corrected. Again you may be referring to a NET WORTH number but you pay taxes on earned income not your NET WORTH.
Jrlz: Profit IS good, but oil companies are a little "over the top" (Exxon $47 BILLION in profit while we pay $3.75 a gallon). High gas prices is why many Americans buy Korean and Japanese autos. And FWIW, I never sold any devices to oil companies.
I think we all can agree that from a revenue standpoint there much that needs to be addressed and many ways to address it AND from the spending side thare are also many ways to address this but the answers are relatively easy. The HARD PART is getting our elected officials to 1) Address the issues and 2) Negotiate a compromise. I see no hope in solving the issues just them kicking the can further down the block till we have Europe style austerity, heaven forbid.
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Jrlz: Profit IS good, but oil companies are a little "over the top" (Exxon $47 BILLION in profit while we pay $3.75 a gallon). High gas prices is why many Americans buy Korean and Japanese autos. And FWIW, I never sold any devices to oil companies.
Chuck, that is a very Socialist answer. Are you suggesting that the Government should step in and dictate what a "reasonable" profit should be? If you were a stock holder of Exxon, you wouldn't be too pleased with that. Let' change the equation to percentage of profit. What percentage of profit is reasonable? Is 10%? Is 15%? According to Wikipedia, Exxon's revenue in 2011 was $486 Billion and their net profit was $41 Billion which makes their profit percentage a little over 8%. Take away ALL their profits and the price of gas goes down about $0.30/gallon (8% of $3.75/gallon). That doesn't seem extravegant to me no matter what we pay for gas. But, of course you take away the profit and Exxon might just go away. Then where would we be hmmm? By the way, the average tax on a gallon of gas is $0.489/gallon.
Hey Glory, that wasn't meant to sound socialist - socialist is like most other oil-producing countries Canada, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Lybia, Saudia Arabia, Mexico, Venuezela, Nigeria, Russia - where the oil production has been Nationalized. I just want to see Corporate tax rates of 35% be realized as they are on small businesses.
I'm not gonna quibble about the percentage of profits Exxon makes, hell I think its great (as a stockholder) and whether or not we pay $3.50, $3.75 or $4.50 a gallon is of little concern for me. BUT, as a loyal American that dutifully, and without reservation, pays my fair share of income taxes, I find Exxon making $47 BILLIONS in profit AND PAYING ZERO, REPEAT ZERO in taxes to the IRS a little over the top. Again our IRS tax laws need adjustment and I add that in addition to paying ZERO to the IRS they received a future benefit (read that as a credit against future taxes) of $156,000,000. For those of us still in the fact check mode, please consult page 92 of their SEC 10-K filing for 2009. This is why I suggested that perhaps Corporate taxes be based on Revenues rather than Profits; realistically not workable but what a way to be certain we collect SOME corporate taxes (it'd work for GE, Wells Fargo too since they paid NO IRS taxes either).
And in response to your reminder of "By the way, the average tax on a gallon of gas is $0.489/gallon." That's the tax you and I pay (not Exxon) to build and maintain the roads, mass transit etc.
I still say the solutions are easy, there just has to be some negotiation and compromise; not so easy as long as we keep electing the BOZO's that are in the pockets of Lobbyists that should represent US.
I'm not gonna quibble about the percentage of profits Exxon makes, hell I think its great (as a stockholder) and whether or not we pay $3.50, $3.75 or $4.50 a gallon is of little concern for me. BUT, as a loyal American that dutifully, and without reservation, pays my fair share of income taxes, I find Exxon making $47 BILLIONS in profit AND PAYING ZERO, REPEAT ZERO in taxes to the IRS a little over the top. Again our IRS tax laws need adjustment and I add that in addition to paying ZERO to the IRS they received a future benefit (read that as a credit against future taxes) of $156,000,000. For those of us still in the fact check mode, please consult page 92 of their SEC 10-K filing for 2009. This is why I suggested that perhaps Corporate taxes be based on Revenues rather than Profits; realistically not workable but what a way to be certain we collect SOME corporate taxes (it'd work for GE, Wells Fargo too since they paid NO IRS taxes either).
And in response to your reminder of "By the way, the average tax on a gallon of gas is $0.489/gallon." That's the tax you and I pay (not Exxon) to build and maintain the roads, mass transit etc.
I still say the solutions are easy, there just has to be some negotiation and compromise; not so easy as long as we keep electing the BOZO's that are in the pockets of Lobbyists that should represent US.
How much Exxon paid (or didn't pay) in taxes is a totally different subject from how much profit they made. However, whatever they (or any company) pay in taxes will be passed on to you and I, the consumer.
My comment regarding the tax liability of every gallon of gas was meant for informational purposes only. It was not meant as an indictment. I actually believe that this is one of the few taxes that is well placed.
My comment regarding the tax liability of every gallon of gas was meant for informational purposes only. It was not meant as an indictment. I actually believe that this is one of the few taxes that is well placed.
quote:How much Exxon paid (or didn't pay) in taxes is a totally different subject from how much profit they made
What they DIDN'T pay in taxes went to the shareholders and what they DIDN'T pay in taxes is what I want to see changed.
I believe we need a constitutional amendment that would tie the hands of our elected officials as it pertains to budgeting. Tax increases alone will not solve our problems. The federal goverment needs to drastically reduce spending in addition to any tax increases. I hope, but know that our elected officials on both sides of the isles will not live up to this. Here are the brutal numbers: Our federal budget is 3.73 Trillion dollars. Roughly 1 Trillion of this does not exist, leading to defecit spending. If we let the Bush era tax cuts on incomes of $250,000+ expire that would generate 829 Billion, so we are still 171 Billion in the hole. If we increased corporate tax rates by 20% we would still be in the hole by about 120 Billion. Let's assume all of these tax increases do not negatively effect the economy, although it most certainly would, the federal government would have to cut somewhere around 700 Billion per year from it's budget to erase the deficits and begin to pay back the 16 Trillion we owe. It would take us about 20 years to pay of the US debt at this rate. I only wish we had some elected offical with the intestinal fortitude to propose such a plan. Painful yes, but we need drastic spending cuts to go along with any increased taxes. Anything less is just prolonging the problem.
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory:
Do you think a Constitutional Amendment would do any good? The Constitution mandates a budget every year but there hasn't been one in four years.
Valid point. I think we need an amendment becuase no congress can bind future congresses, so even if we had a group of rational adults in and they passed commonsense budgets and laws, in 2+ years a future congress could undo the whole thing. Perhaps, as part of the amendment if congress and the white house failed to produce a budget all the law makers would not get paid, including thier staffs. Extreme, but I think we need something extreme if we are going to turn things around. If you ran a business like our federal government you would first be out of business and secondly be going to jail for accounting fraud.
Great points, we could also sell/lease the US Post Office and get rid of that burden.
quote:Originally posted by Art Post:
Great points, we could also sell/lease the US Post Office and get rid of that burden.
Great point Art. The US Post Office is a case study on how the government should not run a business. The post office has a failing business model and has failed to adapt. For one, the drop in documents being mailed becuase of e-mail. How did they not see that one coming. Secondly, charging the same rate regardless of where you are mailing to, across the town or across the country and they charge the same. I think they are legally bound to this policy, but it should be changed. Go to a tiered system,something like breaking the countryies into regions and mailing from one region the the next would cost you more. How about getting into the e-commerce software business to facilitate on-line bill paying to replace the loss of bills being mailed. The opportunties are endless.
Jrlz: I like your thoughts on how to solve the budget issues and if your number are correct and valid your solution would work with one small addition. You state letting the Geo Bush Tax Cuts expire and raise Corp taxes we could get to a shortfall of $120 Billion. I'd suggest that if we reduce the Defense budget by 16% Voila, balanced budget. Of course we could restrict the Defense spending to the TOTAL of the next five largest spending countries in the world and save over $300 Billion additional - that would hammer away at the debt too. I said it was easy but we need compromise; not so easy. US Postal Service privatized? Who'd deliver all that junk-mail in my mailbox?
the defense spending does a lot for the economy and their are many jobs attached to the spending, I fear a large cut will put many many civilians out of work, and not only the ones that work for the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines. Companies like Lockheed, GE, Tyco, etc.
The first priority needs to privatize the US post office and turn it into a profit center and get it out of the loss column.
Second cut foreign aid by 50%, let china spend their money and we'll keep a strong defense just in case.
Third, the frontier..... go back to the moon before the Chinese and mine for Helium 3 and other minerals and bring back home and sell to other countries for a profit. Empty the prisons and have them go to work and live on the moon and make money. Kinda like England did with Australia.
Go column by column and see where cuts can be made to BS programs that do not generate revenue for the government. Do not cut medicaid, social security and other programs the are needed in case you are disabled with sickness or injury.
Enact tougher laws to deal with those who defraud the government, and then send their asses to the moon.
EPA.....let them regulate the moon, just bring them under control and cut some of the red tape. Pollution in China in rampant, kinda glad we have the EPA but they are costing the US more dollars than they save.
Higher education give scholarships for new emerging technologies.
as Vince would say "that's my two cents"
The first priority needs to privatize the US post office and turn it into a profit center and get it out of the loss column.
Second cut foreign aid by 50%, let china spend their money and we'll keep a strong defense just in case.
Third, the frontier..... go back to the moon before the Chinese and mine for Helium 3 and other minerals and bring back home and sell to other countries for a profit. Empty the prisons and have them go to work and live on the moon and make money. Kinda like England did with Australia.
Go column by column and see where cuts can be made to BS programs that do not generate revenue for the government. Do not cut medicaid, social security and other programs the are needed in case you are disabled with sickness or injury.
Enact tougher laws to deal with those who defraud the government, and then send their asses to the moon.
EPA.....let them regulate the moon, just bring them under control and cut some of the red tape. Pollution in China in rampant, kinda glad we have the EPA but they are costing the US more dollars than they save.
Higher education give scholarships for new emerging technologies.
as Vince would say "that's my two cents"
I was in Arizona for a dealer meeting two years ago. Phoenix to Tuscon. I was very surprised by how much military I saw there alongside the touristy routes and remember thinking what a big impact it must have on the general economy.
It is crazy inefficent that the US Post office has to deliver on Saturdays. In rural Canada, a lot of people do not get mail delivery to their homes, they must go to a super mailbox with 20-50 individual mail boxes.
It is crazy inefficent that the US Post office has to deliver on Saturdays. In rural Canada, a lot of people do not get mail delivery to their homes, they must go to a super mailbox with 20-50 individual mail boxes.
quote:
It is crazy inefficent that the US Post office has to deliver on Saturdays. In rural Canada, a lot of people do not get mail delivery to their homes, they must go to a super mailbox with 20-50 individual mail boxes.
Not only that, but when I go the post office, I guess they put all of their intelligent people on the routes, cause most (not all there are some good ones) of the people inside are really really dumb and slow.
Art, dig a little deeper in your research of the USPS and you'll find that they DO NOT receive taxpayer money. The only reason they are financially in trouble is because Congress in 2006 required them to PAY FORWARD 75 years worth of Retirement and Medical benefits for future retirees to the tune of $5.5 BILLION per year for the next ten years (ending in 2016). Now I ask are FedEx or UPS or your dealership's Principals ORDERED to pay forward future retiree benefits for 75 years? Operationally the USPS turns a profit every year. Is there waste - sure there is but Congress is the problem. We call them lawmakers but what we need are fewer laws (take a year off WITH PAY, we'll even save money).
As for the Military Spending waste - how can we support the F-35 when the hours of maintenance vs. minutes of flight are calculated at present rates and we know the costs will go up - how can we support cost-plus contracts - where's the incentive to keep costs down? The F-35 is envisioned to replace MOST of the airframes we currently use (fixed wing) from the flying tank, the Warthog, to the F-22 Strike Fighter - just think about that for a moment - the F-35 is a failure now just like the F-22 was a failure when it went into production - pilots black out in the damn thing now.
We don't need more aircraft carriers and battle-groups to support them. We have over 550 foreign bases - Lets close them all down and bring our troops home - we don't need 10,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2014 - hell, they can't do anything now. How many thousands are there in Korea and Japan and Germany. Will employment be hurt?Not is we start rebuilding our infrastructure starting in Sandy's wake in NJ, NY and the NE. We can start repairing the railroad bridges and the old roadway bridges which keep falling down at regular intervals. We've got serious problems and absolutely NO LEADERSHIP in the Executive nor the Congress and now the damn Supreme Court is wasting time on immigration - who the hell cares - if we can just get the able bodied back to work in good paying jobs the the illegals can go back to being food service workers, vegtable pickers, hotel/motel maids and landscapers, like they've always been 'cause no one else wants those jobs. End of rant. Promise to not post on this subject again but don't tempt me. ;-)
As for the Military Spending waste - how can we support the F-35 when the hours of maintenance vs. minutes of flight are calculated at present rates and we know the costs will go up - how can we support cost-plus contracts - where's the incentive to keep costs down? The F-35 is envisioned to replace MOST of the airframes we currently use (fixed wing) from the flying tank, the Warthog, to the F-22 Strike Fighter - just think about that for a moment - the F-35 is a failure now just like the F-22 was a failure when it went into production - pilots black out in the damn thing now.
We don't need more aircraft carriers and battle-groups to support them. We have over 550 foreign bases - Lets close them all down and bring our troops home - we don't need 10,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2014 - hell, they can't do anything now. How many thousands are there in Korea and Japan and Germany. Will employment be hurt?Not is we start rebuilding our infrastructure starting in Sandy's wake in NJ, NY and the NE. We can start repairing the railroad bridges and the old roadway bridges which keep falling down at regular intervals. We've got serious problems and absolutely NO LEADERSHIP in the Executive nor the Congress and now the damn Supreme Court is wasting time on immigration - who the hell cares - if we can just get the able bodied back to work in good paying jobs the the illegals can go back to being food service workers, vegtable pickers, hotel/motel maids and landscapers, like they've always been 'cause no one else wants those jobs. End of rant. Promise to not post on this subject again but don't tempt me. ;-)
Chuck:
I agree with the 550 foreign bases, there is no need for that many. My son is to be deployed to Afganistan in June of 2013. Not one country has ever won in Afganistan, it is what is is a tribal nation that relies on growing poppy for revenue. It will be probably be the same in 100 years from now. There's not much we can do there, and the "mayor of kabul" does not have influence beyond the city limit.
As far as military, CHINA is building and will continue to build as long as they have revenue. We need to have strong deterrent to make sure that China does not want to dominate the world. History repeats it self and one day there will be another napoleon, hitler and mussolini along with the various other crackpots that have come and gone. I'm all for giving the military what it needs to maintain our way of life and yes we could have more money to sustain our advanced military technology if we closed half of the bases.
If we don't have strong military then someone else will and that someone else is CHINA. It may not happen in our lifetime but I'm sure one day it will. In 50 years China has doubled their population to almost 1.4 billion chinese, in another 50 years they could reach 2.8 billion that's a lot of people to feed and they as others will set their sites to maintain their way of life.
When it comes to illegals, the US turned a blind eye and let them come in for years without doing anything to stop the problem until it was too late. I've read some articles that stated that the US needed a cheap labor force and thus the reason for turning a blind eye. Now the problem is out of control.
Whatever way you slice it, the people in Congress, the Senate and the President all need to be locked in a building and not be allowed to take leave until they have solutions to the nations problems. If this were to happen I'm sure we would have a solution rather quickly.
Too many people want their piece of the pie in government and we as citizens let this happen for many decades because most of our countries population does not bother to vote except in a Presidential Election.
There needs to be a strong third party however neither the democrats nor the republicans will allow that to happen. Laws are made for the rich by the rich, because we don't hold them accountable. When was the last time an average joe made it to the whitehouse?
That's my rant for the night!
I agree with the 550 foreign bases, there is no need for that many. My son is to be deployed to Afganistan in June of 2013. Not one country has ever won in Afganistan, it is what is is a tribal nation that relies on growing poppy for revenue. It will be probably be the same in 100 years from now. There's not much we can do there, and the "mayor of kabul" does not have influence beyond the city limit.
As far as military, CHINA is building and will continue to build as long as they have revenue. We need to have strong deterrent to make sure that China does not want to dominate the world. History repeats it self and one day there will be another napoleon, hitler and mussolini along with the various other crackpots that have come and gone. I'm all for giving the military what it needs to maintain our way of life and yes we could have more money to sustain our advanced military technology if we closed half of the bases.
If we don't have strong military then someone else will and that someone else is CHINA. It may not happen in our lifetime but I'm sure one day it will. In 50 years China has doubled their population to almost 1.4 billion chinese, in another 50 years they could reach 2.8 billion that's a lot of people to feed and they as others will set their sites to maintain their way of life.
When it comes to illegals, the US turned a blind eye and let them come in for years without doing anything to stop the problem until it was too late. I've read some articles that stated that the US needed a cheap labor force and thus the reason for turning a blind eye. Now the problem is out of control.
Whatever way you slice it, the people in Congress, the Senate and the President all need to be locked in a building and not be allowed to take leave until they have solutions to the nations problems. If this were to happen I'm sure we would have a solution rather quickly.
Too many people want their piece of the pie in government and we as citizens let this happen for many decades because most of our countries population does not bother to vote except in a Presidential Election.
There needs to be a strong third party however neither the democrats nor the republicans will allow that to happen. Laws are made for the rich by the rich, because we don't hold them accountable. When was the last time an average joe made it to the whitehouse?
That's my rant for the night!
Art, I am a veteran of Vietnam conflict (USMC) and a member of Veterans for Peace. I've had three bumperstickers on my car since 2004, "Bring them home NOW", "...and this time take care of 'em when they get here" (custom made) and "Another Veteran against War in Afghanistan" - I wish your son well and hope he takes his glove (and a spare) and a bat and ball with him - that's diplomacy. Don't worry about China they've tried to get into Vietnam twice in recent years, they can't . . . it is not the same China army MacArthur fought.
My hat's off to you for serving, I was a few years to young for the draft.
I also served in the Army (but was never deployed) and am for a sensible cut in the military budget.
Heck, even the Defense department is for a cut in defense spending (they self-identified $136B of cuts that congress then failed to cut).
Seems those most eager to not appear "soft on defense" are those against the cuts.
Heck, even the Defense department is for a cut in defense spending (they self-identified $136B of cuts that congress then failed to cut).
Seems those most eager to not appear "soft on defense" are those against the cuts.
In June 2016, it must be embarrassing to be personally associated as a Republican. Donald Trump is so associated with vague taking points and un-veted out political positions that he cannot possibly win the general election regardless of how dumb his "favorite" Americans are.
I understand that American politics is based upon tribes that will always vote for their political affiliation but this election season will feature the permanent demise of the last eight years of the obstructionist Republican party.
Who could possibly vote for a party that knowingly and permanently damaged the credit worthiness of the USA?
Donald Trump's unfavorability level is at 70%, the highest since announcing his presidential campaign, according to a new poll out Tuesday.
According to the new Washington Post/ABC News survey, 7 out of 10 American adults have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican presumptive presidential nominee. That's a significant reversal from a few weeks ago when Trump's polling seemed to be trending upward. Just 29% reported having a favorable opinion of Trump in the new poll. Among Hispanic respondents, that number is 89% unfavorable.
The fact that the democrat and republican parties are essentially the same these days are an incentive to shake things up with Trump. The latest congress was elected to stop Obamas shredding of the Constitution, and they have done nothing. Might be time for a businessman to eliminate some of these massive federal agencies and put us on a more fiscally responsible track. Trump has stirred up a hornets nest with immigration, we cant continue to have open borders. The media propaganda machine and foreign donors will fight hard for their bought and paid for candidate Hillary.
Are you implying that the for the first time in many election cycles that the Republican/ NRA party will have less money to spend on media than the Democrats?
Fox, CNN, CBC, BBC, Reuters, CNBC, TSN
The world press is reporting great concern over the possibility that Trump could become President.
I checked Snopes.com on 7/6/2016. They have nothing on this but they are decidedly left leaning so they may never verify it. Here is where a large part of the National Debt is.
We all know this but need to be reminded! It's your and my dollar.
Just Perks?
Salaries for Personal Secretaries for the U.S.A. President's wives
This will get your blood circulating! Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.
Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:
Mamie Eisenhower:--- One-- paid for personally out of President's salary.
Total number of Personal Staff Members paid by Tax Payers.
Jackie Kennedy: -------One
Lady Bird Johnson-----One
Pat Nixon ----------------One
Betty Ford----------------One
Rosaline Carter: --------One
Barbara Bush: ----------One
Hilary Clinton: ----------Seven
Laura Bush: --------------One
Michele Obama: --------Twenty-two
Michele Obama's personal staff:
One.. $192,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
Two.. $160,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
Three..$133,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
Four.. $122,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Director of Communications for the First Lady)
Five.. $120,000 - Winter, Melissa (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Six.... $110,000 Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Seven.. $104,000 - Lilyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
Eight.. $95,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
Nine.. $90,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Project for the First Lady)
Ten.. $85,000 - Burnough, Erinn (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Eleven.. $84,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B.(Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Twelve.. $82,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
Thirteen.. $80,000 Fitz, Alan O.(Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
Fourteen.. $77,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
Fifteen.. $72,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
Sixteen.. $70,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
Seventeen.. $65,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
Eighteen.. $63,000 - Tubman, Samantha a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
Nineteen.. $60,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Twenty.. $56,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
Twenty-One.. $55,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
Twenty-Two.. $55,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
Total $2,075,200 in annual salaries -
all for someone we did not vote for and apparently have no control over.
5 are Muslim and 13 are African-American that's 18 out of twenty two .
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created
such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life.
This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One on all ALL Trips, Europe included.
As of 11/15/2015 the Obama Family has spent over 1.3 Billion dollars on personal family trips.
They were personal not political or Government related.
Copyright Canada Free Press:
Yes. The Canadian Free Press had to publish this, perhaps because America
no longer has a free press and the USA media is too scared that they might
be considered racist or suffer at the hands of Obama if any of them
published this