Best President for Podiatry
Started by spooge
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
The economy has a huge effect on how much $ people have and will spend on health care. Having a job also means having health insurance. The two issues of economy and podiatry are definitely not independent variables IMO.
In short, the Democratic presidents have made housing/mortgages into a govt project (see link in my sig), they made student loans into a govt project (see your tuition hikes every year), and Obama intends to make health care/insurance into a govt project. VAs are already are govt funded healthcare, but that's a small % of American healthcare and a whole separate patient population and different issue for obvious reasons.
Still, as you see over and over again, prices go up and greed comes into play (mortgage/banks/realtors, universities... now hospitals?) whenever government money, or govt controlled/influenced monies, get involved. The vast majority of docs are voting McCain next month, and with good reason IMHO.
...or are you just talking strictly podiatric scope of practice? That is basically a state-by-state, hospital-by-hospital issue. More battles must be won locally before it becomes a national issue IMO, and they will be won now that post-grad training is excellent.
I became US citizen this summer and will be voting for the first time in my life. iam not a republican nor a democrat. iam still deciding which side should i be voting.
but the most importnt issue is economy.it scares me. i dont know who to vote or what to decide. i guess there will be many people like me who are in this dilemma and confused. as far as i have heard or read, when bill clinton left the office there was a surplus and now in the span of 8yrs we all know what level we have come down to.
This is one factor which many people around me are asking to remember when i go to vote.
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
2
215512
You might want to watch the presidential debates. That helps you gain insight.
As a crash course on the American two party system (this is oversimplified and I have republican bias, but I'm trying to state it in general terms):
Democrats:
-tax the poor people less to keep money in their pockets, the rich ppl and businesses get taxed more since they can afford it
-MORE govt control (mortgages, student loans, health care, welfare, etc) will help the economy
-cut down on military/borders to increase education and tax breaks
-Dems are ProChoice, and for homosexual marriage being equal to heterosexual marriage
...You will find that most democratic voters are young people (broke, rebellious) and immigrants (typically fairly poor)... as well as some old people (who rely on social security and other govt funded programs).
Republicans:
-tax the rich equal % to the poor, tax the big businesses less to prevent them from cutting jobs/pay from employees
-beef up the military and secure the borders, but that might mean cutting education/welfare funds or giving fewer tax breaks/refunds
-Repubs are ProLife, and against homosexual marriage since they are not having their own kids and shouldn't get the same tax breaks
...Republican voters are usually working, middle aged people (don't want to pay more taxes to help the non-working), the active and retired military, and some older people (interested in vet benefits, national security, MediCare).
...This particular election year, also keep in mind that while Palin is a hardcore republican on most issues, McCain is not. His stance on many issues is waaay too liberal for some staunch republicans, and he was not originally predicted to get the party's nomination. McCain could've ran independent ticket, it was talked about, and he may have gotten 10-20% of the vote. As independent, you just don't get enough money or media attention, making it nearly impossible to ever actually win, though.
...From the standpoint of most practicing docs, it's usually an easy choice to vote republican for most elections. While the rising costs of medical technology causes both parties to cut Medicare, the republicans generally cut it less. Most/all docs are also high tax bracket, so they don't want dems "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" when they earned their money with hard work and lots of school.
Hope this helps... but watch the debates if you can - either live or on CNN replays (and keep in mind that CNN analysts are liberally biased). The candidate websites are pretty useless and actually very similar since they both just tell you what you want to hear and promise tons of stuff that might get votes.
Last edited:
If the economy continues as it is, the tide will affect all ships.
However, I don't own several homes or have more than $250,000 in my savings account.
If I was super rich I would be voting for McCain.
However the real question is should we be satisfied with the health care plan we have today or hope for change. If I am not mistaken, Obama plans to reform the healthcare system to provide more access to healthcare for those who currently (because of poverty) do not have access to care. So, as physians do we benefit when more people have access to care??
wow this was the best explanation i ever got. thanks feli.
Last edited:
republicans = deregulation, requiring less taxes
democrats = more regulation, requiring more taxes
we've experienced 8 years of President Bush...and what happened? we get the subprime mortgage backed securities..wth? lending institutions got more stupid and greedy and that's what went wrong. People with little to no credit were getting loan offers to buy houses......when people found it difficult to pay back their loans...the banks simply sold their debts to other banks. Eventually, someone had a brilliant idea to let stock investors buy the debts. Well the SEC allowed the initial public offerings...the securities were given grade AAA ...who the hell were in charge of the rating systems by the way?....and then we have nationwide foreclosures (i wonder why)...............the shareholders numbering in the bajillions got screwed.
Anyone who is concerned about their retirements or stocks should seriously reconsider mccain. General rule of thumb is, we need change every 8 years at most ...it's a cycle of redoing/undoing that keeps the citizens happy and that is our country's way of stability. I am not affiliated w/ any party but we need to change the status quo.
OBAMA For the win!!!!!!!!!!
democrats = more regulation, requiring more taxes
we've experienced 8 years of President Bush...and what happened? we get the subprime mortgage backed securities..wth? lending institutions got more stupid and greedy and that's what went wrong. People with little to no credit were getting loan offers to buy houses......when people found it difficult to pay back their loans...the banks simply sold their debts to other banks. Eventually, someone had a brilliant idea to let stock investors buy the debts. Well the SEC allowed the initial public offerings...the securities were given grade AAA ...who the hell were in charge of the rating systems by the way?....and then we have nationwide foreclosures (i wonder why)...............the shareholders numbering in the bajillions got screwed.
Anyone who is concerned about their retirements or stocks should seriously reconsider mccain. General rule of thumb is, we need change every 8 years at most ...it's a cycle of redoing/undoing that keeps the citizens happy and that is our country's way of stability. I am not affiliated w/ any party but we need to change the status quo.
OBAMA For the win!!!!!!!!!!
This thinking makes sense, but keep in mind that most mortgages are 30yrs, not 4 or 8yrs.^
IMO, our economy is largely experiencing the fallout of mortgages approved and signed long before George W. Bush ever took office. Click the link in my sig, google "Community Reinvestment Act", or search "Burning down the house" on YouTube (much effort has been made to get this video off the net).
...This will be a very interesting election, and it should be a close outcome. As I see it, Obama's entire campaign is based around convincing people that McCain is a carbon copy of Bush, that we need to leave Iraq, that McCain is against spending for what the country needs, and that "we need Change." On the other side, McCain looks to distance himself from Bush's low approval ratings while exposing Obama's relative inexperience, lack of practical answers, lack of military/security knowledge, and overall "ni-eva-tay" (a joke you might like if you watched the opening Sep26 debate). We'll see what happens...
2
215512
what are you saying by that?
2
215512
Other than a pay cut how can ANYONE not benefit from more access....isn't that the main reason we are all doing this? To HELP PEOPLE AS MANY AS POSSIBLE! Are you kidding me people even if we ARE making over 200K that is STILL not 250K for Obama's thing and don't tell me a 20K pay cut living on ONLY 180K would hurt anyone I mean come on there is too much greed in the upper echelon healthcare professions, It's pathetic.
👍 Completely agree with you there, buddy. But keep in mind that 250K or 180K that you hear about is net income...gross income for a lot of podiatrist run up to $500K excluding overhead.. so I can see the significance for high bracket people.
on a side note...
I find it hilarious that McCain's campaign is accusing Obama for lack of experience when he chose Palin as his running mate..Palin is next in line as commander in chief if McCain happened to catch a stroke or myocardial infarction if elected...the dude is pretty old. I'm sorry but Palin sounds ignorant as F*** ... I am highly concerned about the push for alaskan pipelines to reopen..wasn't alaska designated a national wildlife refuge? didn't they have a giant oil spill a few decades ago? Politics piss me off.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I don't know if this has been discussed already, but I'd love to see a politician who points fingers at insurance companies. They have to be making a killing of healthcare (and their lack of payments to anyone).
1) Commander in chief = military/defense/security issues
2) Those issues have little to do with podiatry, the topic at hand
3) Since you chose to bring it up, let's discuss it:
Obama is being criticized and questioned for lack of leadership experience and executive decision making, not overall lack of experience in politics. He is a great talker, speech, and campaigner. Nobody questions that, but he has been campaigning for the better parts of 2004, 2007, and 2008... I'd hope he's darn good at it.
In terms of national experience, Obama was in the US senate for not even six months before he declared himself a worthy candidate for the US presidency (and therefore, effective leadership of the free world, UN, etc). Six months. Wow. Sure, he had been on the Illinois state and chaired a committee there, but that is under the control of the Illinois govenor's executive leadership. The majority of his "years on the job" were as a part of a supervised team - not leading a team.
Obama has basically no viable military experience aside from a few PR visits to US Mid East bases in attempt to drum up some minority soldier votes. He has no extensive foreign policy experience aside from living in Muslim nations and other countries as a child (that makes him "understand" them 😉 ). Barack will state that he has "fought" for foreign relations issues as a US senator, but again, he was there for 6mo before he left on the presidential campaign trails.
The only thing Barack has truly "led" is his campaign to help him become president. Ask yourself what he did for you before running for president, and honestly, you won't come up with anything besides a few co-sponsored US senate bills: to raise taxes and spend tax money. Obama/Biden will try to tell voters that "Barack Obama saw the economic crisis coming" and "Obama never supported the war in Iraq"... HOW? He wasn't even a US senator when the initial concerns of mortages arose and when the Iraq war began. Did he send a few concerned emails or phone calls to the real US senators at the time? Really?
Palin is a first term govenor of Alaska, but she has also been a mayor for many years prior. Those are leadership positions; she was the leader of a city, then a state. She has also been doing her job for the last few years... not out shaking hands, appearing on Oprah, and campaigning like Mr. Obama. As a leader, Palin had to, and continues to, work on a budget, and she had to say "yes" or "no" to executive budget decisions, she had to prioritize - not just ask for money and adgendas. Last night, she debated with Joe Biden, a guy who has been on the US senate for 35yrs (that's 33 more than Obama for those keeping score at home), and she held her ground just fine. By some accounts, it was a "tie," and many accounts say she won the debate. It's pretty clear that she is not some ditzy, clueless, pushover IMO.
Keep in mind that the US president is the Commander in Chief of the US military. Both senior US senators on this year's presidential ballot, McCain, Obama's opponent, as well as Joe Biden, Obama's potential VP, have said this year that Obama lacks knowlege and experience in foreign relateions and he is not qualified to run the military. Obama blatantly misrepresented the US policy on terrorist nation diplomacy by misrepresenting former Secretary of Defense, Henry Kissinger, during the first debate. He was caught on it since Kissinger promptly responded and restated that endorsed McCain's views immediately afterwards.
...Palin? Well, she's probably not qualified to run the military and foreign relations either, but she has never claimed she was. She is not running for that position; the VP is not the Commander in Chief. Sarah Palin is stating that her presidential running mate, senator McCain, will be a great Commander in Chief. Obama will readily admit that his VP choice, senator Biden, knows more about foreign policy and the military than he does. Am I missing something here?
4) Strokes and heart attacks are not contagious to my knowledge. You "catch" the flu, not a MI.
5) The "McCain is pretty old" stuff is a joke...
The guy just turned 72, and that is not even the average US life expectancy for a male (a male getting average health care, mind you). The senator is in very good shape for his age. He suffered orthopedic injuries while in the military and was a POW many years ago, and that is why he has limited movement in his arm. There are obviously no lasting mental effects: the guy is very sharp witted and has been consistently re-elected for both Congress then Senate by Arizona, a very well educated state, during the last 15 years.
The guy had a diagnosed melanoma in 2000. Call the funeral home, right? Well, when you have dermatology, you will realize that melanoma can be a rapidly progressing cancer that, if becomes mailgnant, will kill you in a matter of months to years. Well, McCain's was excised, and it's 8yrs later. It was obviously caught in time, and I'm sure he is well monitored for re-occurances.
McCain released his medical records which clearly showed that he is in good heart and overall health... and the melanoma is an obvious issue of the past. Sorry, that "he might die in office" argument is absolute BS scare tactic. Dick Cheney should've died around 2001 or 2002 according to the 2000 Al Gore campaign, remember???
FYI, if you really care, Obama running mate Joe Biden has had two brain aneurysms. Who really cares? I don't. These guys are both experienced, respected senior US senators. They get the best possible healthcare and probably have a team of Harvard docs and fellows rounding on them weekly. They will be fine, and due to their service and importance to the nation, their life expectancies are pushed light years beyond your average citizen. Fair? Maybe. True? Definitely. End of story...
...As an aside to all young voters, truly ask youself why the democratic party sets up and sponsors "register to Vote for Change" booths on college campuses with free lunches, t-shirts, bumper stickers, registration forms (that they will gladly pay the postage/fax fees for). Ask yourself why they will give thousands of poor people at big city homeless shelters a free meal and a round-trip ride (in an Obama banner van) to the voting stations if they will register and vote. I don't see republicans doing anything like that. If Americans aren't educated/passionate on the issues and don't want to take initiative to vote without prodding and what essentially amounts to bribery... should those people really be voting on serious national issues? Just some food for thought. The republican party will certainly campaign and market their stance on issues, they seem pretty darn content letting the debates and their track records speak for themselves, and they let those who feel the need to vote cast their vote - without any sponsored "friendly help" or big money spent on "young voter education." Why is that?
Related: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=568512
Last edited:
Bottom line.
If you are a successful podiatrist, a Democratic leadership will take more of your money, Republican will take less.
Before everyone attacks me, I am making this statement based SOLELY on the subject of the poll, AND commenting on a doctor to doctor level. (read=money)
If you are a successful podiatrist, a Democratic leadership will take more of your money, Republican will take less.
Before everyone attacks me, I am making this statement based SOLELY on the subject of the poll, AND commenting on a doctor to doctor level. (read=money)
...
Isn't that ONLY if make $250K or more? Most pods are under (way, way under for their whole careers yearly income-wise) under $250K so Dems won't hurt them as much, correct? I think you need to be Republican only if you make over $250K and so most docs don't.
Hell, even guys like Warren Buffett (slightly richer than most docs, haha) are Dems. How does that figure? I've always thought of the Republicans as party-of-the-rich and Dems as party-of-the-poor, but now I'm not so sure. I'm half asleep as I write this, being up allnight, so if it makes no sense please excuse. 😴
Maserati, I like your passion, but you did nothing to tell me why Obama deserves to be president, esp Commander in Chief of the strongest military in the world. Therefore, you are doing basically the exact same things the Obama campaign does: try to pick apart McCain and Palin, criticize their past leadership records (and the records of the Bush administration), and say "we need CHANGE!" in a ton of advertising that is largely paid with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and media campaign contributions. There is reallly no part in which the Obama campaign offers viable solutions... they just offer ways to implement more govt services/control and spend taxpayer money. Peddling easy, expensive answers and trying to paint McCain as a carbon copy of Bush may work, it may not...
As I'm sure you are aware, it takes a bit more skill to actually make those tough decisions and to try and solve problems than it does to be the guy sitting back picking apart the decisions of the past. Monday morning quarterbacks are a dime a dozen, but Peyton Mannings are damn hard to find. It's much easier for a doctor to sit on a M&M board and explain how a surgeon failed than it was to be that surgeon trying to solve a tough case and save a patient's life/limb. Watch the debates, and I think it's pretty clear who is who: leaders versus talkers/critics.
I say again:
As I'm sure you are aware, it takes a bit more skill to actually make those tough decisions and to try and solve problems than it does to be the guy sitting back picking apart the decisions of the past. Monday morning quarterbacks are a dime a dozen, but Peyton Mannings are damn hard to find. It's much easier for a doctor to sit on a M&M board and explain how a surgeon failed than it was to be that surgeon trying to solve a tough case and save a patient's life/limb. Watch the debates, and I think it's pretty clear who is who: leaders versus talkers/critics.
I say again:
Last edited:
Income taxes are almost exactly the same under both parties. There are calculators widely available. Dems will cut the low income people a bit and raise on the high end. Republicans would also give people a tax rebate to buy insurance so that they have a choice of thier employer's plan offerings or picking and buying their own plan.
However, income taxes are a very small part of the picture. There are taxes on everything you buy: property taxes, sales taxes, investment taxes, ownership taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, congress, etc etc etc. The democrats implement a TON more government services: food stamps, student loans, health care, welfare, research, community development, world poverty funds, etc. That stuff is certainly not free. To make matters worse, nearly a third of the US population does not pay their taxes, so that means even MORE taxes for those who do work and pay taxes when you want all these govt controlled/funded services (that everyone, taxpayers and tax dodgers, will use).
More govt control = more overall taxes... plain and simple. kyprimevil stated this above.
If you are like me, you will also realize very fast that govt dollars and control make people pretty lazy... go take a look at government services (DMV, courthouses, social services, welfare, post offices, VA health care, etc etc etc). They are highly backlogged, and nothing moves fast (with very few exceptions). It's government dollars, and everyone is trying do the minimum, get their paycheck, and leave promptly at 5pm. Wages are based largely on just seniority, not performance, so you lose basically all incentive to put in effort. IMO, medicine, a US industry already short on docs and struggling to keep up financially, going in that direction will be a disaster... plain and simple.
Last edited:
"Most" is a pretty arbitrary word. I think there are quite a few pods who GROSS over 250.
Does anyone know if that $250,000 threshold applies to all filing categories? Those of us who are double income professionals and married-filing-jointly can surpass that amount pretty quickly. I thought I was paying a ton in taxes already with the Alternative minimum Tax! I care about issues other than income (environment, abortion, religion) though, so income is only a small consideration.
2
215512
2
215512
wow please tell me you actually don't believe these are bad things and should not be provided by the government for the less fortunate...good lawd
I don't mean to put words into Feli's mouth or act like he can't answer for himself (we all know that he can and does) but I don't think that is the point he was making. Those programs are probably all good programs. Feli was just making the point that they all cost money, and that the governments source of money is it's citizens (ie you and I). That means we end up paying for it and thus higher taxes. Whether or not these programs are good is a whole 'nother can of worms!wow please tell me you actually don't believe these are bad things and should not be provided by the government for the less fortunate...good lawd
2
215512
whether they are good or nto is not another can of worms it is in fact just a truth IMO but really if anyone thought they WERENT then hopefully someone with that personality would pick a different profession than healthcare....maybe law school for that person would be more appropriate
What I mean is whether or not government should pay for all the good programs in the world by raising our taxes is another can of worms. You're right, as I said, the programs are all probably good in principle.
i am more than happy to give a good share of my money in taxes if the govt promises me that it will be spending that tax money in the "Welfare of only and only United States Citizens and its legal residents".
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
😱
LMAO! Going back to the OP...i think he/she was referring to best president for scope of podiatry...as Feli has stated it is "a state-by-state, hospital-by-hospital issue."
Is there any reason why either president would be better for podiatry other than tax issues???
LMAO! Going back to the OP...i think he/she was referring to best president for scope of podiatry...as Feli has stated it is "a state-by-state, hospital-by-hospital issue."
Is there any reason why either president would be better for podiatry other than tax issues???
kmyprimeval said:
Yes:
Feli: said:
Why does reading different opinions in a thread, which hasn't yet turned nasty, make you freak out?
Feli - Yeah, I didn't give you reasons why I like Obama, (specific policies), but I can. To me, it matters less what a candidate HAS done for me, but who I think can do a better job FOR me in the future and implement policy that I agree with more. That being said, I think that if you can't find things wrong in BOTH parties, then your living on Mars. Fortunately, we're not choosing the perfect president; just the better candidate. Based on that, pointing out a candidate's weaknesses is fair game. So in response to my other response, here are the policies I like that Obama has talked on: (obviously no one can say whether EITHER party can enact all of their talking points):
1. McCain's website under issues: Wants to drill on the outer continental shelf for oil that won't be seen for 10 years. Not to mention that Palin will be on the forefront of taking Polar Bears off the endangered species list. MC wants $300M for research into hybrids; Obama wants $150B over the next 10 years.
2. Obama is proposing a $4000 university credit for student completing 100 hours of community service. On MC's website he has proposed NOTHING except following through with NCLB and trimming down the paperwork it takes to get a student loan. 🙄 The application process isn't that complicated. How can he help students get through school?
3. MC's website - right on top of human issues; reversal of Roe v. Wade. Obama does not support an overturn.
I can do this all day. Every policy. Republicans seem to think that people are blindly following Obama, with no background about the information. My previous post was in response to you what I perceived as your "theme;" that democrats shouldn't be out educating people and that republicans are fantastic. Of course I'm going to point out the bad when they are REALLY bad; such as pork barrelling.
Maybe she can build us a bridge to Hawai'i.
Last edited:
Of course I don't think welfare and social services are a bad thing. However, there must be a clear distinction between "less fortunate" and laziness. Personally, I fail to grasp how someone working for everything they own is "fortunate" while someone sitting at home, relaxing, and living on other taxpayers' welfare checks is "less fortunate." I don't get that.ThetsCHINAU1856 said:wow please tell me you actually don't believe these are bad things and should not be provided by the government for the less fortunate...good lawdFeli said:
Our country is in a lot of debt, and WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE. America was founded on "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and this country has succeeded in the past by putting in hard work and enjoying our constitutional freedoms. We cannot add more financial punishishment to those citizens who work hard in order to protect and reward those citizens who refuse to. Therefore, the 5 main things I want from my government are:
1) Protection from threats, domestic and abroad: police, fire, military, intelligence, DEA, disaster relief, etc.
2) Proper enforcement of national laws/rights: police, legal systems (criminal, corporate, etc), jails, etc.
3) Maintainence of public properties: roads, sidwalks, parks, streetlights, sewers, etc.
4) Assistance with that pursuit of happiness: education improvements in public libraries, museums, teachers/schools/universities, research, etc.
5) Temporary emergency fundings (this is more church activity, but govt plays a role): poverty funds, hunger funds, orphan funds, etc.
Obama looooves to quote JFK, a great American president whom I own two biographies on, but I think Barack sorely fails to grasp the famous speech/quote "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
I have no problem with military, civil servants, veterans, and lifelong American workers/taxpayers receiving sizable govt aid to help them go to school/work/doctors when they get back from combat or reach old age and desire a comfortable retirement. They are great Americans who served our nation, and some of them have protected our freedoms in the greatest way possible. They have asked what they could do for their country.
I do have problems with the American people who plug into the govt services and take, take, take with little effort to ever give back. There are millions of people who are able-bodied and could work hard and/or educate themselves, yet they choose the easy road and abuse government services and taxpayer dollars. This system has become an increasing problem, and more more citizens than ever before (esp those using the most govt services) do not pay their taxes. Another kid = another paycheck from the govt. More disability = a bigger govt paycheck. Those people repeatedly ask what their country can do for them.
Our country needs to stop pointing the finger at Bush, the lack of govt help, and the evil rich people. "Bad economy" my ass... I put in an app for a job last week and got a call to set up an interview just days later! Loans are readily available, but due to the real estate slump, it's just going to be back to where only qualified, trustworthy people with stable employment can get the loans. That's the way it should have been all along IMO.
FELI i know you are republican supporter and i believe you will be the best person to answer my question.
Based on my standing on language, border and culture, my friends say iam more inclinded to conservatives than to liberals. But economy is also an important issue to me.
Plzz dnt take my question in a wrong way, but plzz do answer:
Why should i vote for John Mccain, under whole parties 8yrs of rule or watch, our economy went so low. I know mccain disassociates with bush these days and he is a maverick so he might be a change. but people say Obama's party is known for better economics by giving example of Bill clinton leaving surplus and republicans bringing us down this level of debt. What example can you give to an independent voter like me apart from assurances that change is coming. I mean you know we are people of science and always rely of facts and support. The democrats always give me exampls of clinton era and say dont you want better years like those.
The republican policy sounds very awesome. low taxes, better business,etc but then what exactly happened in 8yrs. with all these golden policies shudnt we be making progress instead of going down the drain. :-( . Did the republican party got corrupt (as mcain says) or they lost track of their own golden ideals and gave up to temptations. And now whats the guarantee that they will run on their true party lines and not again collapse us? Are the republic polices hoax? or impractical in real world?
Plzzz help me out bro. iam very confused.
Based on my standing on language, border and culture, my friends say iam more inclinded to conservatives than to liberals. But economy is also an important issue to me.
Plzz dnt take my question in a wrong way, but plzz do answer:
Why should i vote for John Mccain, under whole parties 8yrs of rule or watch, our economy went so low. I know mccain disassociates with bush these days and he is a maverick so he might be a change. but people say Obama's party is known for better economics by giving example of Bill clinton leaving surplus and republicans bringing us down this level of debt. What example can you give to an independent voter like me apart from assurances that change is coming. I mean you know we are people of science and always rely of facts and support. The democrats always give me exampls of clinton era and say dont you want better years like those.
The republican policy sounds very awesome. low taxes, better business,etc but then what exactly happened in 8yrs. with all these golden policies shudnt we be making progress instead of going down the drain. :-( . Did the republican party got corrupt (as mcain says) or they lost track of their own golden ideals and gave up to temptations. And now whats the guarantee that they will run on their true party lines and not again collapse us? Are the republic polices hoax? or impractical in real world?
Plzzz help me out bro. iam very confused.
Last edited:
Do you wanna vote for the old guy who will keep us in Iraq until hell freezes over? Or do you want the man who is intelligent enough to realize its time for change and get the hell out of there. It's your choice. I don't think we will have much economic prosperity in the coming years as we are still bogged down in this useless quagmire. Just more soldiers killed and having the rest of the world increasingly hate us. And what will we get out of all this??? Definitely not low taxes.
Dude! dont say like that. thats scary. :-(
Obama wants to get out of Iraq only to go to Afganistan. Doesn't sound much better to me. Just pick your war front, because either way you are going to have one.
Cool-
Dems have been in control of congress since 2006...they have the lowest congress approval rating in history, only 8% of americans approve of their job. They have passed the fewest number of laws of just about any congress but have implemented things like "National Watermelon Day" and other bogus stuff. Also, notice how umemployment, etc. etc. did go south until the dems were in control.
Bush took over in 2000 with an unemployment % of 9.4 and he dropped it to below 4%. now it is shooting back up to 6 and 7%. Congress has a lot more control of the economy and those issues than the president does.
I'd take Afghanistan over Iraq. What the hell does Iraq have to do with 9/11 or terrorist attacks on the United States. If you didn't know Saddam, used to be an ally of America during the 80's Iraq/Iran War. However, he should have been taken out during legit gulf war in 1991...you know, the one most of the world supported. Father Bush failed on that one.
[/QUOTE]
I never said it had anything to do with it. Other than the fact that Iraq has known terrorists in their country. My stance is we should go to neither..pull out of Iraw safely and let's turn our attention to our own country.
We also helped bin laden back in the day also.
Bill Clinton said in 2000 or 01 that the most important thing he felt he had left to do was go after Bin Laden. Bill Clinton presided over the Trade Center 1, an embassy bombing, the USS Cole among other small scattered attacks yet he he decreased our military spending.
But anyways..
I never said it had anything to do with it. Other than the fact that Iraq has known terrorists in their country. My stance is we should go to neither..pull out of Iraw safely and let's turn our attention to our own country.
We also helped bin laden back in the day also.
Bill Clinton said in 2000 or 01 that the most important thing he felt he had left to do was go after Bin Laden. Bill Clinton presided over the Trade Center 1, an embassy bombing, the USS Cole among other small scattered attacks yet he he decreased our military spending.
But anyways..
"Bill Clinton said in 2000 or 01 that the most important thing he felt he had left to do was go after Bin Laden. Bill Clinton presided over the Trade Center 1, an embassy bombing, the USS Cole among other small scattered attacks yet he he decreased our military spending."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RLAKArfOe0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RLAKArfOe0
Great idea, lets pull out now that the tide is finally turning in a positive direction. Whether you agree with the reason for going to war or not our troops deserve the opportunity to finish the job and establish a democracy and an ally in Iraq. By the way those soldiers who are proudly serving in Iraq chose to enlist in the service of our country. Its funny to me how many people get caught up in what the rest of the world thinks and not whats best for America.
Things have became more positive with the troop surge, yes, I agree to that. I doubt there will be any more troop "surges" in the future though. The reasons for going to war in the first place, however, were either ridiculous or not even legit. Obviously the majority of the world agreed and still does. We just worked around the UN security Council to do our own thing.
WMD, seriously? It worked in the sense of scaring the shi* out of the American public, thats about it. Maybe we should focus more attention on nations such as Iran or North Korea, which have nukes or are attempting to build them.
Overall, I feel bush and those other republican assh*oles grossly underestimated what the American military needed in the beginning to "win" this conflict. What do we have, about 145,000 soldiers fighting other there, with very small amounts (in comparison) from other countries like Estonia, England, Georgia, etc. That is not much at all. 145,000 soldiers to "occupy" a country of 28 million??? 😴
The original gulf war had enormous amounts of Aid from Germany and Japan along with nearly 550,000 coalition soldiers, over 2000 fighter aircraft, etc. There was a legit reason for an invasion, as can be seen with backing by the UN and even Pan-Arab nations. If the United States was going to invade Iraq a 2nd time for whatever reason, at least do it right. Now we are SOL and it doesn't seem our military could afford focusing in on 2 different fronts. I cannot see things getting much better over there, with either McCain or Obama. At least with Obama, we will be out quicker and less soldiers and civilains will be killed for no true reason. Over 4,000 Americans killed and 4 million displaced Iraq's...along with $12 billion a month wasted. And damn, we are not even getting any oil out this either!!!
I come from a military family and they all think this war is a joke and a waste of human life and money. My parents were in the first gulf war, supported the cause, and were proud to serve in the American military. I am not a dove by any means, I support military action in necessary situations. I never saw the logic of this invasion (I can with Afghanistan). Do any of you care to explain it to me? If it is America attempting to rule out evil in the world, why are we not involved in Darfur right now? There is a legit genocide over there, along with a President who is charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and more. Al-Bashir makes Saddam look like a little puppy.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The root cause of the bad economy right now is real estate. Wall street is down since people ruined their credit by not paying their mortgages and aren't spending a ton right now. It's pretty plain and simple. The link in my sig explains this pretty darn well, and it's all true.
Real estate is like any other business: supply and demand. The values cycle every so often (usually a major cycle every 15-30yrs): prices go up, companies overbuild, prices lower back down, people buy (repeat the cycle). This has happened forever, and it will continue to happen. Right now, we are in a phase where prices are lowering (supply is high, prices are deflated due to overbuilding, not many buyers since there is too much supply, sellers can't sell).
A ton of loans were given out to people shaky employment, little education, and borderline credit. A big reason for this is that the government ("Community Reinvestment Act") had backed those loans in an effort to get poor people into home ownership; those mortgage companies probably wouldn't have borrowed to people who were such bad credit had the govt had guaranteed the loans. This is a prime example of where too much govt control messes things up IMO. Just look how much $$$ mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac donated to Barack Obama, and you will quickly see why he has about 10 times as many TV/radio/etc ads running right now.
Democrats stimulate the economy by spending a ton of money... welfare, education, health care, alternative energy, special interests, etc etc etc. They make money more available to low income people (ie the mortgages). Clinton did that, Obama would do it, all democrats do that. They also try to balance all that $ they spend by drastically cutting US national defense/intelligence funding.
"Change" that we need right now is less govt spending IMHO. The national debt is high since the real estate is down and the govt had to bail out the mortgage industry that the govt itself had set up for failure. More federal spending right now is crazy, and taxing people more during a bad economy also makes zero sense. That could further deflate the value of our dollars. Look at how much money Obama's plans cost.
👍
As for Iraq "issue"... it's not an issue at all. You can't abandon a fragile new government and a free people that you pledged to help free from tyrant dictators. It's called a "transitional government" for a reason. There are still many militant groups who do not want the US there, do not want the newly installed freedoms for the citizens, and want the old (dictatorship) government back. The US has been training the new government's military, and our soldiers have been warding off attacks from the militant rebel groups. If we leave before the new army/government is stable, we are leaving people to die. Literally. Bombing, kidnapping, etc attacks would occur against the new government if we leave before that government and its military is stable and able to protect itself. It's pretty damn presumptious for Washington hotshots (or posters in this thread) to say "out of Iraq" just to cut military spending when the US generals and soldiers who live and work in Baghdad or Karabala are saying that it's not safe for the free Iraqi people yet... there are too many militant rebels remaining. Well, war costs money, but we have to finish what we started and stay true to the Iraqi people who trusted us and desired freedom. Sorry.
Last edited:
One quick question: where does that $150B come from in a tough economy? Tack it onto the debt? Deflate the value of our currency and tax more? ding ding dingMaseratiGT said:
...The energy issue is a joke. US and foreign car companies are already making smaller cars, hybrids, electric cars, and developing that stuff on their own. What? Without govt help and control? I thought only Barack Obama could save the world from oil! That's crazy to say otherwise! NO, it's common sense:
The car companies are making hybrids and small cars due to simple public consumer demand. Gas cost went up fast, and gas guzzler cars have low demand. Well, gas is leveling out (and even dropping in price lately). However, if gas cost goes up fast again soon (and people fear it may), then basically only a few groups are going to want/need to afford the real gas guzzler vehicles: some rich people, the govt (buses, dump trucks, etc), and the military (don't exactly want to wait for electric tanks/jets/etc to charge up).
People are understandably nervous about buying gas vehicles, and they have seen reasons. For those reasons, the US free market is simply shifting the way Europe/Asia already have: smaller gas cars, more hybrids, carpooling, better public transport, etc due to increasing gas cost and increased demand for travel efficiency. In the future, oil could eventually get so expensive that true electric cars will become more cost effective, but right now they just aren't. Electricity doesn't just come without costs: you need powerplants to make electricity (coal, nuclear, etc powerplants), those power plants are still improving. Besides, charging those electric cars takes time, and they are just not real practical for long trips, cold weather, etc. Will they be better in the future? Who knows... that research $ probably won't be explored much by auto makers until the cost of electricity drops, hybrid fuel costs rise, and true comsumer demand arrives for electric cars.
I honestly see something like this (in the US... Europe is ahead of our timeline, most of the rest of the world is behind):
1950-2010: gas cars dominate sales
2011-2030: hybrids gradually take over and dominate sales (gas gets too expensive for most ppl... military still needs it)
2031-2050: more/better nuclear plants make electric powered cars most effective for short commutes, hybrids for long drives
2051-?: who knows
Right now, we are just entering the midstage of hybrids or economic gas cars. And, as usual, we did it without govt control... just supply/demand and letting businesses/consumers dictate the market. Obama commercials do the best they can to convince you that the sky is falling, but you will actually be quite suprised how well an educated and free country/economy can function with minimal government intervention. There are always "good times" and "bad times" in any economy when supply and demand get imbalanced, but the markets always correct for the same reasons they went awry. Relax people. Learn some history, and you will see that the real estate cycles, trends away from certain products (black and white TVs, cassette tapes, gas cars, etc) are nothing new. It's all supply and demand... economics 101.
http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/run_out_of_oil.htm (great article... a bit dated, but the principles definitely hold true today: we will run on oil until it becomes more expensive than other practical resources)
Last edited:
In all fairness, Feli, you are entitled to wax philosophic about economic, but in the future please do so over a beer with your personal friends. Don't provide rather ignorant economic insight into the current state of affairs. It's great that you vote for the GOP. However, our current mess is monstrous. The DJI dipped below 10K for the first time in years today. This is way more than a "bad" time. If you want to live with your head in the sand please do so, but don't place too much faith in the free market. Our capitlist society is inherently governmentally controlled, ever hear of the FED? Have you ever noticed how much a FED rate change can affect the market? Have you noticed the bailout of banking giants lately? Some free market we've got here. Lastly, do you think that most of the research for new pharmacological agents comes from big pharma, or is it the govt that provides almost all the funding for new drugs? It really seems like someone is taking it in the ass without the courtesy of even a reach-around with regards to how funding from the govt flows into the free market to ensure that the economy stays strong. Next I suppose you'll try and tell us all that the we have a free market in the health sector. Seriously, stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. If we want new mass transit, roads, or whatever infrastructure we have to pay for that and that involves spending money, specifically TAX MONEY. I am not a socialist by any means in case you were wondering.
Hey! Feli, whats the stand of the candidates on this OUTSOURCING ISSUE. I did a summer tour of south east asia. visited bombay, delhi, singapore,etc and oh my god these places have changed like 10000 times in last 5 yrs. Every guy on the road in these cities have jobs thanks to outsourcing. their economy is getting vibrant while our workers in heartland are suffering.
Whats the stand of the two candidates on this topic.
Unfortunately, you can't really stop companies from buying materials/products/labor from foreign nations. We can tax imported goods, but that still does fairly little since the cost of goods/labor/materials is just sooo much cheaper in some other nations that have low/no minimum wage laws. That is largely why factory assembly workers, farm workers, telephone/internet customer service reps, etc are often outsourced...
...Both US political parties essentially agree that students/immigrants who are allowed to enter should have promise or needed skills that will help America. However, as a free nation, we will generally try to assist people fleeing communist nations (Cuba, Korea, etc) and may grant them US resident status. While both US parties give lip service to borders and immigration control, the republicans are generally more strict and will focus significantly more funding on those issues than democrats will, though.
IMO, US citizens should try to buy domestic products (cars, clothes, etc) as often as possible to keep the economy strong. It's just common sense to keep our money here (this is also why war is costly... not only the costs of fuel and technology... but also troops spending US$ abroad). In the last 20yrs, the increase in US foreign car owners and the marketing tricks of foreign autos (Toyota, Nissan, etc) that are "assembled in the US" has been really hurting our economy because a car/truck is a major investment that the majority of American adults will purchase at least a few of in their lifetime. However, interest in domestic hybrid vehicles may help the US auto industry recover, so our technologies may overcome cheaper labors abroad.
"Buying American" doesn't mean that you have to settle for subpar products or rediculously expensive products, and outsourcing some cheap, unskilled labor is really not the a terrible thing so long as the US keeps its citizens educated, skilled, and working hard. We can outsource some cheap unskilled labor as long as other countries need to keep buying our expensive skilled labor. US engineers, doctors, PhDs, etc are always in demand all over the world - for both the innovative technologies they create and the services they provide. For example, you will see that US engineers are hired for high high salaries to teach mid east countries how to use their resources, but a foreign trained MD who wants to practice in the US is questioned and must pass our boards, prove his credentials, etc.
...In the end, I think the US economy will be just fine regardless of who wins this election, and even someone who is naive on foreign/military policies won't start WW3 since there are just too many checks and balances in place within the US government (secretaries, cabinet advisors, congress, depts, military politics, etc). You will notice that all the "issues" (war, economy, etc) always become much more pressing and critical around election time. It's a media circus, and esp when the outgoing president was a republican, the TV/print news companies (mostly democratically biased) will tend to make mountains out of molehills.
In the long term, the US is the biggest exporter of food in the world, the US has plenty of clean fresh water, and an educated+literate population that will continue to develop innovative technologies (efficient farming, clean energy, military, etc). Fortunately, we also have a very strong army to protect our resources - unlike some other major food exporters like (Australia, Canada, etc) who you may see under pressure from starving nations' military forces in the fairly near future. Many parts of the world are getting overpopulated. You can't drink oil and eat money when your rivers are dried up and polluted and food exporting nations no longer have enough to sell. Overpopulated eastern "new superpowers" like China are pretty much mirages IMO... they have glaring overpopulation, pollution, human rights, and education issues that the US is just not facing to any great extent. We are very fortunate. If our economy was ever in critical danger, we could just raise food prices, but we try to avoid that since it would cause starvation and possibly wars over food.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/business/worldbusiness/30trade.html
Last edited:
