Obama v. McCain

[coldweatherblue]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

The short answer is that if that program IS implemented, then WE pay. You think Obama cares if medical students/resident physicians ultimately pay more and pay longer for HIS plan? NO, but you should!

Yeah, this is what scares me the most after reading Obama's health-care plan.

I can see the government in 7-years once I'm out of residency cutting physician income to 1/2 while offering no sort of loan forgiveness. We would be the generation of med students who got the highest tuition rates, 6.8%+ interest loans, and lowest ultimate compensation. Maybe after the plan is implemented medical education would be slightly subsidized, but I doubt that would account for those of us who payed for everything with loans then got screwed after graduation. Cheers. 🙄

 

[pgg]

You'll never be happy with McCain or Palin of course.

In this thread, I've stated my opinion that (a) McCain has been badly outcampaigned by Obama, and that (b) picking Palin doesn't help him pick up the electoral votes from swing states.

McCain is a good American and I'd be happy to have him as President. That said, Obama's going to win.

 

[badasshairday]

Until the Republicans and their supporters finally acknowledge their guilt in the travesties of the last 8 yrs, I cannot vote for them.

The Republicans are running against the Washington "elites", wasteful government spending, terrorism, and ineffective governement. All things that THEY are responsible primarily for! They broke Washington. They caused spending to increase greater than Clinton could have imagined, while DECREASING government revenue to do it. Who do you think is going to pay for it??? I though Republicans were good at business? Shouldn't they be the ones telling us this massive debt with high interest should be a problem? They did just about everything in their power to strengthen Al Qaida. They couldn't find Bin Laden. They tortured mostly innocent or low-tier combatants doing little but getting bad information and ruining any idea the the USA is a special nation. They ignored all the preparations and warnings from the Clinton adminstration with regards to an impending attack that became 9/11. They are mostly wealthy, white people who control everything (sound like "elites" to me). They voted and supported Bush TWICE!!! How can anyone think that the same idiots who did all of this finally saw the light and will all the sudden be smart, efficient legislators providing the most cost-effective government since... Clinton. Oh yeah, and McCain ultimately supports most of it!

Again, if the dollar is worth dirt and our economy is in the toilet, why do a few extra bucks in our pockets mean anything? McCain's health plan will not do anything for the uninsured (oh, but you'll still have to treat them, of course) and will likely increase the amount of government coverage of those currently covered by employers. Obama's won't cover everyone, but has the potential of covering most people and you will get paid for for taking care of them! Obama will raise your taxes, but if McCain doesn't, our country will contine to slide towards insolvency.

Oh yeah, NOBODY has mentioned making doctors employees of the government. I don't know why this keeps coming up. There are only a few truly socialized systems in the world (Great Britain is one) where the government owns the hospitals and employs the physicians. This is not in the plan of anybody advocating for universal coverage in the US. It's just not.

So true. They can't even admit that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. They have been flushing 10 billion dollars a month down the toilet. McCain still thinks he is right about Iraq which is ridiculous to me. He just doesn't want to fess up to the fact that he was wrong.

Second, the point you make about the massive spending while reducing revenue is important. We eventually have to pay it back, or just watch our dollar continue to go to s hit. The extra couple of bucks you make won't matter because the dollar will be worth dirt.

Sure McCain may trying to act like an old school fiscally responsible republican, but please own up to the fact that the GOP fcked up majorly in spending. They lead by example showing Americans to spend money they don't have... Housing bubble anyone? Americans with bad credit? Our freakin governement has the worst credit, China owns us. Because of these reasons, I just cannot vote for the candidate the GOP puts out.

 

[BLADEMDA]

So true. They can't even admit that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. They have been flushing 10 billion dollars a month down the toilet. McCain still thinks he is right about Iraq which is ridiculous to me. He just doesn't want to fess up to the fact that he was wrong.

Second, the point you make about the massive spending while reducing revenue is important. We eventually have to pay it back, or just watch our dollar continue to go to s hit. The extra couple of bucks you make won't matter because the dollar will be worth dirt.

Sure McCain may trying to act like an old school fiscally responsible republican, but please own up to the fact that the GOP fcked up majorly in spending. They lead by example showing Americans to spend money they don't have... Housing bubble anyone? Americans with bad credit? Our freakin governement has the worst credit, China owns us. Because of these reasons, I just cannot vote for the candidate the GOP puts out.

You make some solid points. Bush messed a lot of things up. But, McCain is NOT Bush and he is the real deal. In fact, McCain is more like a moderate Democrat than a right-wing Republican.

Obama is empty promises with higher taxes. We have seen this before in the late 1970's with Jimmy Carter. Carter had many of the same themes as Obama. But, many don't want to study history and learn from it.

Clinton was a moderate Democrat and CUT taxes. THat is why the economy did so well. McCain will be forced to compromise on the tax issue and many other issues. He has a long history of working with Democrats well.

Obama will toe the Liberal line and raise taxes along with federal spending. I will pay tens of thousands more in taxes for government waste. The war will end the exact same time no matter who wins the White House so don't count on Obama saving ten billion a month too soon.

I nthe end it comes down to whether you believe in LESS GOVERNMENT or MORE GOVERNMENT in our lives. I would rather keep more of my own money than give it to the government to waste. Yes, we need to balance the budget but the primary way to get there is decrease government spending.

My vote is 100% for McCain. In the end "Country First" may yet prevail.

Blade

 

[Southpaw]

now here's an article that really makes sense (if you're a Libertarian or care to know more about it):

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/02/jillette.presidency/index.html


Penn Jillette

Obama and McCain both promise a government that will watch over us ... "I don't like that," says Penn Jillette.

(CNN) -- Everyone I talk to seems to think the president of the United States right now is stupid.

The Bush presidency is stupid speeches, stupid high gas prices, stupid bad economy, stupid war on terrorism, stupid war on drugs, stupid hurricane fixing, stupid global warming, stupid war -- stupid, stupid, stupid.

They all seem to think we need to get a smarter guy in the White House fast, and Bush is so stupid, that task shouldn't be too hard.

Not me.

I'd like to say that I believe every president in United States history, including the stupid one we have now, is smarter than me. My alma mater is Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Greatest Show on Earth Clown College, so I'm damning with faint praise, but I'm stupider than this here stupid president.

Maybe I'm less stupider than Bush than I'm stupider than Jefferson. But I'm stupider than all the stupid in both of them put together.

The idea, especially from the Democrats that I know, is, we just get a smarter guy in the White House, and all the problems will go away. We'll have smart speeches, smart high gas prices, smart bad economy, smart war on terrorism, smart war on drugs, smart hurricanes, smart global warming, smart war in Georgia -- smart, smart, smart.

Barack Obama is way smarter than Bush -- so way, way smarter than me. Obama is way more charismatic than me. He did his big speech for about 80,000 people; I'll do my show tonight in Vegas for about 1,000 people. He's more ambitious than I; he's going to be the next president of the United States, and I couldn't even get to week three of "Dancing with the Stars."

Obama is a great leader. He can fire people up and get them to do what he wants. He does smart speeches that promise everyone everything they need and make us feel good about our country and how much greater our government could be.

But I don't think our next president being a great leader is a good thing.

I'm worried about someone smarter than Bush taking over that tremendous power. Charisma and ambition increase my fear exponentially, and a great leader scares me to death.

We need someone stupid enough to understand that the president of the United States can't solve many problems without taking away freedom and therefore shouldn't try. The only reason John McCain scares me a little less is because I think he's a little less likely to win. They both promise a government that will watch over us, and I don't like that.

I don't want anyone as president who promises to take care of me. I may be stupid, but I want a chance to try to be a grown-up and take care of my family. Freedom means the freedom to be stupid, and that's what I want. I don't want anyone to feel my pain or tell me to ask what we can do for our country, or give us all money and take care of us.

Gene Healy at the Cato Institute explains that the Founding Fathers wanted the president "to faithfully execute the laws, defend the country from attack and check Congress with the veto power whenever it exceeded its constitutional bounds."

That sounds like plenty to me. You gotta be smarter than me to do all that, but you don't have to be as smart as Obama, and you sure don't have to be a great leader.

Our first seven presidents averaged a bit more than three public speeches a year, and they didn't promise jobs for everyone, day care, dental exams and free stuff.

It's really hard to find someone who trusts Americans to take care of themselves and each other without government force. It's hard to find someone running for president who would be content to be what George Washington humbly called the "chief magistrate."

I think Ron Paul and Bob Barr mean it when they say they want much smaller government. But the government is already big enough, powerful enough and bipartisan enough (and "bi" means exactly two and no more) that Ron and/or Bob won't even be in the debates. People won't even hear someone suggesting that our president should do less and individual citizens should do more for themselves.

The choice shouldn't be which lesser of two evils should have the enormous power of our modern presidents. The question should be, who would do less as president? Who would leave us alone?

If we could find a lazier, less charismatic, stupider person than me to be president, I'd be all for it. But, it's not going to be easy; stupider than me is rare breed.

So remember, the only way to waste your vote is to vote!

 

[nsx]

[Obama] states he only wants to raise taxes on the top 5% income earners. While I believe this is inherently a socialist concept and disagree with it, I also see he will raise corporate taxes. I must ask you then, who do you really believe pays corporate taxes? Let me put it another way. Let's say Obama raises taxes on Exxon. You think Exxon really cares? Heck no, they'll simply pass that increased taxation onto their customers, which are you and I, and they'll charge us more. This is why increasing corporate taxes is a Democrats way of hiding the fact that they're increasing spending for the lower-middle class, who they claim to protect.

THANK YOU! GOOD GOD, it blows my mind how few people realize this. Everyone here can't stop talking about how Obama is the next freaking Peter Pan. Guess what genuises, the money's gotta come from somewhere! Democrans and Repulocrat platforms this year aren't any different than they've always been. The puppet on the left will increase taxes and increase waste, and the puppet on the right will decrease taxes and increase waste. Personally I'm going to projectile vomit, keep managing my money better than 230985 layers of red tape can, and keep claiming more exemptions on my W-4.

 

[Tenesma]

Obama wants to raise tax ONLY on the top 5% ... that is basically anybody who earns more than 150k/year....

that same group of people is responsible for 60% of income tax revenue...

hmmm....

 

[SleepIsGood]

Check out the Obama vs O'Reilly debates on Foxnews.com or even on youtube.com


O'Reilly really does a number on Obama. You get to see the 'unscripted' Obama.

 

[Josh L.Ac.]

The Daily Show reminds me why I have a DVR:


http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card



A youtube version (because I don't know to embed video from the daily show website):

[YOUTUBE]YMiUAcEJY98[/YOUTUBE]

 

[coprolalia]

Yeah, so much for Palin draggin' him down...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx

-copro

 

[KNC]

Yeah, so much for Palin draggin' him down...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx

-copro

Aren't these polls done by telephone? I am going to guess 30% of americans especially young americans dont even have a land line ( which is need to pull a poll from the telephone book), they use their cell phones as their home phones......that poll tells us nothing!!! Do you know anyone that has been called and asked who they are going to vote for? I haven't and I don't know anyone who has.......

 

[pgg]

Yeah, so much for Palin draggin' him down...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx

-copro

Give caribou barbie time ... she's been on a short leash since the convention. 🙂

I'll concede you're right when the electoral college polls show a swing. Obama's still got a sizable lead there.

Here's another, that shows a somewhat narrower lead for Obama. But the biggest things to take away from this list of state polls are

• Obama is ahead in EVERY state that Kerry won in 2004
• Bush won in Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa; Obama is ahead in all three (by 9 points in Iowa)
• States that Bush won by landslides in 2004 are close this year, eg Bush won Indiana by 20 points, McCain is ahead 4 - Obama may well pick up a couple of these, too
• McCain has picked up absolutely nothing since 2004

It appears, even today, despite the bump from the RNC, that Obama will pick up 3-5 states that Kerry & Gore both lost; in contrast, there are NO states that McCain is now winning that Bush lost. This has obvious implications for the electoral college count.

It wasn't that long ago that some schmuck won the popular vote but lost the election. I don't doubt that Palin will help McCain win by larger landslides in red states - but swing states are the ones that will decide the election.

 

[usnavdoc]

Aren't these polls done by telephone? I am going to guess 30% of americans especially young americans dont even have a land line ( which is need to pull a poll from the telephone book), they use their cell phones as their home phones......that poll tells us nothing!!! Do you know anyone that has been called and asked who they are going to vote for? I haven't and I don't know anyone who has.......

You are correct. But you were also correct a week ago when Obama was slightly ahead and a week before that when they were dead even. The point is that whoever they poll the percent has shifted somewhat.

I, however wouldnt put much stock in this poll due to the timing. There are always bumps in precentage points after the conventions.

 

[Doctodd]

Stop here. A government-run, national health care plan. Can anyone here think of one thing that the government does with OUR money that is cost-effective and efficient? Yet, here when a candidate admits that he WILL further expands government's grip on health care, future physicians sign up.

Let me put it this way, look at Medicare. Outside of academia, more and more physicians are REFUSING to accept Medicare because they can't run a business with its payment structure. This trend is only increasing. And if you further expand government's stranglehold on health care then 40 years down the road we will be no better off. How do I know this? Well we have proof, with each and every program that government implements, it gets bigger over time and less efficient, costing taxpayers more and more money with less and less return. Please...tell me why in the world anyone with any sense would think that this trend will change with this supposed program?

If you support Obama, you support a program that says government should tell a physician what income they should make. This is wrong on so many levels it shouldn't need discussing.

Im not sure what state you live in or what you know about a private practice and how medicare affects it, but i love medicare. The turnaround time for me to get paid for my work is great(2-3 weeks), but that makes it easy to defraud if you are a DME company or a doctor who only wants to be around for 2 years. It takes MC about 2 years to uncover if you are doing something wrong, and they will bite. MC has teeth.

Most of the wealthy people in South Florida including snow birds have medicare. That says alot. I am NOT in favor of commercial insurances continuing to see record profits. If i believe in anything, it is that Medicare is usually fair. While commercial insurances are NOT. My only sympathy for commercial insurances is that hospitals can charge them whatever they want, and that is where the cost of healthcare is a problem in my opinion. But we need hospitals, so it isnt an easy answer. Example....today i saw a patient who brought me a hospital bill. The hospital billed about $7000 for an outpatient pain procedure. This was the facility fee only. MC paid them $398. The doctor will probably make the same thing(about $300) for about a $4000 bill. If that patient had insurance like UHC or BCBS, the hospital would have made about $2000. On the other hand, the doctor would have made a little less than MC paid him.

 

[Doctodd]

Social Security and the Postal Service are excellent examples. Both run extremely efficiently and do their job cheaper than any private company could. Medicare has it's issues with physician pay, but it pays hospitals very well.

You may need to rethink or at least enlighten us as to how MC pays hospitals "very well". See my post above. I can only recall pain procedures as to how they get reimbursed, but you can check your grandmother's bill to see for yourself. I think the hospital gets paid fairly, or slightly less than fairly.

 

[Doctodd]

what do you guys think about more taxes on gasoline for the consumer like they do in Europe? Not diesel so that the price of milk wouldnt go up. It would force us to drive smaller cars, help with pollution, etc. Just a thought.

 

[coprolalia]

Give caribou barbie time ... she's been on a short leash since the convention. 🙂

Yeah, she's actually generating twice the crowds when she speaks that even McCain is. So far, she's weathered the scrutiny quite well, IMHO, away from McCain's protective wing. She's got that certain "likeability" and buzz that none of the other three contenders currently has. She's effectively stolen Obama's thunder. And, she's getting all the press attention right now. All I have to ask is, "Joe who?" As W.C. Fields once said, "Talk good about me, talk bad about me, just talk about me."

I bet Obama is kicking himself on a daily basis for not picking Hillary as his running mate. It would've been a slam dunk for the Democrats.

-copro

 

[powermd]

To the folks who run around like chicken little upset over Obama's plan to tax you an additional 4% on income you make over $250,000, I have a constructive question for discussion:

What is YOUR idea of a fair system of taxation?

I suspect that some of you think we wouldn't need much tax money if the government simply shrank by some large percentage. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if the government actually addressed in a thoughtful way some of the serious problems our country faces.

 

[usnavdoc]

To the folks who run around like chicken little upset over Obama's plan to tax you an additional 4% on income you make over $250,000, I have a constructive question for discussion:

What is YOUR idea of a fair system of taxation?

I suspect that some of you think we wouldn't need much tax money if the government simply shrank by some large percentage. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if the government actually addressed in a thoughtful way some of the serious problems our country faces.

but in reality you are just going topay more for the same BS we have now. Id have no problem if education, health care, and infrastructure were dramatically improved over what we have now but that wont happen.

I think that we should all pay the same regardless of income. Eliminate waste, fraud, and foreign assistance(including military assistance) as a means to curb debt.

Anyway I dont pretend tohave any answers but when 50 % of your income goes to the govt and you still have failing economy, health care, education, and infrastructure something is wrong.

And this transcends political parties. This is an issue that has occured over the last 50 years.

 

[huktonfonix]

And that is why although there are some faults with it, the flat tax suggestion was a decent one. It forces everyone to pay equally. It taxes those who are here illegally. It would also make people think twice about spending for unneeded luxuries (I recall someone posted an example once about a family complaining about paying for basic medical care for their child, while wearing brand new nikes, jewelry, and driving off in a lexus or caddy or something). I would gladly pay my taxes in this fashion rather than just giving more money to the government to essentially subsidize people who wont help themselves.

 

[ZoidbergMD]

And that is why although there are some faults with it, the flat tax suggestion was a decent one. It forces everyone to pay equally. It taxes those who are here illegally. It would also make people think twice about spending for unneeded luxuries (I recall someone posted an example once about a family complaining about paying for basic medical care for their child, while wearing brand new nikes, jewelry, and driving off in a lexus or caddy or something). I would gladly pay my taxes in this fashion rather than just giving more money to the government to essentially subsidize people who wont help themselves.

I think you mean the Fair tax. (Flat tax is X% for everybody that pays taxes, illegals or tax dodgers don't pay)
I like the Fair Tax idea, it makes those who wish to spend frivilously in our self-indulging culture to pay more. However, the negative side is, it might hurt consumerism a little bit.
For more info go to www.fairtax.org

 

[starsop93]

I think you mean the Fair tax. (Flat tax is X% for everybody that pays taxes, illegals or tax dodgers don't pay)
I like the Fair Tax idea, it makes those who wish to spend frivilously in our self-indulging culture to pay more. However, the negative side is, it might hurt consumerism a little bit.
For more info go to www.fairtax.org

There are two key reasons why any Flat Tax/Fair Tax will never happen. Number one is that tax deductions essentially have to be eliminated to keep it revenue neutral. This means all those rich people will have to pay taxes on EVERYTHING, which they sure as hell won't like. Second it is essentially a massive tax increase on the middle and underclasses. Good luck getting them to vote for it either. It sounds great to the people on this board who are overwhelmingly going to make a good income and have little money in investments at this point, but it won't sound good to just about anyone not in that kind of subgroup.

 

[reiterin]

I think you mean the Fair tax. (Flat tax is X% for everybody that pays taxes, illegals or tax dodgers don't pay)
I like the Fair Tax idea, it makes those who wish to spend frivilously in our self-indulging culture to pay more. However, the negative side is, it might hurt consumerism a little bit.
For more info go to www.fairtax.org

Yes, I was going to say this. Check out the FAQ on Fair Tax. I LOVE the Fair Tax, and wish we could implement it.

 

[Southpaw]

Im not sure what state you live in or what you know about a private practice and how medicare affects it, but i love medicare. The turnaround time for me to get paid for my work is great(2-3 weeks), but that makes it easy to defraud if you are a DME company or a doctor who only wants to be around for 2 years. It takes MC about 2 years to uncover if you are doing something wrong, and they will bite. MC has teeth.

You're right....I have no personal experience with Medicare. But I do know of many, many primary care physicians who no longer accept Medicare because of reimbursement issues (decreased reimbursement, lengthy period of turnaround time, etc.). It might be great for you, but it's failing many others.

 

[predodoc]

There are two key reasons why any Flat Tax/Fair Tax will never happen. Number one is that tax deductions essentially have to be eliminated to keep it revenue neutral. This means all those rich people will have to pay taxes on EVERYTHING, which they sure as hell won't like. Second it is essentially a massive tax increase on the middle and underclasses. Good luck getting them to vote for it either. It sounds great to the people on this board who are overwhelmingly going to make a good income and have little money in investments at this point, but it won't sound good to just about anyone not in that kind of subgroup.

I dont think it would tax the middle class any more. What does the middle class pay now like 30% of their income. As long as the fair tax is set below that they will make more money. Maybe the lower class might hurt a little but think about illegals and people not paying taxes anyway....they will now have to pay. Plus, Im sure if the fair tax ever had a chance to pass there would have to be a claus where food is not taxed any higher than it is now.

 

[deleted50478]

I dont think it would tax the middle class any more. What does the middle class pay now like 30% of their income. As long as the fair tax is set below that they will make more money. Maybe the lower class might hurt a little but think about illegals and people not paying taxes anyway....they will now have to pay. Plus, Im sure if the fair tax ever had a chance to pass there would have to be a claus where food is not taxed any higher than it is now.

The fair tax does NOT increase taxes for the poor or lower middle class. The prebate lets the poor continue to avoid any income taxation at al.

That, like most arguments against the fair tax are based on ignorance of the actual plan. Please go read about it before inventing false dilemas.

The problem with the fair tax isn't with the tax, it's political. It is hard to get all the scumbag lawyers known as the US congress to give up their ability to bribe you for your vote by giving you your neighbors' money.

(Except illegals, drug dealers, prostitutes, etc.-their taxes go way up.)

 

[pgg]

Yeah, she's actually generating twice the crowds when she speaks that even McCain is. So far, she's weathered the scrutiny quite well, IMHO, away from McCain's protective wing. She's got that certain "likeability" and buzz that none of the other three contenders currently has. She's effectively stolen Obama's thunder. And, she's getting all the press attention right now. All I have to ask is, "Joe who?" As W.C. Fields once said, "Talk good about me, talk bad about me, just talk about me."

I'm still of the opinion that she won't help McCain win. Then again, maybe the election was unwinnable for McCain in the first place, and it's not her fault. 🙂

Her "view favorably/unfavorably" poll numbers are in a nosedive steeper than the stock markets ... from something like +25 after the RNC to single digits now. What this suggests is that the more people get to know her, the more she is scrutinized, the less people like her. And it's not the base that is deciding they don't like her, it's the independents that McCain needs to win swing states. Her numbers in that regard are now worse than Biden's, if you can believe it.

McCain's "RNC bump" is gone: http://www.gallup.com/poll/110473/Gallup-Daily-Obama-48-McCain-44.aspx and since the only thing of substance to come out of the RNC was Palin, we may as well admit that McCain's brief lead in the national polls was due more to a "Palin bump" ...

(Don't know if the image will hotlink ...)

But getting back to what really matters - the swing states are still shifting to Obama. It doesn't matter that McCain's now +26 in Alaska or +30 in Alabama because of the ex beauty queen, just as it doesn't matter that Obama is +67 in DC. It does matter that Obama's +6 in Iowa and +5 in New Mexico, with states like Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, and Florida all hovering around +/- 1.

I bet Obama is kicking himself on a daily basis for not picking Hillary as his running mate. It would've been a slam dunk for the Democrats.

On the contrary, I think a Hillary pick would have been suicidal. She's unelectable outside of blue states ... kinda like Palin and red states. 🙂 There aren't a lot of politicians in this country that evoke the level of visceral hatred she does.

 

[fierzer]

What is the likelihood of an actual Physician's Union revolution?

 

[coprolalia]

Personally, I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if the government actually addressed in a thoughtful way some of the serious problems our country faces.

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]People don't expect government to solve all their problems.".

Guess who said that? Want a hint? His last name sounds like "Osama".

Link.

-copro

 

[powermd]

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]People don't expect government to solve all their problems.".

Guess who said that? Want a hint? His last name sounds like "Osama".

Link.

-copro

Copro,

Who hurt you?
Hugs,
Power

 

[huktonfonix]

Copro,

Who hurt you?
Hugs,
Power

or perhaps who HASNT hurt you?

 

[Plead the Fifth]

Why any physician would sacrifice their hard earned money and vote for Obama is beyond me.

He proposes to raise the top income bracket (which I assume most of us are or will be in) by 4% - 35% to 39%. He would do this by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010.

He proposes an a raise in the cap of the FICA tax. The current cap is 6.2% of all earnings up to 102k. Obama would keep that in place and then add a new tax at 6.2% all earnings above 250k (which I assume most of you probably make). All this in the name of saving a failed Social Security System.

He proposes a roughly two-thirds increase in the capital gains tax, increasing the current 15% rate to 25% or higher.

Have old family money? God you better hope not. Obama proposes a 45% death tax on estates > 3.5 million. McCain keeps it low at 15% for esates > 5 million.

See a trend? You should. Obama wants to rape the rich to feed the poor. It's redistribution of wealth at its finest. It's socialism. Class warfare here we come.

Obama is a globalist, a socialist, and will straight up deep six this economy. While McCain may not be end all, he's MILES ahead of Obama on this issue.

 

[me454555]

Why any physician would sacrifice their hard earned money and vote for Obama is beyond me.

He proposes to raise the top income bracket (which I assume most of us are or will be in) by 4% - 35% to 39%. He would do this by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010.

He proposes an a raise in the cap of the FICA tax. The current cap is 6.2% of all earnings up to 102k. Obama would keep that in place and then add a new tax at 6.2% all earnings above 250k (which I assume most of you probably make). All this in the name of saving a failed Social Security System.

He proposes a roughly two-thirds increase in the capital gains tax, increasing the current 15% rate to 25% or higher.

Have old family money? God you better hope not. Obama proposes a 45% death tax on estates > 3.5 million. McCain keeps it low at 15% for esates > 5 million.

See a trend? You should. Obama wants to rape the rich to feed the poor. It's redistribution of wealth at its finest. It's socialism. Class warfare here we come.

Obama is a globalist, a socialist, and will straight up deep six this economy. While McCain may not be end all, he's MILES ahead of Obama on this issue.

McCain wants to finance an ongoing war in Iraq. Where is that money coming from? Bush just authorized 85 billiion to buy out AIG, where's that money comin from?

As much as I don't like taxes I just don't see how another 4 years of republican poilitics can turn this country any better than it is now. Historically, the economy has always done better under demacrats than republicans. Sure it might cost me some $$ but have you seen the economy the last few months? Can't get any worse under under obama

 

[jwk]

Can't get any worse under under obama

You are so incredibly naive.

 

[pseudoknot]

I should stay out of it but I have to point out that it was McCain who missed the vote to hold off on the 10% cut in Medicare physician payments, and also that his healthcare plan would cause millions to lose their existing coverage. I think those are two good reasons why physicians shouldn't vote for him.

 

[Matty44]

.

 

[Matty44]

.

 

[powermd]

or perhaps who HASNT hurt you?

No one, yet. But next year when I complete my pain fellowship and go into business for myself, tax policy will have a much larger impact on my earnings than it does now. Still, I expect my standard of living to improve substantially, regardless of who wins this election. Honestly, I worry more about the long term future of the US. I want lower taxes as much as the next person who makes $400,000+ per year, but there is more to life than hoarding money in the bank and buying second homes. I'm still idealistic enough to hope we can build a society that does things like education, health care, environmental stewardship, economic growth, and foreign relations well. We just need less cynical leaders willing to make choices that may be painful and unpopular in the short term, but will benefit us well in the long term.

I'm unconvinced that trickle-down economics does anything more than add zeros to bank accounts of the rich.

 

[coprolalia]

Copro,

Who hurt you?
Hugs,
Power

😕

What an odd thing for you to ask.

The point is that anyone who thinks that more taxes and more government can solve problems is incredibly naive. Bigger government has never resulted in any better solutions to anything... just more money being emptied from your pocket. Even Obama apparently agrees with this sentiment... or, at least did.

The irony is that, traditionally, bigger government has been the hallmark of the Democrats going back to FDR and the "New Deal" through Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960's. Now, suddenly, Obama wants us to believe that he is the instrument of change? That less taxes and a smaller government is really what we need? At least, this is the case if that's what you believe per what he said in 2004. Puh-lease.

Bush is an ineffectual, lousy president. Maybe the worst one we've had in the past 100 years, excepting maybe Warren G. Harding. McCain is going to be more of the same? Again, puh-lease. People who think that don't know McCain's true track record... which, at least compared to Obama, he actually has one.

Listen, I'd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat. But, the fact is he's just a little to screechy and strange for the mainstream public to swallow. Still, he's the only one so far who's said anything to me that's made complete sense. However, where I disagree fundamentally is the following: you can't just go and pull out of Iraq right now... not saying we don't need to get out of Iraq ultimately... but there I disagree with both Paul and Obama.

Imagine if a surgeon, clearly against everyone's better judgment and opinion, told a patient he could cure their cancer with surgery and commits to taking on a huge abdominal case. He tells the patient, and everyone else in the room, the case will take only six hours. Fourteen hours into it, he's struggling to control bleeding, he's had to take out some of the intestine, and it's not clear he got all the cancer. You, as the anesthesiologist, have to stay in there and keep things going, despite the fact that you're cursing under your breath. You are pissed because you knew that this guy should've never taken on this case, and you want to be home with your family too. Plus, you're tired, and long past the point where the money you're billing his insurance company is worth the time you're putting in. Then, all of the sudden, just as the starts to get things settled down and under control... after 17 hours into the surgery... the surgeon realizes how long he's been at it and tells everyone in the room, "Okay, I'm done. I was wrong. I can't fix this guy." Then, he just walks out of the case without even closing the incision.

That's what pulling out of Iraq would be like at this point, and McCain seems to be the only one who "gets" that.

Am I happy we're in Iraq and Afghanistan? Hell no. Do I think it's money being well spent? Of course not. Has the Bush administration indoctrinated some form of neo-imperialism? Maybe. But, I can tell you, we're committed there. And, there's a hell of a lot of people in this country who've already forgotten how they felt - deeply and viscerally - on September 11th, 2001.

Government can't fix your problems. Don't expect them to. But, they should attempt to provide solutions for the ones they've already created... that is our responsibility. And, one of those solutions is ultimately to create less government.

Funny how much of the tenor of the campaign has now changed, instead, to talk about how "MILF"-ie Sarah Palin is, isn't it?

-copro

 

[pgg]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

I suppose its time to concede???

The post RNC/Palin bump gave the edge to McCain for about a week. Give it a few days. Several of the electoral trackers are already showing Obama ahead again.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

I'm not an Obama fan, by the way. I just think he's going to win.

McCain's a good man and would be a good president. Palin's a mess though.

 

[coprolalia]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ I'm not an Obama fan, by the way. I just think he's going to win.

Don't be so sure at this point. No one thought Bush would win in 2000 or 2004... some would even argue that he actually didn't win in 2000.

-copro

 

[coprolalia]

Palin's a mess though.

Explain.

-copro

 

[powermd]

😕

What an odd thing for you to ask.

The point is that anyone who thinks that more taxes and more government can solve problems is incredibly naive. Bigger government has never resulted in any better solutions to anything... just more money being emptied from your pocket. Even Obama apparently agrees with this sentiment... or, at least did.

The irony is that, traditionally, bigger government has been the hallmark of the Democrats going back to FDR and the "New Deal" through Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960's. Now, suddenly, Obama wants us to believe that he is the instrument of change? That less taxes and a smaller government is really what we need? At least, this is the case if that's what you believe per what he said in 2004. Puh-lease.

Bush is an ineffectual, lousy president. Maybe the worst one we've had in the past 100 years, excepting maybe Warren G. Harding. McCain is going to be more of the same? Again, puh-lease. People who think that don't know McCain's true track record... which, at least compared to Obama, he actually has one.

Listen, I'd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat. But, the fact is he's just a little to screechy and strange for the mainstream public to swallow. Still, he's the only one so far who's said anything to me that's made complete sense. However, where I disagree fundamentally is the following: you can't just go and pull out of Iraq right now... not saying we don't need to get out of Iraq ultimately... but there I disagree with both Paul and Obama.

Imagine if a surgeon, clearly against everyone's better judgment and opinion, told a patient he could cure their cancer with surgery and commits to taking on a huge abdominal case. He tells the patient, and everyone else in the room, the case will take only six hours. Fourteen hours into it, he's struggling to control bleeding, he's had to take out some of the intestine, and it's not clear he got all the cancer. You, as the anesthesiologist, have to stay in there and keep things going, despite the fact that you're cursing under your breath. You are pissed because you knew that this guy should've never taken on this case, and you want to be home with your family too. Plus, you're tired, and long past the point where the money you're billing his insurance company is worth the time you're putting in. Then, all of the sudden, just as the starts to get things settled down and under control... after 17 hours into the surgery... the surgeon realizes how long he's been at it and tells everyone in the room, "Okay, I'm done. I was wrong. I can't fix this guy." Then, he just walks out of the case without even closing the incision.

That's what pulling out of Iraq would be like at this point, and McCain seems to be the only one who "gets" that.

Am I happy we're in Iraq and Afghanistan? Hell no. Do I think it's money being well spent? Of course not. Has the Bush administration indoctrinated some form of neo-imperialism? Maybe. But, I can tell you, we're committed there. And, there's a hell of a lot of people in this country who've already forgotten how they felt - deeply and viscerally - on September 11th, 2001.

Government can't fix your problems. Don't expect them to. But, they should attempt to provide solutions for the ones they've already created... that is our responsibility. And, one of those solutions is ultimately to create less government.

Funny how much of the tenor of the campaign has now changed, instead, to talk about how "MILF"-ie Sarah Palin is, isn't it?

-copro

I wish I had more time to respond to this, but I have to go to work. What I wonder about is how your attitude toward government became so cynical, and why it is you think government is so useless, it shouldn't even try to solve societal problems like providing effective education, health care, and regulation of the industrial/corporate world.

I have no expectation that government solve my personal problems- only the individual can do that, but there are problems much larger than any individual that only a government could solve. Do you not agree that this is the case?

 

[starsop93]

😕

The irony is that, traditionally, bigger government has been the hallmark of the Democrats going back to FDR and the "New Deal" through Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960's. Now, suddenly, Obama wants us to believe that he is the instrument of change? That less taxes and a smaller government is really what we need? At least, this is the case if that's what you believe per what he said in 2004. Puh-lease.

The single greatest economy the US has ever had was the post- WWII era. The growth of the middle class was greater than anytime in history. The US developed our reputation for productivity and innovation. This was in the context of the most socialistic government we have ever had. Are there problems with that system and other things factoring in with that? Yeah. But FDR and the New Deal were largely responsible for allowing that to happen.

:
Imagine if a surgeon, clearly against everyone's better judgment and opinion, told a patient he could cure their cancer with surgery and commits to taking on a huge abdominal case. He tells the patient, and everyone else in the room, the case will take only six hours. Fourteen hours into it, he's struggling to control bleeding, he's had to take out some of the intestine, and it's not clear he got all the cancer. You, as the anesthesiologist, have to stay in there and keep things going, despite the fact that you're cursing under your breath. You are pissed because you knew that this guy should've never taken on this case, and you want to be home with your family too. Plus, you're tired, and long past the point where the money you're billing his insurance company is worth the time you're putting in. Then, all of the sudden, just as the starts to get things settled down and under control... after 17 hours into the surgery... the surgeon realizes how long he's been at it and tells everyone in the room, "Okay, I'm done. I was wrong. I can't fix this guy." Then, he just walks out of the case without even closing the incision.

That's what pulling out of Iraq would be like at this point, and McCain seems to be the only one who "gets" that.

This is the weakest argument I have ever heard supporting the Iraq war! Are you kidding?? Let's say that single surgery cost $40 billion/hr and continuing it would drag down the US economy for a generation. Let's say that continuing the surgery would forever sully the name of medicine in the US. How about all the people who would die because our system was spending $1 trillion on a single botched surgery? Shall I go on? McCain and Bush have been unclear on what "victory" in Iraq would look like. Currently there is a manageable amount of violence there, the Sunnis are united against Al Qaeda, and Iraq has $80 billion in the bank. It's not going to get better than that until the Iraqi government has to take responsiblity for their own country.

And, there's a hell of a lot of people in this country who've already forgotten how they felt - deeply and viscerally - on September 11th, 2001.

Some people "felt" we should indiscriminately bomb some brown people in retaliation for 9/11. That's what got us into this mess as everyone knows that Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11. The people responsible for 9/11 are still at large, stronger than ever, and probably helping the Taliban regain control of Afghanistan.

 

[climbingdocs]

Check out the Obama vs O'Reilly debates on Foxnews.com or even on youtube.com


O'Reilly really does a number on Obama. You get to see the 'unscripted' Obama.

O'Reilly is a jackazz, can't listen and is rude

 

[Southpaw]

O'Reilly is a jackazz, can't listen and is rude

True that...everyone on his show should stand up to that blowhard douche and piledrive him.

 

[climbingdocs]

Yeah, she's actually generating twice the crowds when she speaks that even McCain is. So far, she's weathered the scrutiny quite well, IMHO, away from McCain's protective wing. She's got that certain "likeability" and buzz that none of the other three contenders currently has. She's effectively stolen Obama's thunder. And, she's getting all the press attention right now. All I have to ask is, "Joe who?" As W.C. Fields once said, "Talk good about me, talk bad about me, just talk about me."

I bet Obama is kicking himself on a daily basis for not picking Hillary as his running mate. It would've been a slam dunk for the Democrats.

-copro

Why the hell people like her? Cause she is cute?? Cause she in not THAT smart...May be if they win they can together build a bridge to China with our tax money, oh wait, they probably won't cause we will be paing for the war...

I am really torn between being altruistic and voting for Obama who would "make it better" for poor people and worse for "rich people" and being selfish and voting for Mc who will not increase taxes on MY pay check. I do know that I am against war. But overall I will vote for a guy who will stop this stupid rule that we have to take off our shoes, belts, throw away drinks, shampoos etc before we enter the damn terminal. 😡 I am sick of it!! Pretty soon we will be xrayed and flying naked handcuffed to the seat! 😡
Oh, and btw Anyone knows if the patriot act still in effect?

 

[coprolalia]

I wish I had more time to respond to this, but I have to go to work.

Take all the time you need. Forums aren't "real time" anyway. 🙂

What I wonder about is how your attitude toward government became so cynical,

Well, what I wonder is why you aren't more cynical, skeptical, etc. about what your government does with the money they take from you.

... and why it is you think government is so useless

Man, some of you people really, really like to put words in other people's mouths. This is a particularly nasty trait, especially for aspiring physicians.

Government is necessary. Government is not, however, there to provide the moral standard for which all should be judged. It should not be in the insurance business. And, it sure as hell shouldn't make institutions of things that seem like a good idea during a certain era but rapidly become outdated in another. This makes people dependent on government. Instead, government should be dependent on people - that is, laws should expire, programs should have review dates, things should be defunded if they no longer make sense. The state I live in is the worst example of government run amok. They've overtaxed people and have kept a slush flund - outright illegal - yet almost half the bridges in the state are falling down. They're even talking about another Constitutional Convention to deal with the outright fraud that is occurring in the state legislature.

So, it's not just the federal government.

Government should exist to provide an infrastructure, nothing more. This is as the founding fathers envisioned it. Show me where a Federal Income Tax is written in the original version of the Constitution, and I'll eat everything I've said here. No, it wasn't until the Sixteenth Amendement in 1913 that good ole Uncle Sam said it was okay to start collecting federal income tax.

it shouldn't even try to solve societal problems like providing effective education, health care,

People do these things far better than government does. If you think that the government is actually good at doing these things, man... I don't even know where to start...

and regulation of the industrial/corporate world.

Define that word "regulation". That's a HUGE area to cover with one word. As you may or may not know, there has actually been a big push to 'deregulate' many things, including the phone companies, airline carriers, and now power companies. Provided that there is not an oligopoly that is formed and there is no price fixing - something the government should provide, namely "rules of engagement" and courts to adjudicate arguments, or other unfair trade practices, should be a good thing. Hey, Vonage exists to give you a pretty damn cheap home phone service. It's only your fault if you're to lazy to sign-up for it. You think Vonage could exist if "Ma Bell" was still "regulated" by the Federal Government?

I have no expectation that government solve my personal problems- only the individual can do that,

Good. We're on the same page. Problem is, many people do believe governement should solve all their problems... and they have become dependent on government to do so. That, I have a "problem" with.

but there are problems much larger than any individual that only a government could solve. Do you not agree that this is the case?

I agree that you should re-read the Constitution and really learn and understand what the Founding Fathers wanted. I've made my additional stipulations above. What we have now is a system that has run amok with little personal responsibility in a large sector of the population. We've seen bailouts of private companies. We've seen a national insurance system (yes, we have one) called "Medicare" that most people agree is woefully broken, but no one has the political balls to fix. We are already taxed to the hilt. We have wasteful spending instead of paying down the deficit or returning money in the form of refunds (not counting the stupid "economic incentive checks" everyone got this past spring) when there are surpluses, like in my state. There is all kinds and shades of corruption, from the person who collects a paycheck in a government job and maybe works 5 "real" hours per week to the funding of what-should-be-defunct Postal Service, probably the single largest waste of money in this country.

I can tell you, there are a lot of huge issues to tackle in this country. Instead, we want to talk about who's for or against the right of women to choose, what candidate looks "angry" or is "unelectable" because they're too short (etc.), and nothing really changes no matter who you put in the White House.

Our federal government has become WAY too powerful - far beyond what the Founding Fathers ever intended, and that's the only thing I think (I hope) everyone can agree, with all this holy talk from BOTH candidates, truly needs to change.

-copro

 

[coprolalia]

But overall I will vote for a guy who will stop this stupid rule that we have to take off our shoes, belts, throw away drinks, shampoos etc before we enter the damn terminal. 😡 I am sick of it!! Pretty soon we will be xrayed and flying naked handcuffed to the seat! 😡

You are so cute.

-copro

 

[climbingdocs]

However, where I disagree fundamentally is the following: you can't just go and pull out of Iraq right now... not saying we don't need to get out of Iraq ultimately... but there I disagree with both Paul and Obama.

what would happen if we pulled out? How long do we need to be there to "close the incision"? I am not sure that closing the incision will cure this particular patient. (I like your analogy though 😀)