- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
- Messages
- 10,259
- Reaction score
- 13,599
Last edited:
Sorry, but Romney destroyed Obama tonight. He just did.
- Thread starter Birdstrike
- Start date
Mr. President must have forgotten that Lehrer is not Letterman...
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,402
- Reaction score
- 38
You mean Presidebt?
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 0
He didn't really say anything though. He managed to put Obama on the defensive, and took a lot of the pressure of proving himself as fit for the job. And if you notice he was leaning towards the left on a lot of key issues. I think Obama had a lot more facts, and i'm more incluned to believe the stats he put forth, but he came across as dry and boring. I'll be honest and say I don't really have a good sense of Mitts plan for the economy, and I was listening for it. But his unwillingness to share his ideas on taxes and Medicare and Social Security scare me as I don't think the make much sense.
"Growing the economy" by getting rid of deductions and loopholes??? Vouchers for the elderly??? insurance companies are not going to want to deal with an expensive elderly person if they don't have to. Vouchers or not. They're going to fall thru the cracks aka into the safety net that is our nations Emergency rooms (and we all know how much Mitts loves that), and ultimately receive substandard care :-(.
I was kinda vibing with Mitts in the beginning, but he really lost me at the middle and towards the end. I'd be interested in seeing the next few debates tho.
"Growing the economy" by getting rid of deductions and loopholes??? Vouchers for the elderly??? insurance companies are not going to want to deal with an expensive elderly person if they don't have to. Vouchers or not. They're going to fall thru the cracks aka into the safety net that is our nations Emergency rooms (and we all know how much Mitts loves that), and ultimately receive substandard care :-(.
I was kinda vibing with Mitts in the beginning, but he really lost me at the middle and towards the end. I'd be interested in seeing the next few debates tho.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
- Messages
- 691
- Reaction score
- 8
I wasn't impressed by either Mittens or Bam-Bam. I was more impressed by how they managed to muscle out any third party candidates. I guess the CPD decided that having any of the following was just too much choice for us to handle: Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Ron Paul.
you obviously do not understand his position and the point of vouchers. Also your statement about the economy makes no sense and shows a lack of understanding on your part.
Vouchers - Mitt would give anyone who would like to seek a private insurance option instead of medicare the amount of money they would normally receive/spend on medicare options and use it to buy private insurance ($6000 I believe). If they do not want to do that they stay on medicare. It's that simple. He is not getting rid of medicare. This would also lower payments out of medicare greatly (the government would not need to make payments but the insurance company). I fail to see how this drives people to the ER.
Economy - he stated that to decrease the deficit you need to grow the economy. You do this by not raising taxes and in fact by lowering taxes on businesses (so they can hire workers). More workers = more income for people = higher number of people paying taxes = decreasing the deficit. Simple again. He stated he lowers tax rates to encourage economic growth. He closes loopholes that are now being used which would actually offset lower rates to an extent. Closing these loopholes won't affect small business as much (the type of business that employes the vast majority of americans).
hope that helps.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2012
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 2
If I was an incumbent with nearly 4 years of experience, trying to keep my job, I'd have a litany of accomplishments that would be shouted from the highest mount.
Obama got elected for many reasons the last time. Mostly for the wrong reasons: against Bush, being black, status quo, lack of media scrutiny, ...
I despise his "I inherited all my problems" or "Congress is not working with me" whining. Be a man and learn to work together.
The past 4 years really shows how clueless he is.
Here's an article about fact checking some claims from last night by the AP: http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-presidential-debate-missteps-015421565.html
It just showed last night.
BTW, if you think I'm a shill for the Repubs, think again. I just happened to wake up from the Democrat induced coma.
Obama got elected for many reasons the last time. Mostly for the wrong reasons: against Bush, being black, status quo, lack of media scrutiny, ...
I despise his "I inherited all my problems" or "Congress is not working with me" whining. Be a man and learn to work together.
The past 4 years really shows how clueless he is.
Here's an article about fact checking some claims from last night by the AP: http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-presidential-debate-missteps-015421565.html
It just showed last night.
BTW, if you think I'm a shill for the Repubs, think again. I just happened to wake up from the Democrat induced coma.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 0
Lol the condescion on this site kills me. I don't think a voucher program is going to work. I get what he wants to do, ultimately shift the healthcare costs of the elderly on the insurance companies. I don't think that's going to work, because its bad for business for the insurance companies. Unless they have a low-risk pool from which to pull their profits from, there is no reason why they are going to just accept this elderly, expensive, high risk population from the hands of the government if they don't have to. Think abt it, elderly patients are very expensive! They have relativelh few yrs of life left on which to pay premiums, but use up a high amount of resources during those years.
and if the government doesn't want responsibilty for them as a population, you think profit-driven insurance companies are going to pick them up? It's just not goin to happen. While i appreciate your attempt to "explain" things to me by parroting off exactLy what Mitt said during the debate (which was cute, you almost got him word for word
but I don't just blindly accept and follow whatever's been told me to just cuz lol. If someone could tell me how this plan could work out without poor elderly ppl getting the shaft (and therefore effectively pushing them into the safety which is primary constructed by our nations emergency rooms ), I would love to hear it. And I don't see how his tax plan will "grow the economy", hence my post. It doesn't work, it has never worked. Lol once again, you repeating Mitt Romney's speech verbatim is not going to magically erase the last 20-30 yrs where we've seen the economy fall under this supposedly economically friendly tax model and actually thrive while under periods of relative high taxation. I also don't see what's so novel in the fact that he's essentially not adjusting revenue (aka the SAME amt of money is leaving America taxpayers hands, and this only if he's correct in that the removal of all these mystery deficits, reductions and loopholes that he keeps referring to will perfectly offset the tax cuts he advocates, he is essentially doing nothing. I'm a little lost as to how doing essentially nothing will somehow "grow the economy". It makes no sense.
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,194
- Reaction score
- 147
Lol the condescion on this site kills me. I don't think a voucher program is going to work. I get what he wants to do, ultimately shift the healthcare costs of the elderly on the insurance companies. I don't think that's going to work, because its bad for business for the insurance companies. Unless they have a low-risk pool from which to pull their profits from, there is no reason why they are going to just accept this elderly, expensive, high risk population from the hands of the government if they don't have to. Think abt it, elderly patients are very expensive! They have relativelh few yrs of life left on which to pay premiums, but use up a high amount of resources during those years.
and if the government doesn't want responsibilty for them as a population, you think profit-driven insurance companies are going to pick them up? It's just not goin to happen. While i appreciate your attempt to "explain" things to me by parroting off exactLy what Mitt said during the debate (which was cute, you almost got him word for word
And I don't see how his tax plan will "grow the economy", hence my post. It doesn't work, it has never worked. Lol once again, you repeating Mitt Romney's speech verbatim is not going to magically erase the last 20-30 yrs where we've seen the economy fall under this supposedly economically friendly tax model and actually thrive while under periods of relative high taxation. I also don't see what's so novel in the fact that he's essentially not adjusting revenue (aka the SAME amt of money is leaving America taxpayers hands, and this only if he's correct in that the removal of all these mystery deficits, reductions and loopholes that he keeps referring to will perfectly offset the tax cuts he advocates, he is essentially doing nothing. I'm a little lost as to how doing essentially nothing will somehow "grow the economy". It makes no sense.
I like you.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,216
- Reaction score
- 16
Lol the condescion on this site kills me. I don't think a voucher program is going to work. I get what he wants to do, ultimately shift the healthcare costs of the elderly on the insurance companies. I don't think that's going to work, because its bad for business for the insurance companies. Unless they have a low-risk pool from which to pull their profits from, there is no reason why they are going to just accept this elderly, expensive, high risk population from the hands of the government if they don't have to. Think abt it, elderly patients are very expensive! They have relativelh few yrs of life left on which to pay premiums, but use up a high amount of resources during those years.
and if the government doesn't want responsibilty for them as a population, you think profit-driven insurance companies are going to pick them up? It's just not goin to happen. While i appreciate your attempt to "explain" things to me by parroting off exactLy what Mitt said during the debate (which was cute, you almost got him word for word
And I don't see how his tax plan will "grow the economy", hence my post. It doesn't work, it has never worked. Lol once again, you repeating Mitt Romney's speech verbatim is not going to magically erase the last 20-30 yrs where we've seen the economy fall under this supposedly economically friendly tax model and actually thrive while under periods of relative high taxation. I also don't see what's so novel in the fact that he's essentially not adjusting revenue (aka the SAME amt of money is leaving America taxpayers hands, and this only if he's correct in that the removal of all these mystery deficits, reductions and loopholes that he keeps referring to will perfectly offset the tax cuts he advocates, he is essentially doing nothing. I'm a little lost as to how doing essentially nothing will somehow "grow the economy". It makes no sense.
Hypocrisy, thy name is you.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 23,794
- Reaction score
- 12,306
Stop with the "lol", "cuz", "ppl", and such. Irony is using adolescent terms, and whining (mildly) about "condescension". You sound like a kid (and was pointed out for less than nuanced thoughts), and, if you do, you will be treated like one.
It's either one of two things - you don't know it, or you know it and can't express it. Either way, you open your mouth (metaphorically), and people react to the way you act.
This quote was attributed to Albert Einstein: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." That is different from using just a few words and not conveying a cogent idea.
I didn't watch the debate, because just by calling it a "debate" doesn't make it like some legitimate forensic competition. To be frank, it doesn't really matter for whom I vote: in SC, in 2008, I voted for Obummer. He lost the state. Now, in NY, it's a given that he will win the state, so, if I vote for him or the Mitten, it doesn't matter. I'll probably do better if the Mitten wins, but, either way, in this individual case, my one vote won't make a difference. Looking at an election map, NY has been a strong Democrat state since at least 1992. I think the last time Republicans took NY was in 1984, and, in fact, since 1968, NY has only gone R 3 times - once for "Tricky Dick" in 72, and for "Ronnie Reagan" in 80 and 84.
It's either one of two things - you don't know it, or you know it and can't express it. Either way, you open your mouth (metaphorically), and people react to the way you act.
This quote was attributed to Albert Einstein: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." That is different from using just a few words and not conveying a cogent idea.
I didn't watch the debate, because just by calling it a "debate" doesn't make it like some legitimate forensic competition. To be frank, it doesn't really matter for whom I vote: in SC, in 2008, I voted for Obummer. He lost the state. Now, in NY, it's a given that he will win the state, so, if I vote for him or the Mitten, it doesn't matter. I'll probably do better if the Mitten wins, but, either way, in this individual case, my one vote won't make a difference. Looking at an election map, NY has been a strong Democrat state since at least 1992. I think the last time Republicans took NY was in 1984, and, in fact, since 1968, NY has only gone R 3 times - once for "Tricky Dick" in 72, and for "Ronnie Reagan" in 80 and 84.
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,250
- Reaction score
- 2,868
In what way? Substandard care in the ER? Only an unexperienced med student could say something this stupid.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 23,794
- Reaction score
- 12,306
As I personally believe that this kid just expresses him/herself poorly, I am going to explain what I believe was the intent: it's not that the care in the ED is substandard - the "ultimately" refers to the patient not getting the longitudinal care that is needed. I am the first to admit that I am a very expensive, and very bad, primary care doctor. And that would reinforced "substandard". Tactically, I'm good, but, strategically, not so much.
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,250
- Reaction score
- 2,868
Perhaps. Proper use of the English language and understanding the meanings of words should be expected among those of us with college degrees who are in med school.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 801
- Reaction score
- 46
My opinion on these matters 8======D
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2011
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 0
From the 250k salary perspective, I think we all could agree with Romney that you don't raise taxes for ANYONE in a recession. Any employer that is on the edge of that 250k (including my own household) is just going to FIRE more employees because they can't afford to keep paying them.
Anyone that goes along with the "Well they are rich, they can afford it" crap is just misinformed and ignorant. Yes, if you make 1 mil a year, you can afford that, but MANY (especially married) employers out there JUST over the 250k mark, won't make it easy for the rest.
Anyone that goes along with the "Well they are rich, they can afford it" crap is just misinformed and ignorant. Yes, if you make 1 mil a year, you can afford that, but MANY (especially married) employers out there JUST over the 250k mark, won't make it easy for the rest.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 23,794
- Reaction score
- 12,306
Time will tell as to whether this kid come back to put his/her foot in his/her mouth, or, more diplomatically, says, "I was not clear".
My bet, though? Having seen, literally, thousands on SDN in 10 years minus 1 month, this person will come back swinging, and dig a bigger hole. I hope not, though.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2011
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 0
Looks like MCAT VR isn't so reliable afterall.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 0
LOL get over urself plz. You're an anonymous poster on an internet forum, I don't care about your opinion on my writing skills. You didn't even watch the debate, yet insisted on forcing yourself into the discussion, and you want to come at me?
My thoughts may lack "nuance", proper grammar, they may even be controversial and abrasive to some, but they are NOT uninformed, nor are they unoriginal. Which is more than I can say for some of the other stuff I see ppl prattering on about around here.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 0
????
I've noticed that moment someone says something that goes against popular dogma (and don't let it be a med student, I mean, GOD FORBID!!!) you old heads swoop in from the heavens like a flock of shrieking harpies. But yes, your friend is right, the ER is best for EMERGENCY care, anything else provided by an EP will be below the standard of care for that illness, and therefore SUB-standard.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,216
- Reaction score
- 16
I predict a long future of constructive, respectful comments from this user.
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,250
- Reaction score
- 2,868
med students have 2 major problems.. lack of knowledge and lack of experience.
Curious what you think about primary care docs or specialists sending in their patients to see me. Some common complaints.. Hypertension from the cardiologist or more often the PCP, the pain specialist sending in someone for pain. The GI doc for abdominal pain etc. There are a slew of others but perhaps you can explain with all your wisdom.
The care wont be below the standard of care.. You need to learn what the definition of that term is. It has a very specific legal meaning.
I know you think this is an anonymous forum but only to those we dont know. I know who a number of the docs on here are. It may be anonymous to outsiders like you.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 23,794
- Reaction score
- 12,306
LOL get over urself plz. You're an anonymous poster on an internet forum, I don't care about your opinion on my writing skills. You didn't even watch the debate, yet insisted on forcing yourself into the discussion, and you want to come at me?
My thoughts may lack "nuance", proper grammar, they may even be controversial and abrasive to some, but they are NOT uninformed, nor are they unoriginal. Which is more than I can say for some of the other stuff I see ppl prattering on about around here.
If you could only learn some humility, you would be great. (Now, perhaps you might appreciate the irony of that statement.)
And, to parse your thoughts - so, your thoughts are informed AND original? I don't think so, even if I am some anonymous poster on an internet forum.
So, laughing out loud, get over yourself, please. And keep watching people "pratter on about" around here.
(And, to no one in particular, I called it.)
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 4,515
The problem is the government has employees too, and when you let the tax base shrink then those employees get fired. So the question is, which causes you to lose more total jobs: raising taxes or not raising taxes. The argument against lowering taxes is that in a poor economy the wealthy are skittish, and will often invest in savings rather than spending,and without spending no jobs are created. The government, on the other hand, can be relied upon to spend every dollar they tax, which is why when you give them money in a recession they can reliably create jobs.
It's worth pointing out that the private sector has been gaining jobs steadily for the last two years of the Obama presidency, and now is pretty near where it was at the start of the recession. 100% of our Unemployement problem, at this point, is actually due to a shrinking public sector:
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/01/493849/obama-bush-jobs-record/?mobile=nc
LOL get over urself plz. You're an anonymous poster on an internet forum, I don't care about your opinion on my writing skills. You didn't even watch the debate, yet insisted on forcing yourself into the discussion, and you want to come at me?
My thoughts may lack "nuance", proper grammar, they may even be controversial and abrasive to some, but they are NOT uninformed, nor are they unoriginal. Which is more than I can say for some of the other stuff I see ppl prattering on about around here.
Lemme guess, dailykos and huffington post?
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,250
- Reaction score
- 2,868
I caution anyone in using thinkprogress as a source.. They skew the data from BLS to get to the conclusion they want. When you go to the ADP employment info..
http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/
If you click on Historical data.. In Jan 2009 (the month Obama took office there were 111,404,000 private sector jobs. In sept 2012 we are back at 111,397,000.. Under bush in Dec 2000 (the furthest back the data goes we were at 111,571,000..)
So flat under bush (and he had to deal with 9/11) and flat under Obama and under Obama we added how much in debt? More than all 8 years under Bush..
If you follow the BLS data (also reported in same spreadsheet)
Dec 2000 111,677,000
Jan 2009 110,985,000
Sept 2012 111,400,000
Obama is amazing.. Added 415k jobs in 40+ months.. Thats with stimulus and spending money we dont have like its going out of style. If you figure he "saved" 200k GM jobs at a cost of 120k per.. Those numbers quickly look way less impressive.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,194
- Reaction score
- 147
Man people are really touchy about politics.
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,250
- Reaction score
- 2,868
Im more touchy about stupid people..
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,402
- Reaction score
- 38
When I watched the debate last night, the message I got from Obama regarding our profession was he wants the federal gov to dictate how we practice (panel) and how much we make ("using Medicare to drive down costs").
If you are/will be a physician and that doesn't scare you, I don't know whether to slap you or envy your happy lil bubble.
Glitterbox- Read more, post less.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 6,281
- Reaction score
- 2,538
LOL get over urself plz. You're an anonymous poster on an internet forum, I don't care about your opinion on my writing skills. You didn't even watch the debate, yet insisted on forcing yourself into the discussion, and you want to come at me?
My thoughts may lack "nuance", proper grammar, they may even be controversial and abrasive to some, but they are NOT uninformed, nor are they unoriginal. Which is more than I can say for some of the other stuff I see ppl prattering on about around here.
Friend, it is a good idea to listen to your elders. Idealism mixed with experience is a powerful beast. I write and delete on SDN more than I actually post. You may have mostly poor teachers in medicine. From what I gather, Apollyon is not among them. I've found myself in more than one fight with an SO over something on which I should have allowed additional ground. These may not have been relationships worth burning. Even though we may be thousands of miles away, it does not mean we should not respect each other. And on the specialty forums, even if you disagree, respect your seniors.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting, I watched the same debate and I got a lot more than that. Were you actually paying attention for all of that? Maybe you should listen more.
I haven't shown anyone any less respect than was shown to me. And you'll have to excuse my approach, I'm coming from the perspective of just recently finishing coursework in a separate degree; my classmates were primarily comprised of residents and attendings, many of whom had practiced for decades. During classroom discussions no one was anybody's "senior" and repeating verbatim from the text or anyone else's ideas wasn't really tolerated. Also, it may be a "specialty forum" but we're not discussing clinical issues, and if we were, I would obviously defer to attendings b/c I would have something to learn from them.
In policy discussions, I haven't seen doctors have anymore "nuanced" perspectives than anyone else. They might really understand the reality of delivering medicine on the front lines, but a lot of doctors struggle with the big picture. Just being honest!
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
- Messages
- 10,259
- Reaction score
- 13,599
.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,216
- Reaction score
- 16
I suspect it will make a difference because so many people are marginalizing its effects. The media is reporting that "he won, but only because he was vague" or "he won, but only because he lied so much" or "lots of incumbents have lost the first then been extremely strong in the next two debates". I texted an extremely liberal friend "your boy got rocked pretty hard last night" his response was "yea, but debates don't matter,"
I think a strong debate victory means something, especially considering there are still undecided voters out there and there was extremely high viewership.
If it didn't mean anything, there wouldn't be this hurry to explain why it's not important and make other excuses (see:Al Gore).
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,250
- Reaction score
- 2,868
Glitterbox,
Have you had a chance to learn about what the term standard of care is? Seems just that would be helpful. Thats a clinical term not a "coursework" term.
Have you had a chance to learn about what the term standard of care is? Seems just that would be helpful. Thats a clinical term not a "coursework" term.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2012
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 70
Romney put on a good show but any reasonable amount of fact checking reveals his performance to be just that, a show without much substance behind it. Even as an Obama supporter I agree that he wasn't impressive at all however. I think the remaining debates will take a far different tone if he takes the offensive.
D
deleted109597
If facts mattered to you then what do you think about the most transparent administration ever?
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,194
- Reaction score
- 147
Damn man you guys go hard. Politicians are full of empty promises. Wasting time debating who will lead us to our demise sooner is just a waste of time. Lets legalize weed and love each other. I want to vote for Sasha Grey for president.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 23,794
- Reaction score
- 12,306
Get a haircut and get a real job, hippie!
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,194
- Reaction score
- 147
Lol wow.
Under Obama there has been a shrinking private sector and growing public sector (this is what is keeping the unemployment rate artificially low - if you calculated the rate with the same labor force as when he took office it would be 10.7%)... who pays for all those government jobs? Oh that's right the taxpayers. And when you have a bad economy and smaller job pool paying to a larger government that's a recipe for massive debt on top of what we already have. Government jobs don't add to the economy. They are zero sum and don't produce anything. Taxpayers pay these people and these people pay taxes with our taxdollars... you can almost look at growing government jobs as a subsidy.
And to people looking for obama going on the offensive, don't you think Romney will be ready for that? Sad thing is that was obama at his best. The problem for him is that this time there is no "hope and change" and John McCain standing across from him and GW Bush looming above (love him or hate him he was very unpopular near the end). Fact is Obama doesn't have much of a record to be on the offense about. He's going to have a very rough time. And Joe Biden has already lost next week.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 7,704
- Reaction score
- 7,467
The private sector has been "growing" during the last 4 years if you look at it purely as a gain/loss. When compared to the actual rate of population increase, the number of new jobs created has not kept up with the number of working age people.
Obama has failed completely even under his own criteria:
1. Less people working now then as a percentage of the population than when he took office.
2. $1 trillion deficits every year of his administration, and if his plan goes through we will have $1 trillion deficits FOREVER. This is math
3. 47 million people on food stamps, an increase of 50% during his time in office!
4. Healthcare costs rose over $2000 per person
5. Gas prices have doubled.
6. Record number of people on unemployment for longer than a year.
Let's fire this guy! Who really thinks he's done a good job? These are all the predictable results of policies that discourage work, investment, and free markets. By his own admission during an interview he said: "If i haven't turned this thing (the economy) around after three years, this is a one term proposition." He should have given us his letter of resignation a long time ago....
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 0
Also IMO a big reason why Mitt won is because he leaned toward the left on a lot of core issues. It's odd to me that the right was so energized by his performance when he was pushing a completely different platform than the one he ran on. As an independent, the debate was actually somewhat comforting for me, it made me feel like Mitt might not be such a bad president after all. I was more disappointed and unsettled the day after, when all the reports came out saying that he lied abt everything. I'm hoping thats not true, and that he said all that stuff before to get the repub nod and raise a bunch of money, and now he's being himself.
If he truly is the moderate he was trying to portray himself as, IMO that can only be a good thing, and I feel like the election could go either way and country would be okay in the long run. If he really is abt more regulation on the market, and would repeal Obamacare but ensure that statewide insurance programs are instituted nationally, and that all programs were equal as far benefits and coverage are concerned, I would be okay. I could even get behind the voucher program IF insurance programs were mandated to accept these vouchers and there was a mandated minimum on the benefits and amount of coverage offered under the program that is comparable to those received under Medicare.
I would really be okay with that.
I supported Obama in the last election, i thought he did fine over the last 4 yrs, especially given the cards he was dealt. However, it's not like the winner of this election is going to have a great set of cards either... I don think we're going to see some massive upswing in the economy over the next 4 yrs, whether Romney or Obama is president.
It seems like ppl think that Romney has this secret plan that's going to just change things around. Based on his overall track record, I doubt it. He's not the type to make big waves.
No worries, i havent forgotten. just sit tight, I'll get back to you.
If he truly is the moderate he was trying to portray himself as, IMO that can only be a good thing, and I feel like the election could go either way and country would be okay in the long run. If he really is abt more regulation on the market, and would repeal Obamacare but ensure that statewide insurance programs are instituted nationally, and that all programs were equal as far benefits and coverage are concerned, I would be okay. I could even get behind the voucher program IF insurance programs were mandated to accept these vouchers and there was a mandated minimum on the benefits and amount of coverage offered under the program that is comparable to those received under Medicare.
I would really be okay with that.
I supported Obama in the last election, i thought he did fine over the last 4 yrs, especially given the cards he was dealt. However, it's not like the winner of this election is going to have a great set of cards either... I don think we're going to see some massive upswing in the economy over the next 4 yrs, whether Romney or Obama is president.
It seems like ppl think that Romney has this secret plan that's going to just change things around. Based on his overall track record, I doubt it. He's not the type to make big waves.
No worries, i havent forgotten. just sit tight, I'll get back to you.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 7,704
- Reaction score
- 7,467
Who said he lied? The media who are in the tank for Obama? For months they've been reporting on how Romney would take away women's rights (a lie), how he would take money from the middle class to give to the rich (a lie), and how he would cut seniors off of Medicare (a big fat lie). Romney on stage debunked the media's lies about him, which is what has the media in a fury right now.
If you believe this, then you are more naive than I thought. Whoever wins the Presidency, we are screwed in the long run. No politicians have the guts to cut what needs to be cut, which is around 30% of Federal spending. I believe we are headed for fiscal calamity regardless, it just depends how fast we get there.
That's not what he's for. He's for repealing Obamacare, repealing Medicaid, and giving that money back to the States do develop healthcare programs that best fit their own populations. He does not want a Federally-mandated policy for all the states. All state programs will not be equal nor should they be. That is the point of having "laboratories of democracy". The states that do the best at cutting costs, maintaining good care, and attracting doctors will do well. Those that can't will fail and will have to change. That's a great thing!
All of that is unconstitutional. You would MANDATE that insurance companies would take vouchers, and MANDATE that they lose money on patients. We simply can't afford unlimited Medicare benefits. The money doesn't exist even if taxes were 100%. Therefore seniors are going to have to pay more out of pocket for insurance coverage or routine costs. Whether we do it now, or in 20 years doesn't change the fact that it will have to happen.
Really? Name some good things he did? I can't think of anything except the killing of Bin Laden, which I think any other American would have done.
This is your most factual comment to date. Romney is not going to make revolutionary changes to anything. He'll tweak things around the edges, get rid of some regulations and laws that interfere with business, but by and large not much will be different.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,266
- Reaction score
- 805
I find it ironic that you lecture people about the "proper use of the English language" when you have made several grammatical errors within this thread.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2004
- Messages
- 4,461
- Reaction score
- 5,245
Also IMO a big reason why Mitt won is because he leaned toward the left on a lot of core issues. It's odd to me that the right was so energized by his performance when he was pushing a completely different platform than the one he ran on. As an independent, the debate was actually somewhat comforting for me, it made me feel like Mitt might not be such a bad president after all. I was more disappointed and unsettled the day after, when all the reports came out saying that he lied abt everything. I'm hoping thats not true, and that he said all that stuff before to get the repub nod and raise a bunch of money, and now he's being himself.
If he truly is the moderate he was trying to portray himself as, IMO that can only be a good thing, and I feel like the election could go either way and country would be okay in the long run. If he really is abt more regulation on the market, and would repeal Obamacare but ensure that statewide insurance programs are instituted nationally, and that all programs were equal as far benefits and coverage are concerned, I would be okay. I could even get behind the voucher program IF insurance programs were mandated to accept these vouchers and there was a mandated minimum on the benefits and amount of coverage offered under the program that is comparable to those received under Medicare.
I would really be okay with that.
I supported Obama in the last election, i thought he did fine over the last 4 yrs, especially given the cards he was dealt. However, it's not like the winner of this election is going to have a great set of cards either... I don think we're going to see some massive upswing in the economy over the next 4 yrs, whether Romney or Obama is president.
It seems like ppl think that Romney has this secret plan that's going to just change things around. Based on his overall track record, I doubt it. He's not the type to make big waves.
No worries, i havent forgotten. just sit tight, I'll get back to you.
I agree with most of what you said. And I think that people in General attribute too much credit/blame to the President when it comes to the economy. It's pretty clear to me that Obama is minimally responsible for the economic difficulties of the last 4 years (btw, it appears to me that we're better off now than we were in 2008). I also think that whatever effect a President does have probably lags behind by at least a couple years. Of course, this applies to Bush and Clinton as well.
Part of why I am planning to vote for Obama is that I think this country has some tough decisions to make in the near future, so because I think Romney and Obama are quite similar in both their strengths and weaknesses I want those decisions made by the one who wont be running for reelection and will thus be less swayed by public opinion.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 4,515
This is not only not true, this is the opposite of true. The public sector shrank under Obama, both absolutely and relative to to the private sector. Our unemployment rate would be at pre recession levels if the government just hired as many people as it did halfway through bush's second term. See the link in my last post for stats.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 7,704
- Reaction score
- 7,467
I can't believe you said this. A President Obama unfettered by the court of public opinion is the most frightening thing I can think of. He portrays himself as a moderate, because that is what has been required to get elected. If you listen to everything he wrote, said in interview, or gave speeches on prior to his candidacy for President, it's enlightening. The kind of America he envisions is not one I'd want to live in.
Positions he's held prior to being a candidate:
1. Support for single-payer health insurance
2. High taxes on high earners to "spread the wealth" as "a matter of fairness"
3. Free universal education
4. Race-based subsidies to help those who have been "repressed".
5. Mandatory unionization of most corporations
6. A new green energy economy to make prices "necessarily skyrocket".
Very frightening indeed.
