Who will you vote for and why?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
McCain.

Obama will destroy the last vestiges of what this country was supposed to be about, a small national government with the maximum amount of personal liberty afforded to the individual citizen.

Also, if you want to see how well universal health care will work, take a long look at Massachusetts.

I'm voting McCain for the same reasons that you stated, plus, Obama's close relationship with Wright, someone who is clearly prejudiced, is really not something that I want in our next President. Either Obama was reallly ignorant to choose Wright as his mentor and donate money to the church so that Wright could continue to spew his message of hate, or Obama actually shared Wright's feelings. Neither ignorance nor prejudice are qualities I think are good for the next POTUS.
 
Let's possibly discuss Obamas healthcare plan. He says that if you're happy with your current employer insurance keep it, your private insurance keep it ... but if you don't have insurance the gov't with give/subsidize it for you. Now if you were an employer what would you do? I know that I wouldn't give my employees insurance if I know they can get it. Now we funnel millions in the "single-payor" system. Doesn't sound to good for physicians. Albeit everyone thinks you need to be altruistic to be a physician, it's certainly not something that's applicable in real life. People, especially physicians, need to take care of themselves first before they can help others.

If you can't cover your practices expenses how will you take care of your patients? This is a serious issue to think about.

I believe that the economy will straighten out and energy independance will create work and boost the economy. So the next big ticket issue is healthcare.

"Now we funnel millions in the "single-payor" system."
I think that would prove well spent in comparison to the 30 billion spent last year on the uninsured and underinsured. With Obama's plan you are given a choice of whether you would like to enroll in the national health insurance exchange or choose an alternative private insurance carrier, either would be subsidized. Let us get the facts straight here as well, an employer will get a huge incentive to provide their employees with health insurance with Obama's plan ( a 50% tax credit for expenses), McCain makes no provision in this matter because he expects you as the individual to find your own insurance with the 5000 dollar tax credit, which will be taxed. Now I ask you, how does that help when people need around 12,000 dollars (and climbing) to find a decent plan. I think we might just increase the number of uninsured or underinsured by this mechanism of thought. Where are the average americans going to find 7,000 dollars to bridge the gap? And who is to say that monopolies will not be formed by insurance companies, similar to what is occuring now. There is no regulation within McCain's plan, but there is a catch for those who can't afford healthcare, even with the tax credit and also those having a pre-existing condition, they will be dumped into a state program subsidized by the federal government that will more than likely negate them. Now here is the problem I see with your statement, "Now if you were an employer what would you do? I know that I wouldn't give my employees insurance if I know they can get it." Under McCain's policy every employer would drop all their employees, and leave them on their own, now I don't have a problem with that, but I just can't see every american jumping on the gun to go out and shop for their own health insurance. Soon, we would see an ever growing number of uninsured coming to the ED's and the hospitals will continue eating the bill and the premiums will increase for those who were responsible and shopped for their own health insurance. The fiscally responsible thing to do is to make insurance available to all, so that those that are already insured are not footing the bill.
 
I'm voting McCain for the same reasons that you stated, plus, Obama's close relationship with Wright, someone who is clearly prejudiced, is really not something that I want in our next President. Either Obama was reallly ignorant to choose Wright as his mentor and donate money to the church so that Wright could continue to spew his message of hate, or Obama actually shared Wright's feelings. Neither ignorance nor prejudice are qualities I think are good for the next POTUS.

Oh well let us see who McCain chose as a running mate, mmm....Palin. A "joe six" pack worth over 1.2 million that has "deep religious convictions" in some fairly unorthodox Cristian rituals. Don't throw stones through association, focus on the policies, not meaningless past encounters.
 

"Now we funnel millions in the "single-payor" system."
I think that would prove well spent in comparison to the 30 billion spent last year on the uninsured and underinsured. With Obama's plan you are given a choice of whether you would like to enroll in the national health insurance exchange or choose an alternative private insurance carrier, either would be subsidized. Let us get the facts straight here as well, an employer will get a huge incentive to provide their employees with health insurance with Obama's plan ( a 50% tax credit for expenses), McCain makes no provision in this matter because he expects you as the individual to find your own insurance with the 5000 dollar tax credit, which will be taxed. Now I ask you, how does that help when people need around 12,000 dollars (and climbing) to find a decent plan. I think we might just increase the number of uninsured or underinsured by this mechanism of thought. Where are the average americans going to find 7,000 dollars to bridge the gap? And who is to say that monopolies will not be formed by insurance companies, similar to what is occuring now. There is no regulation within McCain's plan, but there is a catch for those who can't afford healthcare, even with the tax credit and also those having a pre-existing condition, they will be dumped into a state program subsidized by the federal government that will more than likely negate them. Now here is the problem I see with your statement, "Now if you were an employer what would you do? I know that I wouldn't give my employees insurance if I know they can get it." Under McCain's policy every employer would drop all their employees, and leave them on their own, now I don't have a problem with that, but I just can't see every american jumping on the gun to go out and shop for their own health insurance. Soon, we would see an ever growing number of uninsured coming to the ED's and the hospitals will continue eating the bill and the premiums will increase for those who were responsible and shopped for their own health insurance. The fiscally responsible thing to do is to make insurance available to all, so that those that are already insured are not footing the bill.

Good points but why would an employer offer health insurance under Obama's plan? You said he's giving a 50% credit -- meaning the employer is paying 50%. Why pay the 50% when people can get National Healthcare?
 
Good points but why would an employer offer health insurance under Obama's plan? You said he's giving a 50% credit -- meaning the employer is paying 50%. Why pay the 50% when people can get National Healthcare?

If you were an employer would you want happy employees? Seems like a good incentive for quality control as well.
 
Well, they'd be happy either way no? 😎

No, in either circumstance they would be covered, by their employer or by the national plan. But if you had an employer that decided it would be better to dump you off on your own rather than spend half of what he used to spend on your premium, wouldn't you feel a bit under appreciated and maybe think twice about your performance as an employee?

I don't know, maybe it is just me, but I would feel devalued.
 
No, in either circumstance they would be covered, by their employer or by the national plan. But if you had an employer that decided it would be better to dump you off on your own rather than spend half of what he used to spend on your premium, wouldn't you feel a bit under appreciated and maybe think twice about your performance as an employee?

I don't know, maybe it is just me, but I would feel devalued.

Thinking twice about your performance as an employee = Start looking on Monster.com 👍
 
Thinking twice about your performance as an employee = Start looking on Monster.com 👍

Anyway, bottom line is that I don't believe John McCain's health care plan will have a large enough effect on the uninsured. I only see the 46 million staying the same, or worst case scenario continuing upward.
 
Race....he has all the minority vote and has energized some of those that would not vote to come out on November 4th (i.e minorities).

I know there are many white people would vote for him obviously....hell I even considered it. I love the defense when McCain's POW experience is brought up they jump down your throat saying it doesn't qualify him to be president.....which is true

But what makes Obama qualified?

Sorry, but someone had to come out and say it...race is making the difference.

I have heard people sitting on a train of minority descent who said they are going to vote for the first time b/c of his race.....pathetic

Have fun working so hard and paying it to some people who don't. I am glad it has come to the extent that the successful and hard working people are being penalized.
 
Oh and I am voting for McCain :laugh::laugh:
 
Race....he has all the minority vote and has energized some of those that would not vote to come out on November 4th (i.e minorities).

I know there are many white people would vote for him obviously....hell I even considered it. I love the defense when McCain's POW experience is brought up they jump down your throat saying it doesn't qualify him to be president.....which is true

But what makes Obama qualified?

Sorry, but someone had to come out and say it...race is making the difference.

I have heard people sitting on a train of minority descent who said they are going to vote for the first time b/c of his race.....pathetic

Have fun working so hard and paying it to some people who don't. I am glad it has come to the extent that the successful and hard working people are being penalized.

Yeah but you could play the "gender card" on the other side with Palin running with McCain, there are plenty of "woman" out there that will now be voting republican because of her gender. So both sides are playing the game. It's politics. Plus, it isn't race or gender that will get them elected in the long run. It is what the people see from the twisted media portrayal.
 
Those people who are saying that they can't vote for him b/c his a Muslim or arabic...that is a bull**** excuse...they should just fess up and say that they aren't going to vote for him b/c his black.

Do you really think this??? Seriously??? I am voting for McCain, BUT it has NOTHING to do with his race, religious convictions, or his ancestry. I am voting for McCain for a lot of reasons including fiscal policy, taxes, experience, et cetera....

There are many people in this country who do not want a president that does not share the same religious views as themselves. Now take it for what you want (personally I think Obama is a Chrsitian, but only he knows his own heart), but there is evidence that he has ties to Black Liberation Theology. Many people (unfortunately) think that because of this connection, he has Muslim beliefs (or is a Muslim).

Now is it wrong for someone to note vote for someone because they feel that they don't share the same religious beliefs??? Hell no. People's beliefs often ground them in their political identification. Many people, including myself, want someone to represent me on nearly every value I hold, including religious beliefs. But you go on to make the point that someone who thinks he is a Muslim (and thus won't vote for him) is a damn racist. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement (maybe the most ignorant one on this board).

What if Obama was white, would this still hold true. No!!! You are painting with such a large brush it is down right insulting. Turn the tables again, what if some liberals didn't want to vote for him because he is Christian, is that a "bull**** excuse" and should they come out and say we aren't voting for him "b/c he is black"???

You have painted a picture that only you can tolerate.....

I think you need to seperate racism vs. disagrement on religious views.... I think it was learned back in the third grade.

In closing, one can disagree with someone's religious beliefs and not be a racist. Too bad not everyone can "see" this simple concept.
 
No, in either circumstance they would be covered, by their employer or by the national plan. But if you had an employer that decided it would be better to dump you off on your own rather than spend half of what he used to spend on your premium, wouldn't you feel a bit under appreciated and maybe think twice about your performance as an employee?

I don't know, maybe it is just me, but I would feel devalued.

You can feel devalued all you want. But when unemployment is high, what incentive does the employer have to pay you an amazing salary and great benefits? Well... none. If he can save a buck by not insuring you he'll do it, and you can't say jack cause if your performance noticably drops he'll get some other poor slob to take your job. you rock barrack
 
You can feel devalued all you want. But when unemployment is high, what incentive does the employer have to pay you an amazing salary and great benefits? Well... none. If he can save a buck by not insuring you he'll do it, and you can't say jack cause if your performance noticably drops he'll get some other poor slob to take your job. you rock barrack

Of course, but I am talking about a company with "many" employees, not just a single person. Yeah I can see a boss switching out a few employees, but when he negates all of them insurance just to save a few bucks, I think the response might be a little different than, I will just replace all of them with the next 50 or 60 "poor slobs". I was trying to show the point that when you treat your employees well, with respect, you will find better performance and more productivity.
 
What about the scab he hires in your place?

He's probably damn happy he is off the unemployment line, and will do a good job im sure to ensure he doesn't go back so soon. 🙁
 
What about the scab he hires in your place?

He's probably damn happy he is off the unemployment line, and will do a good job im sure to ensure he doesn't go back so soon. 🙁

Oh my friend, but your so called "scab" is still uninsured and although he is now employed, he more than likely will not be able to afford private insurance, and odds are he will make more than that amount that qualifies him for medicaid. So.........mmm. In return he becomes a patient of the ED when he has no where else to go (for preventive care) and then can't afford to pay the bills that arrive at his house he can't afford because of the collapsed economy. Yeah! premiums go up for everyone!
 
altruism_quote.gif
 
he more than likely will not be able to afford private insurance, and odds are he will make more than that amount that qualifies him for medicaid.


How can you make this statement??? there was no discussion of how much money the individual makes, no PMH, or anything to make you think that he is poor and therefore needs the government to "step in".... Again, getting it to "fit" to certain perspectives doesn't make your political ideology any more realistic than any other perspective.
 
It comes down to one thing.....race

Everyone is just avoiding the obvious. It doesn't matter to me whether he is black, white, or hispanic. However, it does matter when he wants to tax people for making more money and by looking to make health care universal which would destroy us. I was listening to this talk show and one guy came on saying an extra $1,000 would make a big difference in his life. Ok....so get off your ***** and work..

Look at Hawaii already....7 months in and they are dropping their attempt for unviersal healthcare.
 
I was debating this with someone earlier...

Take 2 people. one guy is busting his ass working 80 hours per week and is just brought over that 250k tax break (unknowingly... clearly)

The other, works 40 hours per week and pulls 240k...

Why should the guy that worked double for the entire year, gave up that many hours of his life... why should he be forced to share his extra 10k with the person #2... or anyone else for that matter... just doesn't make sense to me.
 
How can you make this statement??? there was no discussion of how much money the individual makes, no PMH, or anything to make you think that he is poor and therefore needs the government to "step in".... Again, getting it to "fit" to certain perspectives doesn't make your political ideology any more realistic than any other perspective.

It was a mere example of the so called "ideology" that I have presumably "created" of the 47 million Americans in our rich industrial country that go uninsured every year. Don't get your panties in a bunch because you don't agree with my very common and real life example of what occurs in this fiscally irresponsible country. You seem quick to presume that the majority of the country is on the wealthier side of the fence, but oh wait, that is right you said you are voting for McCain, makes sense.
 
It was a mere example of the so called "ideology" that I have presumably "created" of the 47 million Americans in our rich industrial country that go uninsured every year. Don't get your panties in a bunch because you don't agree with my very common and real life example of what occurs in this fiscally irresponsible country. You seem quick to presume that the majority of the country is on the wealthier side of the fence, but oh wait, that is right you said you are voting for McCain, makes sense.

Being poor is not an "ideology." And though it may stoke your over-inflated ego, you did not "create" poverty. I agree that there is a large portion of our population that is uninsured, and this is an infortunate situation that hopefully we can imporove upon. Your views never seem to amaze me on your presumption about others. I wasn't the one getting my panties in a knot. Rather, I was pointing out your inability to deduce a simple fact.... there was no mention of how much the "scab" made. You deduction is faulty in the fact that you assume that because I am voting for a Republican, that I must think that the United States has only a few poor people, and everyone else is really wealthy. Wrong. That would be like me making the assumption that because you went to school in Utah you MUST be Mormon. But I wouldn't make that assumption because I don't want to look like an ass. Too late for you though. I myself am a poor medical student who would be by your standards on the poor "side of the fence." I simply want to keep my money, amongst other things, and I feel that I should be able to determine who my money (really my wive's money) goes to. Before you start throwing stones, be a little more accurate on your research ( hint: it makes you look less ignorant).
 
Last edited:
Okay ignoring the race issue for a second (since no one chooses what race they are born into). This is very brief.
I will not vote for McCain because:
1) He chose palin, who clearly is not qualified to be the president. She has no international experience, depth in knowledge about economy, health-care and international politics. I think I know more than her.
2) He is too war happy. If he becomes president and decides to go to war with the Middle East. Our country will be in more danger, then during 9/11.
3) He is not that smart. He was 'C" student in college. He can’t pronounce country’s names correctly. He is brave but dumb, which can be very dangerous.
4) Attacks his party has made towards Obama calling him a terrorist and Muslim are incorrect.

I will vote for Obama because:
1) He is smart, he has a law degree, went to a good college, and earned good grades.
2) He comes from a middle-class family, worked his way up. And since majority of Americans are middle class, it makes him a better fit.
3) He made a good decision by picking Joe Biden, who has enough experience to be the president.
4) He relates to white people, brown people, black people, single parent, minorities etc better than McCain
5) He talks about the issues in hand especially the economy and health care. He gives realistic impression of issues and his ideas to deal with them.


Okay enough being politically correct let’s talk about race and religion

America is a land for everyone yet there has neverbeen a black and/or native american president, even though these two groups were here since the beginning of our country. How can we say we are the best country in the world when our most important actions are outdated.
It about time we give a colored person a chance to be the leader of our country. I dont if most american have been looking around but people from international countries like China, Japan and India are pretty smart and gifted as well.

Now lets about religion. What is so wrong with being a muslim, jew, hindu, buddhist and being in poltics. When studying these religion it is clear and dry, that their core believe is to be good to each other regardless of background. Hitler, proclaimed himself to be a christian, yet was also clearly a murderer. We dont associate murder with christianity, do we?. I believe any person from any religion that works hard and holds good values can run this country.

No one chooses their skin color and many dont even choose their religion. So these two issues should never define a person.
I can go on with ideas but there is another time and place for that.😉
 
I try to stay out of political debates, because arguing about it is roughly equivalent to talking to the wall. But this post begs for commentary:

I will not vote for McCain because:
1) He chose palin, who clearly is not qualified to be the president. She has no international experience, depth in knowledge about economy, health-care and international politics. I think I know more than her.
2) He is too war happy. If he becomes president and decides to go to war with the Middle East. Our country will be in more danger, then during 9/11.
3) He is not that smart. He was 'C" student in college. He can’t pronounce country’s names correctly. He is brave but dumb, which can be very dangerous.
4) Attacks his party has made towards Obama calling him a terrorist and Muslim are incorrect.

1. Palin actually does have international experience, successfully negotiating pipeline deals with the Canadian government. Not exactly bringing peace to the Middle east, I admit. But it's still more than Obama has ever done. I agree that no one is ever going to confuse Palin for a Northeastern academic type, but to say she's stupid is a gross overgeneralization. Perhaps you need to quit depending on SNL for your news coverage.

2. In what way is McCain too war happy? And how exactly would he go to war with the entire Middle East?

3. He certainly didn't have a stellar Naval Academy record, by his own admission. But he's been smart enough to serve as a Senator for 24 years, etc. Any honest observer can easily tell you that he's is intelligent, even if you disagree mightily with his policies.

4. The so-called attacks on his Muslim heritage have never been anything more than the ravings of the kook fringe. And FWIW, there were similar rumblings coming from the Democratic base during the primaries. Still want to try and paint a picture of a political party by it's fringe elements? In any case, it's more revealing of you that you'd imply that the Republicans are racists and fearmongers.

In short, your objections to the McCain campaign are not based in a a substantive disagreement with his policies, but rather your impressions about who is dumb and who is not. You should pat yourself on the back for being such an informed voter (your sarcasm detector should be going crazy right now).


I will vote for Obama because:
1) He is smart, he has a law degree, went to a good college, and earned good grades.
2) He comes from a middle-class family, worked his way up. And since majority of Americans are middle class, it makes him a better fit.
3) He made a good decision by picking Joe Biden, who has enough experience to be the president.
4) He relates to white people, brown people, black people, single parent, minorities etc better than McCain
5) He talks about the issues in hand especially the economy and health care. He gives realistic impression of issues and his ideas to deal with them.


Okay enough being politically correct let’s talk about race and religion

America is a land for everyone yet there has neverbeen a black and/or native american president, even though these two groups were here since the beginning of our country. How can we say we are the best country in the world when our most important actions are outdated.
It about time we give a colored person a chance to be the leader of our country. I dont if most american have been looking around but people from international countries like China, Japan and India are pretty smart and gifted as well.

Now lets about religion. What is so wrong with being a muslim, jew, hindu, buddhist and being in poltics. When studying these religion it is clear and dry, that their core believe is to be good to each other regardless of background. Hitler, proclaimed himself to be a christian, yet was also clearly a murderer. We dont associate murder with christianity, do we?. I believe any person from any religion that works hard and holds good values can run this country.

No one chooses their skin color and many dont even choose their religion. So these two issues should never define a person.
I can go on with ideas but there is another time and place for that.😉

1. I agree that Obabma seems intelligent. Harvard Law is certainly nothing to sneeze at. However, it's interesting that Obama still refuses to release his college transcripts. He also was the president of the Harvard Law Review, but interestingly enough, he never contributed any work once he was president. A foreshadow of things to come?

2. Palin also came from a middle class background. It's not exclusive to Obama. In any case, if Obama were so in-tune with the middle class, why does he lie to them about not increasing their taxes? He doesn't support the Bush 2001 tax decreases, and when they expire next year the middle classes taxes will go back up. It's true that he won't raise them himself, but he's misleading the public about what will happen to their taxes during his four years as President.

3. Joe Biden has a lot of experience, yes. And in Joe Biden's view, Barack Obama does not have enough experience to be president. He explicitly said so during the Democratic primary. And he implied such this weekend when he said that the world will test Obama soon, and Barack will "need help".

4. It's highly presumptuous of you to suggest that a single candidate resonates better to a group that contains millions of opinions, has different circumstances, etc. Those people will speak for themselves while voting.

5. I have no problem with a minority being president, so long as they are qualified. For example, I have my eye hopefully on Louisiana's governor Bobby Jindal, a Native American. The prerequisite however, is that they are the best candidate. I have no assurance, to myself at least, that Obama is that person. And I have a huge problem with the idea that the time id due for a minority president. The job of POTUS is way too important to play affirmative action games.

6. I agree (and so does the Constitution) that a religious test for president is a bad idea. Vote for the candidate and the policies, not the religion.

To summarize, if I were to boil down your reasons to vote for Obama it looks like this:

1. You think McCain/Palin are dumb
2. You think Republicans are racists
3. You think Obama is smart
4. You think a minority is due the chance to be president

Looking at your reasons, I would like to remind you that the election is still two weeks away, and you still have time to become an educated voter. Please use the time wisely.
 
3) He is not that smart. He was 'C" student in college. He can’t pronounce country’s names correctly. He is brave but dumb, which can be very dangerous..[/COLOR]

He was a C student? For your information, entrance into Annapolis isn't quite easy. Howabout YOU try and let us know how fast you get rejected.👍
 
He was a C student? For your information, entrance into Annapolis isn't quite easy. Howabout YOU try and let us know how fast you get rejected.👍

He wasn't admitted on his own merits, but rather as a favor for his father.
 
It's truly mind-boggling the lengths some people here are going to justify voting Republican in this election. Have you folks learned absolutely nothing in the last eight years of having a Republican in office?
 
Yes. We've learned that we aren't looking for socialism. 😎
 
Yes. We've learned that we aren't looking for socialism. 😎

Obama isn't a socialist, he's a liberal-leaning Democrat. Fox News probably told you that the two are the same, but that simply isn't true.

And does the specter of "socialism" justify reelecting the party responsible for:

1. entering an unjustified war in Iraq under false pretenses
2. economic disaster brought about largely by "trickle-down" theory and Wall Street greed and corruption, abetted by deregulation.

Does it?
 
Oh, I see what you did there. How clever!

Have fun losing your income. I can't believe you are sitting here trying to justify how it is fair to give people who are NOT paying income taxes a check in the mail. You like working so hard as a fellow? Have fun supporting those who sit on their ***** all day.
 
Have fun losing your income. I can't believe you are sitting here trying to justify how it is fair to give people who are NOT paying income taxes a check in the mail. You like working so hard as a fellow? Have fun supporting those who sit on their ***** all day.

Ah yes, Democrats steal from hard working Americans to pay the lazy poor, right?

Complete nonsense. Here's the real scoop from FactCheck.org:

Original article here: Obama's Welfare

The McCain campaign has taken to denigrating some of Obama's tax proposals as "welfare" rather than tax cuts. And it continues to mislead about who would see a tax increase.
A new McCain-Palin Web ad characterizes Obama's proposed refundable tax credits as "welfare." But McCain himself proposes refundable tax credits, too, as part of his health care plan, and calls them "reform."

The ad also says "hard-working families" and "seniors" would pay higher taxes. But – need we say this again? – that would be true only for the affluent few, not for the many.


"Welfare" or "Reform"?

The "welfare" claim rests on the argument, made in an Oct. 13 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, about refundable tax credits. Obama proposes to grant a number of refundable tax credits to low- and middle-income workers. For example, he would give a $500 tax credit ($1,000 for a couple) for workers, which would phase out for single workers making $75,000 or for couples making $150,000 per year. As the Journal editorial says: "You can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability." That's true enough. Whether or not that makes them "welfare" is a matter of interpretation, however. As the Journal editorial also says in its headline, "It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is."

Fair enough. But McCain himself is proposing refundable tax credits of up to $2,500 a year for individuals, or $5,000 for families, as part of his health care plan. McCain doesn't call his credits a "tax cut" but he doesn't call them "welfare" either. He does call it tax "reform," right there on his own Web site:

McCain Web site: John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code . . .

[E]very family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance.
McCain makes his tax credit refundable to make it worth just as much to low-income workers as to high-income workers. If it were not refundable, it would be worth $0 to anyone who makes too little to pay any federal income taxes. A non-refundable credit would be worth the full amount only to individuals who owe at least $2,500 in federal income taxes, or couples who owe at least $5,000. Obama makes his tax credits refundable for the same reason – so they will benefit workers who earn too little to pay federal income tax.
 
Have fun losing your income. I can't believe you are sitting here trying to justify how it is fair to give people who are NOT paying income taxes a check in the mail. You like working so hard as a fellow? Have fun supporting those who sit on their ***** all day.

And, I hate to break it to you, but physician incomes have been declining for some time now, including the last 8 years of Republican rule. How is the Republican party looking out for us, again?
 
And, I hate to break it to you, but physician incomes have been declining for some time now, including the last 8 years of Republican rule. How is the Republican party looking out for us, again?

While I was not referring to physician income, I do agree with you. Back to what I was trying to convey is that you will, in a sense, be writing a check out to someone who does not deserve it. Have fun
 
Ah yes, Democrats steal from hard working Americans to pay the lazy poor, right?

Complete nonsense. Here's the real scoop from FactCheck.org:

Original article here: Obama's Welfare

The McCain campaign has taken to denigrating some of Obama's tax proposals as "welfare" rather than tax cuts. And it continues to mislead about who would see a tax increase.
A new McCain-Palin Web ad characterizes Obama's proposed refundable tax credits as "welfare." But McCain himself proposes refundable tax credits, too, as part of his health care plan, and calls them "reform."

The ad also says "hard-working families" and "seniors" would pay higher taxes. But – need we say this again? – that would be true only for the affluent few, not for the many.


"Welfare" or "Reform"?

The "welfare" claim rests on the argument, made in an Oct. 13 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, about refundable tax credits. Obama proposes to grant a number of refundable tax credits to low- and middle-income workers. For example, he would give a $500 tax credit ($1,000 for a couple) for workers, which would phase out for single workers making $75,000 or for couples making $150,000 per year. As the Journal editorial says: "You can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability." That's true enough. Whether or not that makes them "welfare" is a matter of interpretation, however. As the Journal editorial also says in its headline, "It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is."

Fair enough. But McCain himself is proposing refundable tax credits of up to $2,500 a year for individuals, or $5,000 for families, as part of his health care plan. McCain doesn't call his credits a "tax cut" but he doesn't call them "welfare" either. He does call it tax "reform," right there on his own Web site:

McCain Web site: John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code . . .

[E]very family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance.
McCain makes his tax credit refundable to make it worth just as much to low-income workers as to high-income workers. If it were not refundable, it would be worth $0 to anyone who makes too little to pay any federal income taxes. A non-refundable credit would be worth the full amount only to individuals who owe at least $2,500 in federal income taxes, or couples who owe at least $5,000. Obama makes his tax credits refundable for the same reason – so they will benefit workers who earn too little to pay federal income tax.

Not complete nonsense. As I alluded to before, you should continue to work hard. We all know you must be busting your ***** to get where you are now. With that being said, enjoy supporting other people. How about this....Since you don't mind, why don't you pay for the money I will owe b/c of Obama. Besides his race, he is doing well because of the media. They are his lovers.
 
Obama isn't a socialist, he's a liberal-leaning Democrat. Fox News probably told you that the two are the same, but that simply isn't true.

And does the specter of "socialism" justify reelecting the party responsible for:

1. entering an unjustified war in Iraq under false pretenses
2. economic disaster brought about largely by "trickle-down" theory and Wall Street greed and corruption, abetted by deregulation.

Does it?
Wow, so spewing the talking points from MSNBC is any better?

Anyway, two brief points:

A. the 4 words "unjust war" and "false pretense" float the vocabulary of far too many people, 99% of them ignorant of the fact that Clinton & Gore & co, not to mention Britain & France, had the exact same intel reports that Bush had, and there's plenty of quotes of Gore talking Hawkish on attacking Iraq before Bush even entered the picture. (see the YouTube clips from 1992 below)

http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/clinton-kerry-gore-call-for-war-against-saddams-iraq/ (let me add that I have no idea what that website is, but the video clips they provide are video clips, plain and simple)

So Bush somehow "tricked us" even though everyone had thought—and rightly so—up to that point, that Saddam had WMDs, or at the very least, was a despotic psychopath that needed to be dealt with.

Someone please explain the lapse in logic.

B. No one is arguing that wall street wasn't greedy, but the notion that Deregulation was the problem is far from truthful. The fact of the matter is that the free market principles normally in place have been diluted and convoluted to the point of a footnote in economic textbooks and business models. There is so much red tape surrounding the market that people can't help but find ways to screw the system, and if a completely free market were in place, the solution would work itself out. And if you disagree, fine, but at least read some Hayek / Friedman and compare them to Keynes (who was an avowed socialist, by the way) and have some basis for WHY you feel that way.

I know that's never going to be possible, but the asinine assumption that Wall Street lawyers / businessmen are any less corrupt than Washington lawyers / businessmen is a farce.

And you can't discuss the economic situation without examining the housing market, and I don't think you understand the depth to which Fannie and Freddie (quasi government / private hybrids) play a role in that industry.

Nor can you discuss the economic situation without holding the citizens responsible for their actions. It's far too easy to paint the picture of corporate greed taking advantage of the little guy, but that little guy was in way too deep with his mortgage, and the only reason he got it is because Fannie & Freddie wouldn't back the loans unless the banks agreed to target low-income Americans to increase home ownership.
 
Last edited:
Not complete nonsense. As I alluded to before, you should continue to work hard. We all know you must be busting your ***** to get where you are now. With that being said, enjoy supporting other people. How about this....Since you don't mind, why don't you pay for the money I will owe b/c of Obama. Besides his race, he is doing well because of the media. They are his lovers.

Are you making > $250,000 per year?
If no, then you'll get a tax break, a point that has been reiterated over and over again by the Obama camp. Even Joe the plumber admitted that he'd do better, tax-wise, under the Obama plan.
If yes, then you won't be getting a cut (note-that's not the same as 'raising taxes'). Color me idealistic, but a slight increase in taxes to the very wealthy, given the hard economic times we're going to be in in the next administration, is a small price to pay.
 
Ah yes, Democrats steal from hard working Americans to pay the lazy poor, right?

Complete nonsense. Here's the real scoop from FactCheck.org:

Original article here: Obama's Welfare

The McCain campaign has taken to denigrating some of Obama's tax proposals as "welfare" rather than tax cuts. And it continues to mislead about who would see a tax increase.
A new McCain-Palin Web ad characterizes Obama's proposed refundable tax credits as "welfare." But McCain himself proposes refundable tax credits, too, as part of his health care plan, and calls them "reform."

The ad also says "hard-working families" and "seniors" would pay higher taxes. But – need we say this again? – that would be true only for the affluent few, not for the many.


"Welfare" or "Reform"?

The "welfare" claim rests on the argument, made in an Oct. 13 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, about refundable tax credits. Obama proposes to grant a number of refundable tax credits to low- and middle-income workers. For example, he would give a $500 tax credit ($1,000 for a couple) for workers, which would phase out for single workers making $75,000 or for couples making $150,000 per year. As the Journal editorial says: "You can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability." That's true enough. Whether or not that makes them "welfare" is a matter of interpretation, however. As the Journal editorial also says in its headline, "It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is."

Fair enough. But McCain himself is proposing refundable tax credits of up to $2,500 a year for individuals, or $5,000 for families, as part of his health care plan. McCain doesn't call his credits a "tax cut" but he doesn't call them "welfare" either. He does call it tax "reform," right there on his own Web site:

McCain Web site: John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code . . .

[E]very family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance.
McCain makes his tax credit refundable to make it worth just as much to low-income workers as to high-income workers. If it were not refundable, it would be worth $0 to anyone who makes too little to pay any federal income taxes. A non-refundable credit would be worth the full amount only to individuals who owe at least $2,500 in federal income taxes, or couples who owe at least $5,000. Obama makes his tax credits refundable for the same reason – so they will benefit workers who earn too little to pay federal income tax.

McCain's "tax credit" targets people who have no health insurance through work, who inevitably purchase their own insurance with already-taxed dollars. His plan uses govt money (ie. your's and mine) to purchase health insurance privately.
Obama's plan uses govt money to enroll you in a government plan.

Either way, we're paying for it, but at least McCain's plan will tax the income difference people receive if they don't receive employer health care, in addition to proposed Medicare cuts (supposedly). Ie. it's a little less socialistic, but still socialistic nonetheless.

But the bottom line is that until the health care system falls through the floor or is dumped for something else, that's the only choice govt has to address the skyrocketing costs of premiums, and it's a moot point to argue over it because we're always going to be paying for social medicine to some degree, whether it's Medicare & Medicaid, or England & Germany.

The difference is that McCain's plan puts the steering wheel in the peoples' hands versus the governments, and I don't know about you, but if the government is going to drive us to a system like the VA, I'd like out of the car please.

The redistribution argument comes into play because 95% of Americans are going to get a check--supposedly (in addition to his economic stimulus plan, which may or may not manifest if the economy still sucks) whether they pay federal INCOME taxes or not, while the other 5% are going to indirectly fund it.
That's on top of his clean-car credits, his college education credits, etc. etc. etc. etc..... The money's gotta come from somewhere, and if 5% of people have in increase and 95% have a cash "rebate" PLUS 7 different tax "credits", I'm sorry, but there's no other word to use than redistribution.
 
Last edited:
Color me idealistic, but a slight increase in taxes to the very wealthy, given the hard economic times we're going to be in in the next administration, is a small price to pay.

I would say naive utopian is more appropriate.

"The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all." —Richard Weaver, 1962
 
Are you making > $250,000 per year?
If no, then you'll get a tax break, a point that has been reiterated over and over again by the Obama camp. Even Joe the plumber admitted that he'd do better, tax-wise, under the Obama plan.
If yes, then you won't be getting a cut (note-that's not the same as 'raising taxes'). Color me idealistic, but a slight increase in taxes to the very wealthy, given the hard economic times we're going to be in in the next administration, is a small price to pay.

Sorry to break the news but EVERYBODY will see a tax increase under Obama because he will let Bush's tax cuts expire. There's no argument to that.
 
I would say naive utopian is more appropriate.

"The past shows unvaryingly that when a people's freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all." —Richard Weaver, 1962

"Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society." ~Franklin D. Roosevelt
 
Sorry to break the news but EVERYBODY will see a tax increase under Obama because he will let Bush's tax cuts expire. There's no argument to that.

And where is McCain going to get the money to fund his "tax breaks" exactly? Especially when the economy is tanking? At least Obama is being honest and not pandering to the Republican lemmings - directed tax cuts for those who will benefit, and (slightly) increased taxes for those who can, and should, be paying more.
 
McCain's "tax credit" targets people who have no health insurance through work, who inevitably purchase their own insurance with already-taxed dollars. His plan uses govt money (ie. your's and mine) to purchase health insurance privately.
Obama's plan uses govt money to enroll you in a government plan.

Either way, we're paying for it, but at least McCain's plan will tax the income difference people receive if they don't receive employer health care, in addition to proposed Medicare cuts (supposedly). Ie. it's a little less socialistic, but still socialistic nonetheless.

But the bottom line is that until the health care system falls through the floor or is dumped for something else, that's the only choice govt has to address the skyrocketing costs of premiums, and it's a moot point to argue over it because we're always going to be paying for social medicine to some degree, whether it's Medicare & Medicaid, or England & Germany.

The difference is that McCain's plan puts the steering wheel in the peoples' hands versus the governments, and I don't know about you, but if the government is going to drive us to a system like the VA, I'd like out of the car please.

The redistribution argument comes into play because 95% of Americans are going to get a check--supposedly (in addition to his economic stimulus plan, which may or may not manifest if the economy still sucks) whether they pay federal INCOME taxes or not, while the other 5% are going to indirectly fund it.
That's on top of his clean-car credits, his college education credits, etc. etc. etc. etc..... The money's gotta come from somewhere, and if 5% of people have in increase and 95% have a cash "rebate" PLUS 7 different tax "credits", I'm sorry, but there's no other word to use than redistribution.

Obama's health care plan has already been suitably defended in post #152 by DC DOC.
 
"Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society." ~Franklin D. Roosevelt

Nice. Defend socialist rhetoric with a socialist quote.
 
Top