To be honest, I don't watch much TV at all. I don't have time with work and kids, but all I know is he gave my family unemployment in time for Chrismas or my kids wouldn't be having a Chrismas and because of him I am getting 1,400 tax credit for buying a 14,000 home and more in taxes when I file. I also have no medical insurance which he is pushing for medical reform. I just wanted to know what is it he is doing that is so bad? I wasn't sure if I am missing anything.
I think that Obama had a HUGE mess to clean up when he took office (and still does). The economic ups and downs we have experienced over the last year would have happened under anyone's leadership. The gears were already in motion.
Everyone seems to give the President far too much credit for the good (and bad) that happens in this country. You think Bill Clinton was responsible for the economic boom we experienced in the late 90's? No, he just happened to be in office when the World Wide Web took off.
Long story short, dispite Obama's grandiose campaign promises, he can only guide the country. That's what a leader does. Remember that this government is not a dictatorship, and we are ruled by THREE branches of government.
Yes, I voted for Obama... but, I'm not delusional. He's not perfect. Almost everyone in government is corrupt to some degree. Perhaps Obama is too. But, do believe that he better than the alternative? Yes. Yes, I do.
Why are you unemployed? Because the government taxes business so much they are leaving the country! America has the second highest corporate taxes in the world, not very good when you are competing with the rest of the world for jobs. Worse, Obama's plans will make those taxes even higher, possibly extending your unemployment.
It's nice you got a tax credit to buy a home. Hopefully you'll be able to afford the mortgage, but to get that credit, America had to borrow money from China and to pay that back America has to print money making the dollar less valuable for buying things that we must import, like oil which means you will have to pay more for everything, like gas, food and heat for your home.
It's nice he wants to "give" everyone health insurance. The problem is, the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to do that. It is up to the states to provide that benefit if their residents want it as was done in MA and TN, before they realized that benefit would bankrupt the state. Now in order for you to get insurance, the federal government will force others that might not want to spend money on insurance to buy it against their will or be fined and possibly jailed! Clearly this is an impingement on individual freedom and the founding principles of our nation!
Heh. That's a good one.
American companies are sending jobs and manufacturing to China and Mexico because those countries don't have labor laws or environmental protections, and they can pay a tiny fraction of what they must pay Americans. The corporate income tax has very little to do with it. Any corporation that makes enough money to pay corporate income tax has enough money to hire an accountant and figure out how to minimize those taxes.
Payroll taxes are a little more problematic, but it's a small price to pay for social security, disability, medicare, and unemployment coverage. I'd rather my folks had Social Security and Medicare, thank you, and I don't mind paying for it.
The borrowing from China started long before Obama.
And the bright side: consumer goods will cost more, but our debts will be smaller in relative terms!
The screwed up health insurance in this country is another reason corporations are sending jobs elsewhere. It actually costs less to pay employees in Canada than in America, because their healtcare is paid for by the gov't.
Our current employer based insurance system is severely screwed. Lose your job, you lose your benefits. Not cool.
I'm not saying I know what the answer is. Just that we need a fix.
I cannot speak for Americans that do not like our president. I can only speak for myself. It makes no difference who becomes our president. They all must pass through the hoops of the capitalist hoop masters. That means; wage wars on innocent countries so we can steal their resources, tells lies to the people about any news of these events. Do all you can to stifle the work force and keep them in control and deflate their unions. Be a master of propaganda and control all forms of media so it mirrors the lies you want to promote. Obama does all that so I guess I do not like him either. He is just another bought and paid for person freeloading in the White House and just happens to be black. You will never see an Angels Davis or Malcom X type black person in the White House!
Those that are complaining are the 46% or so who voted for McCain. (They tend to be loud)
Oh so its just because they voted for someone else?
of course not...everything the democrats are pulling in congress to pass this bill is unconstitutional
everything they have done to pass this bill has been covert and very low...completely off the integrity scale of legislation, as I said, unconstitutional
It's not just being said by those that didn't vote for him either...there are moderate democrats that don't approve of the procedures that have been going on...and all of the Republicans, except for 1 0r 2 are getting millions of email and faxes from their constituents to kill this taking away of free market healthcare and forcing people to purchase the health insurance they don't want...its the natioanlization of healthcare, a socialist agenda that half the country knows is not constitutional
I could go on and on...it is not knowing that keeps this kind of stuff going on, citizens need to get involved, and stand up for their freedoms
Lie. I did not vote for anybody. Sandra Rink voted for Obama
Some how I highly doubt that if McCain were in office people would be any better off financially. Of course I am sure his supporters would have less to complain about lol. Too many complainers really, and by studying history people will realize there are always ebs and flows in the economy. I for one have no complaints about Obama, and commend him for dealing with all the garbage people are throwing his way.
Also, never mind it is in vogue to publish hubs saying he is born in Kenya, which is an out and out lie. Oh well, if people want to slander someone, I question their motives. They want attention.
Well glad you agree with me there. I highly doubt people agree with much I have to say. Even I am sick of politics really after receiving all sorts of fun messages in my mail box.
If McCain were in office I would definitely still have my $80,000 per year truck driving job. But you're right; I'd have less to complain about (though I'm not complaining, just explaining). And I definitely would NOT be writing on HubPages; that job took pretty much all the time and energy I had.
Actually there is no guarantee you would have your job with McCain either. If anything, my prediction is the economy might been worse under McCain. However, I am glad to see the push for health care, and as someone who studies the ebs and flows of economy I do not see this as the end.
This is still a great and wonderful country, and working within the system is the way. I have a tremendous faith in this country, and I am not going to let job lose taint that.
I believe in this country, served in the military, vote, and pay my taxes. I do NOT believe in Obama, and I don't feel particularly tainted by that lack of belief.
However, just because someone has not served in the military does not make them less American. You do not have to believe or even vote in Obama, but it is incorrect to attribute the loss of a job to him. The economy was mismanaged under Bush by the way, and that is how we got to this place.
There wasn't 10% unemployment under Bush, this is Obama's economy, the days of blaming Bush are looooooooong gone.
You are partially correct. The unemployment rate was in fact much less than 10% when Bush took office. His administration's negligence contributed much to our current situation; his supporters will have to come to grips with that. Repubs had their chance; they had incredible power to do good, but chose to line their own pockets instead. They have been rightfully swept out of office and relegated to the role of naysayers and whiners, a role they should get used to playing for a long time.
Blaming it on either Bush or Obama is actually playing into the hands of those who were in fact really responsible -- the financial clowns who ripped you all off. To debate which politician poisoned the well is to miss the point entirely -- average Americans were kicked in the nuts by greedy, selfish, and highly UN-patriotic financial institutions. Let's point the finger where it belongs.
But - Bush and co. were the enablers.
Still, for a start no-one could say that Clinton exactly kept this corporate greed in check. And besides, it cuts both ways -- if Obama is being hamstrung by corporate lobbyists, then so was Bush, because that's how it works in that great nation of yours. The bottom line is that banks took you all for a ride in the most scandalous way, and then came back for a bailout. They weren't regulated properly by government, but government (Bush, Obama, whoever) is hand in glove with lobbyists... who represent, again, corporations.
Think about it. How many threads have you seen criticizing Obama, Sarah Palin, Bush, Cheney, etc. And how many have you seen criticizing corporate greed and disregard for the average American worker.
It's a con-game.
Emailing you like that is below the belt. The whole point of forums is to air out our ideas to one another -- and to get pissed off at one another... publicly. This is one of the things that makes America great (I'm not American, or in America); in China, Hubpages wouldn't last five minutes.
But taking it private is abusing the ideals America upholds. In that sense it is unpatriotic. The genius of the American system is supposed to be the granting of the opportunity to express views without fear of intimidation... so not cool!
ummm, ongoing unemployment (see your op), record foreclosures that will only be eclipsed by the record foreclosures in oh-ten, war in afpak, war in iraq, an open sign still hanging at guantanamo's front door, extending pd-51, extending patriot act, ongoing non-improvement in the economy, a looming credit card debt fiasco, giving a war speech in a peace prize acceptance setting.
hopefully you're not missing any of this.
I have to agree with you.
The fact that he ran around the world apologizing was a slap in the face to a lot of people. There are people that can't let the election go. I voted for Obama, and I wish I hadnt. MY biggest problem is that he has not done anything that he promised during his campaign. No politician ever has for that matter.
A lot of what you are saying was created by the Bush administration, and republicans who are trying everything they can to discredit a popular president, even though a lot of the problems were created by the republican party after 8 years of prosperity under president Clinton, whom they also tried to burry under a sex scandal, because they couldn't find anything else to blame him for.
But, we all Know that this really has nothing to do with the president. it is our bickering government that is to blame. They all can't agree on anything. So when a President like Obama comes along with good ideas, the hardline jerks have to do everything they can to stonewall him on every issue.
This is one reason why other countries are prospering, and we are failing. Because our goverment only has one thing in mind, and that is self preservation, and getting re-elected, and not the needs of the people.
If I was president I would be saying enough of this votoing BS.
I have an idea, and were are going to do it. If you don't like it leave. And there would be no lobbiasts, I would throw them all out on their asses, and find people who want to do what is good for the country...and not what's good for Banks or the auto industry. 2 places where we got duped into believing there was a problem. only so they could give themselves bigger paychecks. Sound familiar?
I knew a lady who was around 80 years old. She said this, and it is very true. We have too many chiefs and not enough indians. The Chiefs are so busy smoking their pipes, and talking about bullshit that nothing ever gets done.
But blue dog, this was going on before he came into office wasnt it? I did not vote for anyone either. Years ago I understood my vote don't count anyhow.....
very true, but what has he done to soften the blow, to change the course, to instill confidence, and last, to fulfill campaign promises?
Are you all smoking peyote? Give me a single idea that is Obama's and positive. That man is a train wreck.
Cuz hees a muslim kenyan communist facist who ain't got the right respec fer the consty-tushin or the great white race.
What are you, blind?
Seriously I'm not picking sides. I didnt vote. I really dont understand what all the hate on Obama is? If he did something specific please tell.
read my previous post for starters...and its not hate on Obama, its the manner of actions just to look good and accomplish something
What was unconstitutional? What did they do?
did you read both of my previous posts?
http://www.voteronpaul.com/newsDetail.p … aCare-2919
Who is he forcing to take healtcare insurance they dont want?
If EVERYONE is required to take it -- there are bound to be some who don't want it, and don't want to pay for it for themselves and others.
Thats what I dont get. Theres people who have nothing right now. I would greatly appreciate anything that is givin to me and not be mad because that is not what I wanted.
Ill take what I can get at this point. Something is better than nothing!
I practice wholistic wellness and prevention of illness
there are no insurance plans that i have ever heard of that can work with that perspective. If I don't buy insurance I will be fined, if I still don't buy I will be put in jail...its in the bill
I am not going to do your research for you. get some perspectives from all sides of the situation so that you can decide for yourself...it really is important to get informed and seek out as many perspectives as possible, you are not going to find all the necessary information from the main stream media, they tow the administration's line...heck half the congress people have'nt read the entire 2000 page bill because they weren't given enough time to do so before they were called to vote on it
look at websites of the congress people on both sides of the isle
there are many people from the "sides" that have insiders getting information to disseminate to their groups to take action
look at C-Span
You don't have to Hate Obama to disagree with him. Personally I wish him all the best in leading the nation, and i hope he turns out to be the best President we ever have had. I don't necessarily agree with his ideas on how to do that, so far.
He pushed through a nearly one trillion dollar stimulus, omnnibus bill that was full of pork, took over american companies, racked up the larggest deficit in history, And now is trying to take over 1/6th of the economy with Health care reform, and he lied about not raising taxes on those making less than 250 thousand dollars
Very little opposition to that. Even among the Republicans. Please define "non-pork stimulus" please.
Which ones shouldn't have been? Are these short-term or long-term interests?
As a percentage of GDP, not even close.
As he promised in his campaign...because that 1/6 of our economy should be more like 1/10 of our economy, like it is in every other industrialized country. (Do you like paying more for less?)
Yhe stimulus by definition was to be spent to start the economy going again, 25 percent has been doled out and the majority has gone to states and cities to keep firemen, cops and teachers going a good thing, but it isnt STIMULATING to maintain what is already in place, Omnibus had more pork than any legislation in history, raising taxes on people making less than 250 thousand, for starters look at the taxes funding HCR, PAYROLL taxes not on only people making more than 250 thousand, Lied about transparency, none of these sweeping bills this year was made available toi the public for 48 hours prior to a vote, and those were his words
I read the first several posts and decided to at least pass on my perspective--which is extremely personal as Obama getting elected did very definitely hit me with a negative impact as follows:
1. During the campaign of 2008, I was driving on-off road big rigs in western Colorado, hauling water to gasfield drilling rigs. It was a drilling boom that had gone for several years and had looked like it would go for several more at the very least. A McCain/Palin win would have secured my employment because, quite simply, we knew they believed in drilling. We KNEW Obama would be an absolute disaster for the energy production industry.
2. The drilling boom continued right up until Election Day and then nosedived (as we'd figured it would if Obama won). In the two years I'd worked for my employer, the company had grown from a fleet off 21 trucks to over 60 PLUS another two dozen owner operators who leased on with their own rigs. By February of '09, the owner operators had all been cut loose and our bosses were in survival mode. I didn't get laid off but did lose 12 hours per week of pure overtime at $34.50 per hour. There was no way to pull our belts tight enough for that, so my wife and I grabbed our little bit of savings, quit the job, and got out of Dodge while we could.
3. Our Colorado home, purchased new in March 2007, was sold at foreclosure on December 2. I hold Obama personally responsible for that.
4. His pushing for Health Care Reform is terrible for the country, but the personal "sharp end of the spear" (to which I'll limit myself) is the requirement in that bill to buy health insurance whether we want to or not, or be fined (and possibly face jail time if the fine is not paid). Since when does the government have the right to command a citizen to buy ANY specific product? It does not...unless we lie down like little doormats and let it happen.
5. Although he has not yet pushed hard on this issue, Obama has been known throughout his years in public life as an extreme gun control advocate. I am an extreme advocate of gun ownership without restriction. On that issue alone I would oppose him adamantly.
There's more...but you get the idea.
Because his policies tanked the energy industry and ultimately cost me the profitable portion of my wages, forcing my decision to either stay on the job until I could no longer keep up my payments...or abandon the house. Either way, foreclosure during his administration was inevitable, the only variable being the precise timeline. Additionally, when he visited Colorado during the campaign, he promised continued support for drilling (for both natural gas and, elsewhere, oil), but that didn't happen. As those of us who saw through him from the start KNEW would not happen. Parachute, Colorado, the boom town where we lived, is today a virtual ghost town. Had McCain/Palin been elected, the boom would DEFINITELY have continued.
It went from boom to bust in less than a year?! Something tells me you're leaving something essential out of this story.
What exactly did Obama do to change the drilling practices in Colorado? Did he designate Parachute as a national wildlife reserve and forbid drilling? What *support* was the federal government supposed to give to keep the petroleum industry afloat there? Why was the state of Colorado not involved?
This could get a lot longer than the average Hub--like most politically driven discussions, there are many details and intricacies in the overall picture. However, a couple of those details:
1. The first and foremost impact had to do with confidence. As those who voted for him felt confident he would give them healthcare and other liberal goodies, the business owners and managers were scared to death of him.
2. He'd confirmed our worst fears when he selected Ken Salazar as Secretary of Interior. Salazar, as a Colorado legislator, had for years been the loudest voice in the state in his attempts to halt all drilling on the Roan Plateau--where a vast portion of our business was being conducted. He wanted to halt even the drilling that was ongoing at the time, preserving the Plateau for wildlife and hunters only.
I worked many a shift behind a big rig's wheel on the Roan. Berry Petroleum, Williams, and a few others made the operating rules. No speed limit ever posted was above 25mph, and most of us drove those twisty, steep, dirt roads at 15mph or less. Wildlife did not have a problem with our presence. Rabbits and even young coyotes would often show up in the middle of the road and meander along with us for a while. Black bears often strolled through actual drilling locations, sniffing around for possible snacks which were (standard practice) bear-proofed in locked containers. Deer and elk abounded, and none were overly spooked by our low speed vehicular traffic. Get caught speeding, and you were summarily fired.
But Salazar wanted it ALL shut down. Not a good sign to have him selected to run the show from Washington.
3. In complete fairness, Colorado itself did have something to do with the problem. Some of their government types decided pass rules and regs--both at the state and at the county levels--which were increasingly restrictive for energy operators in Colorado. A few such had already thrown up their hands and moved to friendlier places to drill such as Wyoming and North Dakota. But most companies (Berry and Williams among them) were so far managing to work with those regs and committed to doing so on a continuing basis.
Boom to bust? "Obama dunnit." More precisely, the ELECTION of Obama dunnit. Add to that the selection of Ken Salazar to "boss" the drilling companies, and it was all over but the shouting. When we left in April, the exodus from Colorado was so frantic that U-Haul didn't have a single car transport trailer available for rent in the entire state.
So, to answer your question specifically, yes, he DID pretty much designate Parachute (and environs) as a national wildlife refuge and forbid drilling. In practice, he did almost exactly that by putting a radical environmentalist in charge of the Interior.
Auto liability insurance anyone? License plates? State inspections/emission? Just to name a few closest to my interests. Don't fool yourself Ghost, the whole country is hooked since long ago...
Those examples are what the STATES make you buy, not the FEDERAL government. Remember, the federal government's power is LIMITED by the constitution. By the way, auto insurance is not mandatory, nor is it required by the state that you own a car. In many states you only have to be bonded ie a form of self insurance, to drive your own car.
Your indignation and sense of outrage are once again selective and skewed. I was forced to chip in on a predator drone that killed an innocent mother and child in Pakistan. I would rather have those funds pay for an abortion for a woman whose life will be negatively impacted by her inability to financially overcome the obstacles placed in her way by Christian radicals, but I doubt you have much interest in defending that particular freedom.
I do, though, Ron. Despite voting on the conservative side most of the time, I'm firmly pro-choice. Limited choices for complex people in a two party system, and all that....
I know. You have once again foiled my attempt to brand all conservatives as thoughtless and cruel.
Like it or not the very formation of the federal government was for the common defense of the nation. Of course it would be wise to avoid all war, but at least the administration of foreign policy is granted to the federal government by the constitution. That fact that you would rather kill an innocent child to save a person from a hardship brought upon by their own irresponsibility makes no difference to me except to show what kind of person you really are.
My statement certainly does show what kind of person I am, as your lie shows what type you are.
Your statement says more about you than anything I have read from you to this point, (which is usually spectacularly ignorant yet mostly harmless). You would rather our government act in accordance to your perverted interpretation of a document than allow a mother and child to live in peace. What a wonderful philosophy.
And despite being liberal (I suppose, on balance), I am pro-life, so there you are. Just shows the weakness of representative democracy - maybe we should move to a new, internet-driven forum-based type of democracy: hah, that'll never happen, Washington, London, Paris, etc., like things just the way they are...
Frankly I don't understand American love to state governments as opposed to the federal one. They all are governments at the end, and they all rob us as much as we allow them.
Now, most states do require you have an insurance if you own the car. I do know that you don't have to have it if you don't have a car LOL. I am not saying it is as bad as obligatory health insurance, but I am saying it was a step in preparing Americans to obligatory health insurance. See where I am coming from?
You have a point, but I'm not fooled, and the points you raise are not precisely perfect examples. Auto liability insurance is required ONLY if you have an auto. In some areas, nearly 1/4 of active drivers run without insurance, and there are no penalties unless they are caught while being stopped for a traffic infraction or involved in an accident. With the health care plan, coverage is required if you are ALIVE, so I guess you could argue that "having a body" is the SAME as "having a car". But there is a difference, at least in my mind.
I do agree that the whole country is hooked, but the so called health care reform push does take it from a simple to something more like Triton's proverbial trident.
Yeah Ghost, as I replied to Poppa above, we are more or less on the same page here. I am just saying that it started not yesterday and not 10 years back, you guys lost your country long ago, and now we are witnessing a culmination of this process...
Ok first realize I am blond.
I guess I just dont get it. Why does being democrate or Republican have to do with everything? We are all human. I dont understand why one has to be one or the other.
There is more that he has done wrong as well, lied about open and transparent legislation and so on. The point is he is doing a bad job, I dont know if he is hated, I think people who disagree with him feel decieved, me among them. I had hope that he would not be horrible as prez, but that is painfulkly obvious that I was wrong.
By the way he didnt give you unemployment for your kids Christmas, that comes from the state you live in, not the feds and the health care benefits wont be there for four years, but the taxes for them start next year
The president forced the state to extend unemployment. He made it law from what I understood.
When state benefits are exhausted, federal ones kick in. This is what's known as a fact. Haters and rabble rousers rarely acknowledge them.
Thats what I thought. Why dont they get that? I mean I am blond but it was the president who signed it into law.
have you been unemployed beyond your normal benefit time ?
Talk radio and Fox news are largely to blame. They stir up the easily frightened and make large piles of cash for doing so.
I kinda have this feeling that everyone is hostile because of what someone started as a rumor. I don't see any hard facts as to whats wrong. I have always learned never to believe what someone tells me withought hard facts because there could be motives behind it.
I dont think he raised my taxes any. I get alot back at tax time from what HR block estimated. The most I ever have in my life. That gives me more money to fix my home, buy my kids things and such therefor putting money back into the economy. Dont ya think?
HCR hasnt passed yet, and the taxes you got back were from the previous year, that would be bush you owe the praise to, kinda ironic isnt it
No I didn't say I got them. Last years sucked. This was an estimated for when the year is over......
Its fortunate for you that you are having a good year, I wish that more people were as well off now, it is sad whats happening
Yea I even bought a home. And when bush was in office the home that was in my husbands name forclosed on.
I am not well off by far though. I make maybe 18,000 a year as a CNA. So i would not say by any means I am well off. And I have no health insurance with many medical issues.
hopefully you wont need medical attention for four years
Oh well I have. The Ambulance has had to come get me and because of the wonderful US we live in they are forced to treat someone in medical need regardless of insurance or not. Its the law, even if I only had a sliver.
Yip, the government declared that it is unconstitutional to deprive health care to anyone in need.
Uninsured people can go to the ER (which they hate because it cost more for some reason) and be treated regardless of insurance. The state provides what they can to the people in their state when it comes to health care. The feds do not have jurisdiction over the matters that are endowed to the states. Why change it?
Some are upset because they have to pay for the uninsured. Add another 23 million to the insured pot who can barely afford it. Who are forced to buy it, then they get pissed off because they are paying for the ones who cannot afford it.
Send the poor to jail because they are poor??? Noway! You fall into that category. So take what you can get now because like someone else said, you better hope you don't get sick in a few years.
Or more hopefully American will join the rest of the free world in providing high quality free medical care!
Yes thats what I thought Obama was for? Wasnt he?
But ya know what earnest to be honest, if ya dont pay your medical bill it goes on your credit. When I bought my home the bank said He did not care about ANY medical on my credit, it meant nothing to him and I got the loan. Sounds like free medical too me. LMAO
So Kmack, did you learn anything? Have you been persuaded to hate a man who is trying to help?
we have the same problem over here with our P.M, Gordon Brown, ( UK ). Not everyone is going to be happy about a certain leader. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can please some of the people some of the time.
You just have to give them a chance, let them get on with it, and then have your say when the next election comes up.In the meantime, it looks like we're stuck with 'em.
Obama is a weak president, like Indian prime minister manmohan singh. Obama lied a lot to win the elections and he is continuing to lie even after everyone understood he was lying.
For me it is pretty simple.
He promised transparency & bipartisanship.
He has not even come close to delivering on either promise. It is simply politics as usual.
No change, no hope. He is a run of the mill politician, not the transformative figure that was so slickly presented in the campaign.
But what do I know?
See the Obameter Scorecard above. 20 compromises with an opposition that is intent on doing nothing but saying "no" to anything he does.
Ken as usual I agree with you. We were told this administration would be different, I am speaking primarily on the transparency and he fell so short on that alone.
It's for all the world as though a lot of Americans liked the quasi-radical talk of Obama after the stultifyingly dismal gibberish of Bush but were also recognising that the war-mongering of the previous administration was helping the US down the pan.
Once Obama takes on the reins of government though, they get all worried about the idea that he might actually carry through some of those things, like reforming health care.
But the right wing shouldn't have worried. He won't do anything to really upset business, because like all reformist politicians, he's absolutely committed to business as usual. As the business interests dig in, he'll compromise all along the line.
On his very first day as president, he managed to find time to talk to the Haaretz newspaper where, despite the bombing of Gaza, he found it possible to explain that he would give Israel unconditional support - continuing the Bush line. Many of us outside the US were amazed at his passive support for ethnic cleansing and expected a great deal more.
Obama will be much more competent that the puppeteers behind Bush, and probably a bit more open, but the disappointment comes from those who thought he meant what he said, when in reality just like every reformist politician, they tailor their actions to the agenda of business. It's crumbs from the table as usual for most folks, just a different guy sat in the big chair. He has so much opportunity but the American way seems to be that profit comes before everything else, before principles, morality, justice, international responsibility, no matter what.
Americans who don't think like that will find a lot to be disappointed by in the actions of Obama.
It could be alot worse for you americans, you could still have bush in power
Meant to say "...takes it from a simple fishhook to something more like Triton's proverbial trident."
Is it because he speaks a lot about change but doesn't make any?
"By the way, auto insurance is not mandatory"
It is in my State, no insurance no license
Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
-- Thomas Jefferson
" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794
"Some how I highly doubt that if McCain were in office people would be any better off financially."
You really think McCain would be talking tax raises,health care,cap and trade, etc? I don't, I think the ol pasty dude would be limiting the amount of money we spend not increasing it. I think he would be encouraging investors by dropping tax rates and he certainly wouldn't be apologizing for the US all over the Globe.
Sorry, but yes the economy would be worse off. People can decry the stimulus all the want, but the money from this program has saved quite a few jobs, and helped keep county and public facilities open. Many people rely on their local and county police officers, sheriffs, libraries, and these are a few of the people that were helped by the stimulus. These also happen to be major employers. By the way, when people are looking to blame the loss of their job on a candidate they do not like, they will find a way. The economy was already heading downhill, and it would have been much worse without the stimulus. Not to mention how the stimulus package will help to keep many teachers employed. Do you want your kids in overflowing classrooms?
I must be out of the loop. Did Obama raise taxes on anyone but the wealthiest section of the population -- because if he did that is not acceptable, in my book, as that was a campaign promise. I only ask based on Mitch's post.
Even if he did raise taxes on the more wealthy citizens, good because often they do not pay their fair share. Starting under Reagan the upper classes have had to pay far less than their fair share of taxes anyway. Americans in general pay far fewer taxes than Canadians and Europeans, but people feel mad when they have to pay any tax. I actually I am in a very high tax bracket from writing on Hubpages and other writing sites as an independent contractor, and I understood that all along. I never even was upset about it, it is just the way it is.
But still, he did promise not to raise taxes for anyone but the well-off. Someone making 80 000 dollars a year was not supposed to see a tax hike...
However, what proof do we have that Obama did? I think they are exaggerating you see, I am probably very certain they are. I would have to do some more research to ascertain this, but we have no statistics or studies showing if this were the case. My taxes have been about the same, but in California Arnold and the California legislature did raise our state taxes.
He raised taxes on everyone, Soda tax, cig tax, more to come.
Not the same as income taxes. Sodas and cigarettes are not exactly necessities.
And it was congress that passed those taxes by the way.
Exactly and soda is not food. I was laughing at that funny soda ad that implied the contributing loss of homes would happen with the soda tax, which people definitely should not drink for health reasons. I drink it sometimes still, but recently lost fifteen more pounds when I stopped drinking it every day. You are better off without those things.
Congress signed it into law also? Thats why
I tend to ignore you, The poorest in this Country smoke the most! The poorest in this Country have the worst diets and consume a lot of Cokes and Pepsi, so who do you think is getting hit the hardest with the taxes? Presidents sign bills into law! NOT CONGRESS!
Just because you are poor does not mean you have to eat bad or smoke. Actually schools and most employers are encouraging people to have a more healthful diet, and on my walk last night I saw plenty of high end cars going through the drive through. Taxing soda and cigarettes, good, because anyone who buys those items cannot make the excuse of income for it. I have not always been very well off myself, but I educate myself about better food choices. As Americans we need to educate our country about eating more healthful because another large component of our large health care bills can be attributed to poor food choices, which in this modern world people do not have the excuse of making. Do you know you can make lentils and rice for about a dollar, and this is a healthful dish that people can eat on any budget? You can ignore me, and do you think I care? Means nothing to me really. Congresses pases it, and then the president signs it. Wow, no caps in discussion, that is screaming .
I didn't say I was poor I said the Poor smoke and have the worst diets. But they as any American does have the right to do those things, raising taxes is raising taxes do you not understand that?
As I said Europeans tax many more things than we do in the US, so I think considering you are pretty lucky. Honestly I have no sympathy for the taxes others have to pay because of their bad lifestyle choices. If you want to be a dodo and smoke, good, I think it is the perfect way to help finance health care. If you make an effort to walk and eat healthy, I am all for employers giving those people discounts on health insurance. Your body is a temple, and if you want to defile it with unhealthful stuff no one is taking away your freedom. You just have to pay more for it. No biggie, good sense really. However, unlike you I do not have much sympathy for people that smoke around others, which many smokers do.
We are talking about Obama raising taxes, I don't care what they do in Europe I don't live in Europe. If you like their system then go to Europe, don't bring Europe to me. Have a nice day, you find it difficult to stay on topic, don't you?
Actually I am right on topic. The bad food choices and smoking contributes to medical conditions, which raises the cost of health care for everyone. Yes these people should have to pay more taxes if they want to drink soda and smoke, which is a good way to help finance health care. I noticed people who do not like someone's point of view always pull the topic card. I am way on topic, and by the way this is a forum. We contribute, you do not determine things.
So you think people shouldn't be free to pursue happiness as they see fit, that government should define what constitutes happiness?
The rate of tax in the U.S. in comparison to other places is not a matter of "luck". It is a reflection of our productivity is such as to allow a greater amount of revenue to be collected at a smaller rate.
Not necessarily, and no country is an island. Even ones that physically are!
And your economics degree is from where again? Economists have been debating things like the relationship of productivity to tax rates for centuries -- with no, one, knock-out, answer.
The reason is that there is no, one, answer. It is presumably not luck, of course, but there are lots of factors -- union activity, foreign competition, tariff rules, the price of overheads like fuel, etc., and so on...
Europe, in any case, is a bunch of countries, and they are all different. Heck, even their health care systems are all different: some of them have private systems where government oversees only a few, key aspects, some of them have fully public systems. Some have 15 million people, some 90 million. Some have coastlines, some don't. Some grow olives... I could go on...
Were you addressing me? When did I say I was an economist?
No I wasn't addressing you. But I will if you give me a theory about the relationship between productivity and tax rates. Fair's fair. Dish when warranted. But not when not....
I did not ask for your opinion, I responded to your response to my statement, as to disqualifying me from being able to comment
And so your implication is that because economists are debating this my opinion is not weighty ? Yet the statement that we are lucky in having smaller taxes then Europe is complicit with economists debate ?
No my implication is that because you do not have a degree in economics your opinion is not weighty.
yet the statement I was responding to does not need to comply with your self imposed qualification. And by the way, do you know what my education is. I studied Economics as a minor. Have some healthy debate and try to be equitable in your qualifications of those who can comment
You don't need to get snotty. I didn't even realize it was you who posted that. Besides, a minor in economics *does* mean that your opinion carries more weight. But obviously I am not going to simply accept someone's statement about something complex unless I know something about their training or education (as I would expect you to demand from me)...
not accepting is fine, telling someone to not comment cause others more qualified is something else. And presuming the background or education of someone you don't know does not help either
Presuming was exactly the opposite of what I was doing -- I was specifically asking for his background, in fact.
I want him to make these comments. I don't mean he shouldn't (or was it you -- I am getting confused). In fact, comments like that should be made in the open; definitely...
....so, if I think it's fishy, but don't myself have the background to refute it, because I don't even know why it seesm fishy, someone else might be able to help me out.
Someone can be well read on a subject without being an economist. Also I am highly cognizant of the differences between European countries, but I stand by my earlier comment that the tax rates are higher in Europe in general than the US. Also, I do disagree with some of your points about how Clinton was the beginning point of the economic chaos because even economic experts here in the US have pointed out it was under Bush large corporations were given free reign. I have a history degree, and I am pretty well read various political issues, and economics comes up in this. May not be an economist, but I think I can make some pretty savvy assessments as well.
Being well-read also counts as some sort of qualification, or background. But I was asking the original poster.
As regards Clinton, Clinton may not have been a Neo-Con, but he was certainly a Neo-Liberal, meaning someone who believed in (or was cornered into believing -- the result is the same) free market economics.
A long time ago, as you know I am sure, this whole Greenspan-style stuff was barely even on the agenda. But, while Bush was of course on the far right economically, I don't think that Democrats can say that they exactly oppose free-market theory, based on their record.
Anyway, my point was that sometimes people like Mitch are right that interventionism causes a lot of problems. Governments the world over often royally screw up things in a big way. But that does not mean that ALL intervention is bad.
It's a classic case of "all-or-nothing thinking".
Good points Adsensestrategies. I probably should get back to my hubs. I can make money writing, but on the forum I am just not earning. Not even sure why I am here, there is no one I am really chummy with like certain groups of people . It must be nice for those who all kind of feel they belong on this forum, never felt that way honestly.
Yes, so let's keep soda and cigarettes cheap and make health care unaffordable. So the poorest have the worst nutrition, the worst health, and the least access to healthcare.
Some people refuse to realize that poor health choices are a waste of money now, for these products, and later on down the line because of poor health conditions. I am not worried about someone's freedom to buy a 2 litter soda for under a dollar because as Bill Maher said if it is big enough to burp, you probably do not need to buy it anyway.
You are very government dependent. Do you want them to wipe for you too? What does dependency create? Does the government think for you as well?
Dependency on the private sector for your job is dependency also. The only true independence is entrepreneurship. But maybe this is a whole new can of worms...
Have you ever driven on an interstate? Gone to the library? Did you go to public school? Do you shop at a supermarket? The produce wouldn't be there without the interstate system my friend.
If you were a marine, my tax dollars paid for your training, salary, gun, and healthcare, and they are now paying for your pension.
We are all dependent on government.
Some are much more dependent than others. Do you know what dependency equals? Answer that and you will see why they are creating dependency if you would educate yourself. There is a big difference between fixing roads and raising taxes that tell people what to eat and drink. Sorry you are too irrational in your warped ideaology to understand freedom.
So you are planning on no longer driving on the interstate? Gonna grow all your own food?
There's a difference between public money going to create a public good, and all out dependence on the government.
I see you dodged my question. When and where did I say "no" government? You want to keep making things up? You want to answer questions? This is where you are confused, there is difference between public good and public takeover. Now, what does dependency equal?
You said I was dependent on government. I pointed out that you were dependent also.
Creating dependence? With the cost of healhcare in America, we are all dependent on someone to pay for it. Only the super rich could pay all their medical expenses out of pocket. This is why we pay insurance companies.
And here's a news flash - just because you paid for your insurance coverage doesn't mean that the procedure you need will be covered.
We are dependent on private insurance companies now. Frankly I'd rather depend on the government (which I control through votes) than on some company that's trying to make a profit from my health.
Dependence is dependence, whether it's to a corporation or a government.
There are different levels of dependency, do you not comprehend this? Dependency = Control. Not tough to figure out that we have a power hungry government. What does more control equal? lol, And you think they are competent enough to put together a healthcare bill without sending us further in debt? You didn't answer me about the lockouts and bribery to get votes. Do you have selective reading?
Yes, different levels of dependency. I'm not disagreeing. And I think it sucks that my health right now depends on the profit motive.
And your question about the lockouts was off topic. There are several different conversations going on in this thread, I was responding to one of them.
From my perspective, having a healthcare system that is driven by the insurance industry is an appalling idea. Buying insurance against something only makes sense if the risk of whatever you're insuring against is very low. So insuring against your house burning down is a great idea, because the chance of that happening is tiny and the premiums are therefore small enough to be affordable, plus you can be reasonably sure of a payout if the worst happens. With healthcare, it's a different story. We will all need healthcare at some point in our lives, and that's why private health insurance is generally a rip off (how would they make money if they didn't try to renege on payouts, charge huge premiums/excesses or refuse to insure people with pre-existing illnesses?)
That leaves two other options: nationalised healthcare funded by taxes, and/or private "pay as you go" healthcare.
Out of the two, I prefer government as well when it comes to healthcare. Our National Health Service is horrendously flawed, but your insurance company-driven American system sounds far worse.
Actually I'm not totally against a totally free market pay-as-you go approach... but I'm not convinced it would actually work, and I'm afraid too many people would fall through the cracks.
And I'm not sure that the health reform bill, as it stands currently, will fix the problem. The lobbyists got their hands on it.
But that's not Obama's fault, that's a failure of the American system.
...but he did promise to break the backs of the lobbyists...
Yeah I'm waiting on that but not holding my breath.
If it was Obama's original idea to make people buy private health insurance and then bang them up in prison if they didn't comply, then I'd have to say the bill was flawed from the start regardless of what the lobbyists did to it later.
I must say it would be interesting to speculate what life would be like if we had a totally pay-as-you go healthcare system. I actually do think it would work out cheaper in terms of cost per hour/procedure, but as you say people would fall through the cracks (although some doctors would no doubt do pro bono work as someone else here said a while back).
Obama's original idea was to require everyone to have insurance, but to also provide a public option for those who couldn't afford private insurance.
That seems odd to me; why would he want to require everyone to have insurance? Surely the issue was that health companies wouldn't accept those looking for it, not that some people didn't want it anyway?
There are several reasons for requiring people to buy. For one, insurance is a shared risk pool. The more people who put their money into the pool, the more the risk/cost is distributed. Thus, if the 50 million Americans who currently don't have insurance were to buy it, premiums would go down for everyone.
Also I think it would drive down the costs of things like people getting all their care from emergency rooms.
How are 20 million people going to buy it without money?
That's why there would be a public option.
But you just said "The public option has been nixed, for one thing, but the mandate remains."
And wait - where did you get the 20 million figure? Just curious, not attacking. This is all part of it. Out of roughly 50 million Americans without health insurance, a good many of them can afford it and just don't want it. Others can afford it but are barred because of preexisting conditions. Then there are those who just can't afford it. I'm assuming that last group is the one you are talking about when you say 20 million?
The original estimate of people who are uninsured for whatever reason.
The bill passed senate and said that that the new bill will give health insurance to 23 million people. They covered the pre-existing conditions by saying that you cannot be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions. That is all fine and good.
So what did that exactly to for the people who really cannot afford it? Sure, some people don't want it. Most of those people who don't buy insurance are rich and don't need it. It would probably in the long run cost less for them to just pay when they get sick.
That is a stipulation that gets overlooked. So what about affordability again? Wasn't that the purpose? Making it affordable for the 43 million (government stats) uninsured.
What makes more sense to you, those who don't want it, don't need it but you want to make them buy it anyways. Those that need it cannot afford it but you want to make them buy it anyways.
You just cannot make people buy it.
Geez. Almost sounds as complicated as cap-and-trade. Why not just
(a) tax carbon at source
(b) tax everyone a bit extra and give them all free health care.
Of course, he wouldn't be able to TELL anyone he was doing this... and hope they didn't notice...
How has the original idea changed? Another question: would the public option have been means tested?
Not sure about the changes in the bill. I'm pretty certain they are for the worse. The public option has been nixed, for one thing, but the mandate remains.
I don't know if there would have been a means test for the public option. It would have to depend on many other things as well, for example, people who make enough money to buy private but are refused because of preexisting conditions.
Of course the point is moot. Brits would riot in the streets if the NHS was privatized. I mean the trains are one thing, but...
What everyone fails to see is that health care is NOT a right and that the dfederal government lacks the power to IMPOSE its vision of health care on the rest of us. That power belongs to the states and some states, like MA have exercised that power. If you want that benefit, you can vote for it by moving to MA, or you can petition your state representaives to provide it. The federal government CAN NOT impose it! Article 1 sextion 8 states:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
But we DO have a right to drink soda and smoke cigarettes? Hmm.
Well "everyone else" has a view on this, so until God comes down and tells us the real answer, I think the only thing we're left with is a debate on the question. Hundreds of millions of people in the world think it is a right -- so maybe it just depends where you grow up... (besides, if you are going to claim it is not a right, speaking to the original poster, then you need to give us an argument, not simply state it, and leave it at that).
Well where do your rights come from? Does government "bless" you with your "rights'?? You have the same rights as any being on the planet, given to you by your creator, to pursue happiness. For most of us that pursuit involves obtaining the basic needs of survival, but needs, wants and desires, are not rights my friend, and I for one don't need a "benevolent government" to declare what rights are mine! If you need to ask, then maybe you don't deserve freedom!
Wants and desires are not rights. Needs are, by definition. That is what distinguishes them from wants and desires. And you are right, it is not for a government to decide what a right is. It is for all of us, together, using logic, and assessing exactly terms like the three you list, and analyzing what we all accept them to mean.
How do you justify a need as a right? If I need a new car is that my right? If not than who decides what my "needs" are you?, Gov? Please! You come into this world naked with nothing and that's all you're entitled to!
Wait I thought we all had a right to smoke cigarettes and drink soda?
Well, we do...at least for the time being! We may not after the gov takes over health care and tells us what's good for us!
Well doctors have always told you about healthier lifestyles, and if your doctor was okay with smoking he should not be a doctor. Why would you be so opposed to people helping you find a healthier way to live? The only person who gets the plumb deal out of your smoking is the tobacco industry. If we did not have government regulation they would still show ads for these on TV.
I'm not opposed to education or healthy life styles, and I'm certainly not opposed to people helping each other, I am opposed to gov assuming that role FOR me!
Please! Even Obama smokes! I'm sure he knows it's bad for him and he's a pretty smart guy so he must ENJOY it, it must make him HAPPY, which is HIS RIGHT!
You are right to push me on my definition, because "need" is used in different ways, so yes, your response clarifies this (and my own thinking).
No, when people say they "need" a new car, this is not a right.
I do not decide what rights are. And neither should govt (in my view).
But the statement "you are entitled to nothing except what you come into this world with" has to be defended.
You can't just state it and expect everyone to say "Yes, alright then."
You have to provide an argument -- that is what it's like in a democracy (as I am sure you know of course, not trying to talk down to you, I just mean, if you make that statement, you have to be able to defend it... WHY is this true, in other words?)
As for "need", I guess we all have basic, obvious things without which would cause us great suffering -- and some of those would be seeing that our children are fed and clothed, that we are ourselves fed and clothed, and that our children are not severely ill without recourse to some sort of aid (and this goes for ourselves too). This is the sort of thing I mean.
Sorry you don't have a right NOT to suffer! Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people shouldn't help each other I'm saying we mustn't give that task to gov because they SUCK at it!
Government often sucks at a lot of things. No question. Look at the Vietnam War. And that's just one of many examples.
Let's throw out the word "right" altogether and simply say:
"It is wrong to stand by and let people endure a certain level of suffering, if there might be something we can do about it as fellow Americans (Canadians, etc)".
Now, as you say, government might not be the right people to do something about it. Indeed, the US government has no experience administering a public health system, so who is to say they wouldn't cock it up completely (not that this is on the cards, anyway of course).
But right now it is a mess. People who are insured still get turned down because the profit margin is the only incentive in the system (it would seem, at least), which would be ok if that incentive is doing the job, but it doesn't seem to be. So, at least you agree that SOMETHING needs to be done, in SOME way, right?
There it is folks. Cheap soda for even the poorest children!
Just pray you don't need a root canal cause then you're on your own!
Actually health care is a basic human right, and it is less than humanitarian to say so. People need adequate health care to live a functional and healthy life, and most decent societies know this. You have the right to smoke and drink your soda, but paying more taxes for these things is not bad. Health care is something every body needs to live a functional life. You do not need soda and cigarettes.
Where is that right written down? The Constitution,Bill of Rights? Spray painted on a Chicago wall?
You raise a valid question -- how do we decide what a human right is. I don't go for any of your suggestions listed, but I am not sure how you do decide. I mean, as a Canadian, and former Brit, I am "sure" it is a human right, but I admit that is because I am a product of my culture -- also not a good reason to say something is true "for sure."
So, what characteristics does something have to have to be called a human right (I wonder)?
Well, this is exactly my point. I am not sure that my grandmother would've considered it a human right. In fact, I don't think her generation thought in terms of human rights at all.
So there you are. But, on the other hand, a woman should still have had the right to vote in the nineteenth century, even though she didn't, so it is a confusing issue.
Actually mine is a solidly valid point as well. The twenty-fifth article of the UN Declaration of Human Rights declares that health care is a basic human right. People need to look past themselves, and think about the less fortunate. Not to mention we have the most costly health care in the world.
Still, it would be a valid objection for an American to say that the UN is not a body elected by Americans, so why listen to them. Certainly, much of what the UN does is wrong, in my book (sanctions on Iraq, for example).
I think a person needs to say:
For something to be a human right, x, y, and z must be part of it. Otherwise it is not.
I completely disagree with you on this one. Many of us feel it is a human right, and you cannot detract from that! Every country that is part of the UN recognizes the UN Declaration of Human Rights. To share we have also as a country been trying to implement health care reform, and it is a compassionate and humanitarian thing to do. You are speaking to some very conservative people that have different viewpoints than many Americans. Also, you guys can all gang up because I am the divergent one, but it does not detract from the validity of my points. Many Americans feel as I do, and presidents since Truman have wanted health care reform. He was the first one to push for the passages of Medicare, which is in spirit with article twenty-five. Some Americans were against even seniors having Medicare back in the day. They used to say teachers should save out of their penance of a budget just so they would not be a burden on society in their old age.
55% of Americans do not want this to happen, adsense is talking to people who represent the majority!
Where do you get this statistic? It does not sound accurate. Even so, that does not take away from others, who still make up a considerable majority, that are in desperate need of a medical system that better meets their needs.
Rasmussen the only pollster who gets any of this right, ever! You are in the minority on this issue no matter what obscure poll you produce!
No, I believe that it is a human right.
In fact, I think you would have a hard time finding even the most right wing Westerner outside the US who didn't agree with me.
Margaret Thatcher privatized everything that moved, the telephones, the trains, you name it. She was the Great Champion of Reaganomics. But even she never dreamt of privatizing health care.
Similarly, in Canada we have some pretty right-wing people too, many of whom would have been happy to join the US under Bush. But if you can find ten Canadians who think we should scrap our health care system I would be very surprised.
All I mean is that, in order to justify calling it a human right, there should be criteria for defining what a "human right" is. I am not against everything the UN does, but it is just a bunch of human beings in the end.
Americans have the right to decide their own affairs, and this is an example.
Rights are subjective and depend on the culture. The right to free speech does not exist except as an idea in our culture. Before it was written into the constitution, did we not have that right? When it was legal to own slaves, were black people not fully human because their rights were not recognized?
I think, aside from the human rights question, there is a public good element to providing health care to citizens. Healthy citizens can go to work, build stuff, make art, buy things, raise children, fight fires, etc. etc. etc. Sick people cannot, at least not as effectively. I think it is my best interest, and yours too, to provide basic preventative health care to everyone.
Are you aware of what you write? You talk about constitution when they just had bribery and lockouts to get the needed votes on the healthcare that they are destined to screw up.
William does raise one good point too, though -- sick people are not PRODUCTIVE. Which is bad for the ECONOMY. But my understanding is that there is a consensus that health care needs fixing, it's just the way it's being done that people object to...
Honestly this is a very conservative group of Americans that come to post on the forums. Many of the liberal minded ones have been turned off by it, and the Fox news type of thinking. I still post here, but some people have given it up completely. There are many moderate and liberal Americans since FDR who have been in favor of adopting health care reform. Many of us feel those who are against it are for their own financial gain, and do not have the spirit of the country in mind. Someone recently said it would be nice to see Americans patriotic about something besides war.
You need a real lesson in freedom my dear! If you don't have freedom, you have nothing! This sin't about money!
What do you think people did for health care when this country was founded? How do you think the sick were cared for before medicare was enacted in the 60s? Back then doctors did a lot of pro bono care and people paid their doctors directly! It wasn't until the government got involved that we even had a problem! And further, conservative aren't against health care reform, they are against MANDATES by a federal authority without the constitutional power to impose them! I don't see why you and the other liberals can't see this. You state is free to enact universal care if that is what its citizens want, or if that is what you want you are free to move to a state that provides it. Why is it that liberals think they should IMPOSE their beliefs on everybody? You're a free person, you may go to Cuba if that suits you. I don't object to your views or ask that the government impose my beliefs upon you, I ask only to be left alone, to be free!
I need no lessons from you. We have progressed as a people, and no longer live in log cabins. The average life expectancy was much shorter those days, and we know better ways of doing things now. Maybe you should not use a computer because people did not own these when the country was founded. Your way of thinking is not mine, and if you believe in true freedom you will see I am pretty free not to adopt your beliefs thank you!
You're right, you're free to believe what you want, like I said just don't impose those beliefs upon me with force, and government is by definition, force!
That is your definition. Fun how if I never came online and just read newspapers, books, and the more moderate to liberal publications I read I would never really care if people thought this way. You are free to think this way, but FDR was among the first president to propose health care reform because by the 1930' the old system of trading the neighborhood doctor for firewood did not work. By that time the US had become an urban country, and we could no longer exchange labor for services. People are free to live that way if they want, but in a way I could day you are denying me my freedom by saying I cannot have access to a public option, which would lower my insurance premiums. It goes both ways you see.
You could say that but it wouldn't be true. The federal gov has a duty to regulate commerce across the state borders, currently the government does NOT allow insurance to compete across state lines! It is the very government you so worship that has denied you the right to cheaper insurance!
Not so! Honestly we need health care reform, and we might be better off with an nhs style system anyway. That is a little to progressive for most people to fathom though, and it will take time for people to come around. As I said before people were also opposed to women and minorities voting a hundred years ago, but society has finally changed for the better.
Back in the old days the only medicine available was a bottle of whiskey. Life expectancy wasn't all that great. Medical technology has gotten better - and also more expensive. That's the problem. How do we pay for it?
Yes except cosmetic surgery and lasik surgery. Those prices have gotten cheaper and the quality has gotten better. Why? Because insurance doesn't cover it and neither does the government! The free market has made it so! When will you people learn? The gov is bad at everything it does! Name one thing the government provides that isn't fraught with corruption waste, and abuse and that isn't bankrupt in the red or better served by the free market? You can't!
Some of this sounds right. But what is being imposed, specifically, in this bill (I am an outsider looking in)
You have the freedom to spout nonsense. You don't necessarily have to exercise it.
Just once I'd like to see you back up any of your claims! You think just because you say something enough times it's a fact? PLease!
Do your postings make any more sense because you "back them up"? I've never read such contortions of logic and perversions of ideals as I have in your "backed up" rants.
Fact: medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. This is unheard of in the rest of the civilized world. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since the days of our founding fathers. Too bad we can't put Poppa in a time machine and send him back a couple hundred years!
Lets charge those who can least afford it more!
"Real smart there buddy"
Well, these are tax hikes any way you cut it. Obviously. Can't argue with that.
But I presume this is not your main beef with Obama. I never heard of a society that fell because its soda tax was too high... just sayin'
Seriously he could have taxed purple tutus and I think some people would be complaining about that. Congress wanted to pass this tax also, so if they are mad, be mad at everyone. Personally with our health care costs taxing soda is not a bad idea. It is a good source of revenue, and if people want to waste their money on this beverage that is the cost they have to pay!
I am mad at everyone Democrat President/Democrat Congress and Democrat Senate, is there anyone else I should blame?
Being mad at anyone is not healthful or positive!
Complacancy is a healthier response than disagreement ?
I am not complacent. I am very thoughtful and simply vote for more moderate to liberal agendas than you. If anything it is far less complacent to vote, and to keep an eye on the bigger picture. All economics are manmade at the end of the day, and no one has a crystal ball you see.
True to a degree, but not entirely since government policy skews the marketplace, and distorts the free market. The economy would be much more efficient if it were built entirely by the people and government kept out of it.
Yikes, then there would be no regulation, and who would pay for the roads and schools? Really, I would not trust a world where free enterprise went unchecked. I like knowing there is some law enforcement to keep people in check to some degree. We do not need greedy businesses running amuck.
Why does everyone demonize business and trust government? Government produces NOTHING! Business on the other hand creates wealth and provides jobs!
One world: people like Bernie Madhoff. Government is needed to check business in check. Also, I have never heard anyone come up with a good solution with what we would do in the absence of government.
My business would not function without this federal program, it would be too expensive to ship our product. In fact our entire economy basically depends on the interstate system. Just ask a trucker.
Actually the way I said it is fine too . I am pretty good at writing dear.
Should I cry about you calling me "dear"?
And yeah, I know, college, etc... I think Lita has more degrees though LOL
Did not see her for a while, is she making another degree?
I did not even bring up my degree this time, just saying I write quite a bit. Nor sounds better though, so thanks. Yes Lita has lots of degrees, but she is still around. She is busy with work and her own hubs these days.
I enjoy talking with Lita on the email, so that is how I found out. I also read her hubs, and if you look at her hubtiivty you can see she has been active there. Not as active, but I know she is pretty busy around Christmas.
You asked if he raised taxes on those people he said he wouldn't, the answer is yes. Any other questions?
Obama promised no increase in the income tax for people who make less than 250,000 a year, and tax cuts for those below.
These are not income taxes. They are entirely voluntary.
Also - it would be interesting to see how his tax cuts for the poor balance out against the extra taxes they might pay for soda and other poison.
The poor don't pay taxes, how can they get a tax break?
Very fair point. Is there an answer (not being sarcastic, btw)
If you work, you pay taxes. Medicare and FICA.
Something like $600.00 a year, right? What would you rather spend your money on? Health insurance or food, health insurance or food? Food is costing a lot these days, better go with the insurance.
There may be some tax credits that you get back at the end of the year but as far as I know everyone who works, no matter how little, gets money taken out of their paycheck.
If I'm not mistaken people who don't work also pay taxes on their unemployment or disability income.
And someone on this thread claimed that Americans pay less taxes than the rest of us???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
In Canada, the first ten thousand dollars is tax free, for EVERYONE. Who are the Socialists now!!!
Actually I still stand on that statement. My friends in the UK even share how they pay more taxes, but these go towards social services such as health care. I am right on this one, and no hahha . When right I know I am . Anyway, came to stand up for myself!
When I lived in Britain I think most people were paying based on a 23 percent tax bracket (I forget the minimum threshold, but I'm pretty sure there was one). And the highest bracket was at 40 percent. So you could make ten million pounds a year and still only pay 40 percent tax (is this a lot? I've never been that rich......).
In Canada, no-one pays tax on the first 10,000 dollars (roughly), and then the next bracket is 15 percent. I forget what the "middle" bracket is, maybe something like in Britain...
However, on balance you normally see about a third of your pay packet go to taxes plus unemployment premiums, and national pension contributions, assuming your salary is not inordinately low.
If we're talking about Britain specifically, you also need to factor in things like council tax (which is a local government tax distinct from income tax), and VAT (value added tax), currently 15%. Businesses which earn above a certain threshold can claim back the VAT on their purchases, but us ordinary mortals have to stump up.
Council tax is based on the value of your property - whether rented or owned - and is typically £1,000 - £1,500 ($1,500 - $2,250) per year. Not negligible by any means.
I'm sure if you did a bit of digging you'd find that the "real" tax rate over the last few decades has gone up year on year, regardless of who is nominally in power.
So the question is, what do Americans pay in VAT (sales tax) and council tax (municipal taxes). In Canada, the latter differ widely across the country. Not in Britain?
Don't forget too, that Americans pay national income taxes AND state income taxes, unlike in England, right?
That is true. They also pay taxes on the social security income they already paid taxes to.
No, that money is returned at the end of the year in the form of an Income Tax check, and then because of earned income they get more back from those who pay in! The poor do not pay taxes, well, except the soda/cigarette tax imposed on them by Obama!
Any income tax that was taken out is returned, if they paid more than they end up owing. But FICA and Medicare are not refundable.
EITC is a different story - not everyone qualifies for it, although you are right, for many poor people it means that they don't pay income taxes.
and many,many poor people get more back than they will ever put in! Sound fair?
In dollars and cents paid in the form of income tax? Maybe so.
It isn't fair, technically speaking. But fairness is not the only value that America upholds -- it upholds compassion too (right?).
And I think that both in the case of taxation and in the case of health care, that is the nub:
Yes, your system should be fair. But your system should also display compassion where it is required.
America truly is supposed to stand up for "all that is decent." When you take compassion out of the equation you are not doing that.
That is what the symbol of the Statue of Liberty is supposed to represent.
McCain would continue the policies of the Bush administration, which got us into this mess.
How do you know? Oh yeah, President zero told you that would happen, way to go!
No because I am an woman that reads, and I tend to take a more liberal view point of things than you do. I am one of those scary liberals, and calling someone zero is the height of disrespect. That is very telling really.
I posted quite a long response in another forum, detailing some of the factors which led to this recession.
You never responded, and here you are making the same claims that you made over there.
The building blocks of this recession started in the early 70s with Nixon. Clinton bears some of the blame too.
Bush, however, was in office when the worst abuses took place. His policies are failures - they are why we have 20% real unemployment right now.
I didn't read that post, couldn't care less about it. Nothing you said has anything to do with what I said. You have no idea what McCain would have done and only voted for him because you hate Bush. that goes for the young lady responding also. If you had put any thought into your vote or would look at it objectively you would have come to the same conclusion that so many have, voting for Obama was a mistake.
As an intelligent woman in my thirties who is well read on politics, yes I knew who I was voting for, and voted for Obama because of his competence and intelligence. Actually the big part of the economic downturn was under Bush, and you can always trace ebs and flows. You should not call people young ladies in a derisive way because many people are full of intelligence, at any age. Just because we are well thought out and do not share your world view on conservative politics does not make us wrong. Long posts also are better as hubs, honestly.
Why don't you report me for calling you young lady? Long posts? Good luck...lady?
Honestly I am not going to report you, but it was just the tone that was annoying. As if someone that is young is not capable of forming a well thought out opinion, especially when this opinion diverges from your own. Rolling your eyes, high silly is that LOL.
So you can attack my views on what caused this recession but you can't offer a rational explanation of your own? Obama just gets the blame simply because he's the one in office.
That's real smart there buddy.
What do you think caused this recession? Mortgage failures brought about by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank! Intrusive Government brought on by every President ever elected! Wasn't just Bush, and Obama has made it worse. Not hard to see, unless, you just don't want to see, blinded by ideology?
You are right. The organizations Clinton set up indeed were the ones (among others) that caused the mess. That is true. And it was interventionist.
And you are wrong. (You are both -- that is normal; it's called being a human being; I'm the same, I get some stuff right and some stuff wrong)... Canadian banks did not fall BECAUSE of government control and oversight. Yet they function as fantastically successful stocktraded corporations. And our recession was mild compared to anyone else in the world, and no bailout money was given to a bank.
Actually I explained what I think caused this recession in that post that you disregarded on the other thread. Shall I repost or will you just ignore it again?
You're forgetting about the Republican changes to the Glass/Steagall act which allowed banks to gamble on those bad mortgages. Phil Gramm passed the law that changed Glass Steagall - and he was McCain's campaign advisor.
Yeah, keep arguing whose candidate was better. That is exactly what they both want you to do, while running away with your money
It doesn't matter who's in power, that national debt just keeps on going up:
Why doesn't anyone ever question the Big Corporations about their behavior? Do you honestly think the people set the policies that are and have been effect for some time now? We can vote all we want, but the Fatcats are running the show, no matter what party is in charge; as they are in bed with them anyhow. Conservatives and Liberals alike. Welcome to the wonderful world of Capitalism, folks.
Because corporations are NOT supposed to report to voters. Governments are.
I love it too. It is a good thing, if you ask me. But capitalists are part of society, so like the rest of us, they have to follow the basic rules of a civilized community. Capitalism yes, of course; thumbs up to it. But no group or sector should be exempt from the rules of common decency. Rampant greed that bankrupts millions of normal people is anti-social, and if your society is America, then therefore it is anti-American.
Bankruptcy is part of the game, invest, lose, try again. Government is the problem, Government decided to bail out the Banks and auto companies. The Corporations didn't decide it, if you get greedy and fail then you should go out of business, what else can be said?
And how did these people get into office? Who financed them? That was the point I was attempting to make Misha.
Bottom reason for the season of our discontent is the Federal Reserve #1, the Supreme Court Justice #2, Corporations #3 including Insurance Companies and junk food manufacturers, Pharma #3 and all the sold out politicians that like to fill their pockets at our expense by pushing their (Federal Reserve, etc) agenda. To navigate the mess created by these entities requires the intelligence of a virtual genious. I think Obama is doing the utmost he can without losing the whole game, it's called "check mate" mentality.
Its the American way. Blaming the President for anything and everything. I can find 535 people more deserving.......
Before I started writing online I would say my tax rate was about 20% of my income. Last year it was about 33%, and I think it will be about the same. That is a bit high for someone that makes my income, but as an individual contractor you pay more taxes overall since we do not pay through out the year.
Now you mention it I think a substantial proportion of people in Canada pay something like 30 something percent in income tax.
But I am still unsure about your UK example, because 23 percent doesn't seem that high to me (and I am pretty sure that the poorest income-earners in Britain do not pay tax, I think, at least...).
When I paid about twenty percent I usually got a refund of about thousand dollars out of that. It was about twenty percent out of my actual check, but on my income tax return is felt lower. That is why I am sure of my example. Anyway, people complain way too much about taxes anyway. Less complaining and more enjoying of the life I say!
People can get hit pretty hard by tax bills though. I am still shocked that there is no minimum income limit in the US, though.
In Canada, if you make 40,000 dollars a year, you only pay income tax on 30,000 dollars of that (and, obviously, there are other deductions possible too. For a start, that is for single people; for married people it is adjusted differently).
Most all surveys show that between 55 and 61 percent (cnn poll) are oposed to this bill
Even if it is that high, which I am seeing according to gallup, I am going to say a big part of that is due to fear mongering. Also, the people who do need health care reform the most are low income to middle income Americans. I am all for a stronger public option, and being a liberal American does not mean our voices shall not be heard.
I believe we do need more compassion, amen to that and health care needs to be fixed. This process is corrupt and because of that people have gone from supporting it to opposing it
By the way people tell Americans who do not fit into their narrow world views to go to Cuba. How dare you? I as an American have the right to improve my country. As I said people used to be against women voting, but we finally came around.
Exactly! However, that is the standard response I get from people. Go to Europe, go to Cuba, or that I am a slag. That was an interesting one.
That last one would seem off topic, or at least to require substantiation...
Actually, you must have a funny society, when one of your insults is "Go to Paris, Go to Rome, Go to an idyllic Caribbean island off the coast of Florida!" It's hardly "Go to Coventry" now is it!
Well some guy wrote me about twenty messages about this yesterday and called me a slag that should go live somewhere else or other. I was just referring to the email I received yesterday.
Shouldn't you report this? Actually ValerieF pointed out that people are not as shielded as they might think, and that harassment via the Internet may soon become a crime....
Yes and I think when you receive an email via hubpages the ip of the sender is logged. Just FYI.
If it happens again I will, but I should not receive any more messages like that from that person. I spammed their messages.
As an American I have the right to continue writing my Congress representatives about wanting better health care in the US. Also, I am part Kansa Indian, so I have more origins in this country than some people do. Some of my ancestors were here before the Europeans came .
Yes, but the Kansa Indians did not ratify the consty-tushin, so they really don't count.
(insult intended for people of a certain limited viewpoint, not you Sweetie)
I got your Ron . Actually, I have been enjoying your responses.
We have some folks in this country who are willing to commit all manner of attrocities because they feel that the consty-tushin permits (obligates?) them. If I didn't know better I would swear the document was written in crayon or came with a super-sized burger deal.
People who do not buy insurance under health care reform would have to pay a tax penalty. It is not the end of the world, and might be worth it to you if you do not want to buy insurance. However, then again, I am sure those who are mad at taxes are up in arms about that.
I feel Gordon Brown is still better than the naive Blair who got sucked in to the WMD bull that Bush and Rumsfell flogged to the world. The conservative Australian Government at the time under John Howard bought this crud too, so we through them out.
With Bush, Blair and Howard gone, we may see a better world.
The public option is still in the house bill. The Senate version does not have it; the two will be reconciled.
Thanks Ron - I haven't really followed this closely lately and I'm not so well informed about the current bill.
Yes, as a black man. That might change his worship of the consty-tushun.
by MikeNV7 years ago
"The $34 billion needed to extend benefits would be borrowed, adding to the nation's mounting debt. Republicans have tapped into the public's anger and concern over the national debt, saying they would support...
by lady_love1586 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … party.htmlAs well they should! In spite of that dumb a** Reid saying they are going away, they aren't! They will be a force to be recend with as anyone can see in these...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.