Polls Show Obama Closing in on Clinton

That is why I have been suspicious of her plan from the first time I heard mandates. Forcing people to purchase coverage is not providing universal coverage. Additionally, it's been my experience that the government's idea of what I can afford and what I can actually afford are two different things.

This is the same issue on which her plan foundered in 1993 and that's the "mandatory, compulsory" nature of it.

But let's be honest about it. What all of these plans have in common are in essence price controls on providers and drug companies. I'm not saying this is good or bad as HMOs and PPOs already practice this under both employer-provided health insurance and Medicare Part B. Further any such mandatory plan, if it contains similar provisions as were in the '93 bill, would penalize patients who go outside the network for services.

This is exactly the kind of thing that will lose her the General Election. Americans, neither Repupblicans nor Democrats, nor Libertarians, nor Independents, want to be controlled and forced to do things. We all feel a little less free when that happens.

Here in NY unless you're registered with a party you can't vote. Celestina did a fantastic article about how many of us are shut out of the Primary process and the delagates nonsense that follows.

Hetep and Respect batmanchester, You hit the health care nail on the head.

Bill: For once I agree with you. I wrote about the Hillary health care plan over a year ago, pointing out that what it will amount to is a duplication of Romney's failed Massachusetts experiment. It's nothing more than a huge giveaway to the insurance industry, and now she speaks of garnering wages from people who can't afford it. Is it possible to impeach someone before they're elected?

I think the Medical/industrial complex scared sister Hillary and she folded in her first courageous attempt and she has never recovered.

We need a fresh start on Universal health care for all Americans with the whole discussion broadcast to the people on C-Span. I want to see who is trying to help me and my family and who is not.

I am Fired uP and Ready to GO!

Aunk:
I was reading a book about the transformation of government in the state my family came from, Kentucky, and I read a quote that applies here. The book's author said that a governor cannot move forward and be the agent of change without the people of the democracy under them, pushing them to do it. That is the only way that they can overcome the entrenched interests blocking change because there are always those for whom change is an unhappy proposition. I think the same is true of the president and I think that Obama is the candidate that has the people behind him. Hillary engenders too much opposition from Republicans both rank-and-file as well as in Congress. Hillary cannot be an agent of change both because she is a part of the establishment and because so many oppose her. The country does not feel like moving forward under her... that was illustrated during her attempt to reform healthcare. She is simply a divisive figure.

Obama is clearly the candidate of the Democratic Party establishment. That may be great for you, but that establishment is far out of line with the US public. You will all send us to defeat in November if you have your way. I truly hope you are wrong about the candidate for the public, instead of the candidate for the stars. We will see.

By the way, if Gore were to come out for Obama, he would have already done it before tomorrow.

Despite the many travails Gore endured with the Clintons because of the Republicans, perhaps he remains convinced IMHO that unless Obama is a winner tomorrow in a big way, only Clinton can win.

You all must at least wonder what makes the Clintons still have such a following after all the push. Perhaps you have misjudged Hillary and her Democratic majority after all. We will see. Much remains in flux. From recent statements, as much as 20% of the vote. This could go either way, but in settings where real votes from the same state are concerned, if I were you I would start worrying.

Hetep and Respect Scott Isaacs, I agree we the people under the government is what will change it.

The country does not feel like moving forward under her... that was illustrated during her attempt to reform healthcare. She is simply a divisive figure.

Sister Hillary does have a lot of negatives that do not exist for Obama. I could live with her but Obame is change and can energize the people, which is what we need if we are going to beat the Medical/industrial complex.

@Cliff Potter

but in settings where real votes from the same state are concerned, if I were you I would start worrying.

I never stopped worrying we need a full court press all the way to the wire. Speaking of pressing, can we count on your vote for Obama?

Obama is clearly the candidate of the Democratic Party establishment. That may be great for you, but that establishment is far out of line with the US public.

Please, how ridicules. Who do you think he is apealing to here? He takes no money from the "Establishment" it is all grass roots donations. They say that for every dollar Hilary has, Obama has 10 donators to has campaign. Who do you think is giving this money to him?

Cliff, answer me straight, if you can, a simple yes or no. Anything else will be viewed as disingenuous at best. As the loyal Democrat that you claim to be, If Obama gets the Democratic Nomination, will you vote for him for our President?

Almost certainly, I will vote for him because of the Supreme Court justices alone. There is no other reason to do so.

The establishment candidate is beyond a doubt Obama. Just Kerry's endorsement is enough to prove that. Just look at the past.

Cliff:
Where did Gore get thrown in?

Where did Gore get thrown in?

It's handy to dust him off every now and then. It's almost as effective as bringing up Bill Clinton, but not quite.

Hetep and Respect Gore, failed to speak up and fight Bush being appointed king. He failed to fight African American and Latino American voter suppression By Bush and the Forty thieves, he is finished in politics in my mind.

He has carved out Global Warming, good that is what he should lead not people.

Gore will make his presence known if there is a brokered convention.

Gore will make his presence known if there is a brokered convention.

In the case of a prolonged brokered convention, Gore could even emerge as the nominee.

In the case of a prolonged brokered convention, Gore could even emerge as the nominee.

or else he'll sue

Good one, Shawn! But I do think Chasing is right.

I'm sure he is too, but I couldnt' resist making reference to Gore suit over not being TIMEs man of the year over Putin.

No, the line is more like this:

Krusty: Garnish my celery!?! Awww, what are they taling about!?!

Krusty: Garnish my celery!?! Awww, what are they taling about!?!

Thank you for the levity! I needed that!!!!!

Oh, not yet. If she gets the Presidency, we'll be paying for years...

Oh, not yet. If she gets the Presidency, we'll be paying for years...

and not just out of pocket either...

We'll be paying alright, but we'll be paying back the insurance companies for all the money they've invested in her.

of course - corporations never foot their own bill - they pass the savings on to the consumer.

Watch your language.

it was implied, not directly stated. Or, did you mean that you didn't like me digging into Hillary?

Your first sentence.

Ah.... well sorry if it offended you...

I could be wrong ... but I think Cliff was joking ... I'm not sure about that, but ... I think he's joking.

You know. I could be dense... I totally missed that he strongly supports Hillary, so he was in a way just ribbing me on my dislike for the plan.... wow... I'm out of it.

You guys & gals should see this seed from our friend Independent Voter.

It deserves far more discussion that it has attracted. This is part of her 35 years worth of experience.

Well, she's already proposed selling citizens their rights on this matter anyway, so I wasn't overly surprised by this

Well, if I recall - Reagan took into a recession to fix the economy - but at least it was the entire economy, not just a facet of.

Can't we re-animate Reagan or something? Please?

Reagan nearly bankrupted the country by building up the military and then cut taxes so it would not be paid for.

and that was worse than Carter or Bush Sr? Reagan also ended the Cold War and did a LOT of really GOOD things for this country. Call his methods 'voodoo economics" or what have you, it worked out well - not immediately but eventually it worked out for the better.

Reagan also ended the Cold War and did a LOT of really GOOD things for this country.

Reagan did no more than any president before him except to egg on the hard liners in the USSR thereby making the job of Gorbachev even harder. If anyone can be credited with ending the Cold war it was Gorbachev NOT Reagan
Reagan also put the US on the path of arming and training terrorists, helping the forerunners of the Taliban and helping Iraq with its WMD program and so is partially responsible for the gassing of the Kurds.

His economic policies did not work out: the country was in terrible shape until Clinton came along and changed them.

Were you even around in the Reagan days?

Well, unless you were a mental ward patient, that is.

Reagan also put the US on the path of arming and training terrorists, helping the forerunners of the Taliban and helping Iraq with its WMD program and so is partially responsible for the gassing of the Kurds.

Yes, and we'lljust go ahead and start blaming Bennelli and Baretta for gang violence.

Reagan did nothing more than at the time directly oppose every and all anti-Communist entity there was. Afghanistan was fighting the USSR at the time and had received support from other nearby ME nations. What these nations later did with he arms supplied to them is not our fault. We can't even do a door to door confiscation of weaponry in Iraq today, what makes you think we'd have been able to do it once the USSR / Afghanistan fight was over? Should we also then hold Russia responsible for the weapons with which Taliban and Al Queda members kill innocent people?

You can also say that Carter is responsible for the shape of Iran, but no one really remembers that one...

Were you even around in the Reagan days?

Yes. I was young, but I understood what he wanted well enough to understand that I would have voted for him if I was of voting age.

Reagan did no more than any president before him except to egg on the hard liners in the USSR thereby making the job of Gorbachev even harder. If anyone can be credited with ending the Cold war it was Gorbachev NOT Reagan

Okay, yes. It took someone to talk and to listen and then action on both sides, but you can't say that Reagan applying pressure and Gorby's reaction as 'nothing more'. I'll agree that Gorbechev was a progressive in light of the direction the USSR was headed in the 80's - but it cost them dearly as well... and you can discredit the Reagan role in all of it, but it ended without violence which was the goal of the arms race - to be prepared if need be, but scare the piss out of the other country so that they would stand down (after all that's kind of what got it started - the USSR trying to flex military muscle)

Reagan nearly bankrupted the country by building up the military and then cut taxes so it would not be paid for.

Perhaps, but we saw an economic boom in the 90s - which was a result of Reagan's economic policy . It was Bush Sr. who pulled out of his "no new taxes". Clinton's Omnibus Budget Reconciliation acts wasn't well received and while it did end us with a surplus despite what was thought might happen it is responsible for a very sharp inflation incline which does what? Screws us now on taxes and income. About the only thing I'll agree with you on concerning the economic policies of Reagan VS Clinton are that they were both a short term fix.

Reagan's Iran Contra actions were a disgrace, his mistreatment of the poor of the US was a disgrace and trickle down did not work: it never does.
I don't see how you are actaully say he did a good job;.
I lived through is time and it was not pretty; we were never in such dangers of having WWIII as when he was in office, and I have been around since Eisenhower.

I lived through is time and it was not pretty; we were never in such dangers of having WWIII as when he was in office, and I have been around since Eisenhower.

Everyday I'm in danger of getting hit by a car as I stand on the side of the road participating in beautification projects - yet every day I come home in once piece (so far)... 'in danger of' and 'in the middle of' are different animals altogether. Reagan ended with about a 60% so I'm not the only one who things he did a pretty good job.

Reagan's Iran Contra actions were a disgrace, his mistreatment of the poor of the US was a disgrace and trickle down did not work: it never does.

Every President has their mistakes... Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, LBJ and Vietnam, Nixon and Watergate, Carter and Iran, Reagan and Iran-Contra, and on up from there... EVERY president has had their perceived black marks on their records.

Everyday I'm in danger of getting hit by a car as I stand on the side of the road participating in beautification projects - yet every day I come home in once piece (so far)... 'in danger of' and 'in the middle of' are different animals altogether. Reagan ended with about a 60% so I'm not the only one who things he did a pretty good job.

As you said: you weren't really around for it so you don't know how bad it was.
He ended with 60% because the main stream media made him out to be something he was not: a good president.

ROTFLMAO. Yep, it was just that damn media that had people standing in lines thousands of feet long in stifling heat here to file past his casket when he passed on.

While some will claim that there is some universal set of criteria for a "good" or "great" president there are none. Popularity is certainly not one criterion that will last. In fact, my guess is that George Bush will be rated far higher than his popularity currently shows.

No Billy, it was the media that continues the myth that he was a great president and people fall for media lies.
Lies like Iraq being a threat and WMD.

ROTFLMAO. Yep, it was just that damn media that had people standing in lines thousands of feet long in stifling heat here to file past his casket when he passed on.

Not to mention a rather long and impressive list of global leaders who flew to America to personally give respects.

@Jdoyle

Just to get a better idea on where you stand... in your time, who was your 'favorite' president? I can already sort of assume you're a democrat so I expect a Democrat, but I could be wrong...

Shawn, what's glossed over by Reagan's leftie detractors is the signal fact that before him all US presidents saw the continuation of a "long, twilight struggle" with the Soviets. Reagan talked about rolling them back and ending the Evil Empire. His voice, along that of Mrs. Thatcher and Pope John Paul II gave hope to the captive peoples of central and eastern Europe. But we're getting a bit off-subject as regards this thread.

Reagan's Iran Contra actions were a disgrace, his mistreatment of the poor of the US was a disgrace and trickle down did not work: it never does.
I don't see how you are actaully say he did a good job;.
I lived through is time and it was not pretty; we were never in such dangers of having WWIII as when he was in office, and I have been around since Eisenhower.

Then you conveniently forgot the 70's and the Carter years. More people came out of poverty in the 80's than at any time in decades. Ronny turned several decades of democrat rule upside down and fixed the problems that were taking our nation down. Ronny took out the Soviet union at the same time.

Iran contra was a blip, Clinton selling our technology to the Chinese for campaign cash, that was a disgrace.

Space guy I see you are conveniently ignoring the fact that Carter was stuck paying for the bill ran up by Nixon and Ford9 in the form of massive inflation), an oil embargo which was not his fault.
Shawn every president who dies gets foreign dignitaries at their funeral.

Who was good?
Well I would say who was better than Reagan was just about every one who went before him including Nixon.

Billy , the Pope had a lot more to do with the end of the USSR than Reagan did; once the Polish Solidarity movement got going it was unstoppable, and with Gorby in charge there was no interventions as would have happened in the years before him

The greatest fallacy of democracy is that everyone's opinion is worth the same.
Robert Anson Heinlein

. . .with Gorby in charge there was no interventions as would have happened in the years before him

Wrong. Once Yeltsin opened up the Soviet archives it was shown they never considered invading under either Andropov or Chernenko. But I think I'll go with Lech Walesa's interpretation of events over yours:

When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989. . . .The 1980s were a curious time--a time of realization that a new age was upon us. Communism was coming to an end. It had used up its means and possibilities. The ground was set for change. But this change needed the cooperation, or unspoken understanding, of different political players. Now, from the perspective of our time, it is obvious that like the pieces of a global chain of events, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and even Mikhail Gorbachev helped bring about this new age in Europe. We at Solidarity like to claim more than a little credit, too, for bringing about the end of the Cold War. In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.

But again, this isn't the topic of this thread.

I guess for desperate people any good actor can present hope. You notice they liked the idea of Cowboys in Poland even though the concept has been fictionalized and blown out of proportion to become a mythical figure instead of the historical fact.
The same can be said about Reagan

I guess for desperate people any good actor can present hope. You notice they liked the idea of Cowboys in Poland even though the concept has been fictionalized and blown out of proportion to become a mythical figure instead of the historical fact.
The same can be said about Reagan

I don't think that you understand the role of dreams an mythology in providing hope to people. You don't have to look any farther than Obama to see how that is playing out today. There is no substance there but he talks a good talk and he may even turn out to be a good president because he can motivate the congress to vote and some progress, even if it is negative progress can be made.

As far as Carter is concerned, yes the oil crisis of 1979 was his fault. By not supporting the Shah in his fight to retain power the U.S. was seen as a paper tiger (A common refrain in international news reports in the middle east at the time) and this is what gave the so called "students" the power to take the hostages that just proved their point. Carters reaction? Odd/Even gas rationing, a stupid solution that just made the problem institutionalized. His alternative energy plan at the time was weak and unworkable due to the high costs of the technologies involved.

This weakness in the face of a poppinjay like Khomeni is what gave the Soviets the will to invade Afganistan, as they figured out that the U.S. would not oppose them there, which they did not. And that dumbass Carter put out a weak statement saying that "finally my eyes have been opened about the intentions of the soviets".

Much like today the left wing here started crowing about the fall of America and that our time had passed. Ronald Wilson Reagan rightly saw that this was utter bullcrap and rallied a nation to overcome the limits imposed on our nation by decades of misrule by the democratic congress.

There is no substance there

There is plenty of substance in his book and in the issues detailed on his website. There is no substance in anything any of the candidates say in debates or reported anywhere in the MSM, as all it wants to do is report on the squabbling between candidates on both sides. We live in the age of the soundbite, and that's all you're going to hear out of any of the candidates from the Media.

This weakness in the face of a poppinjay like Khomeni is what gave the Soviets the will to invade Afganistan, as they figured out that the U.S. would not oppose them there, which they did not. And that dumbass Carter put out a weak statement saying that "finally my eyes have been opened about the intentions of the soviets".

So, since that war went a long way toward bankrupting the Soviet Union, one could say that Carter accidentally assisted in the fall of the USSR. Not trying to be argumentative on that point, just an observation.

The greatest fallacy of democracy is that everyone's opinion is worth the same.
Robert Anson Heinlein

The greatest fallacy of Democracy in America is the Federal Republic. We vote people into office, who then in turn absorb our power to vote on our behalf up the line. It'll work well... provided the people we sign over our lives to work at all...

So, since that war went a long way toward bankrupting the Soviet Union, one could say that Carter accidentally assisted in the fall of the USSR. Not trying to be argumentative on that point, just an observation.

The reason that that war helped to bankrupt the Russians is that Ronnie sent a billion dollars a year worth of military support to the Afgans, including Stinger missiles that swept the Russian air force from the skies. Jimmy Carter merely whined about the injustice of it all.

Why do you think that the first person Osama Bin Laden had murdered on Sept 11, 2001 after the planes hit was Maussaud, the prime commander that the U.S. supported during the war.

Osama was on our side back then. We created him. Funded him, gave him weapons, and trained him. I don't know why he had Maussaud killed.

Osama was on our side back then. We created him. Funded him, gave him weapons, and trained him. I don't know why he had Maussaud killed.

Because the agenda of the US was no longer the same agenda of Osama Bin Laden. Sort of like a fair weather friend, if you will. At the time we had something he wanted and needed, so of course its going to be all smiles and giggles... but when one of the two parties can't oblige the other with tools to meet a goal, the dynamic climate changes from warm to cold... Just because someone was your friend yesterday doesn't mean they'll be your friend tomorrow - something we need to stop sugar coating and realize.

The whole "but we trusted him" and "we created him" is crap. People make their own choices. Bush chose to go to Iraq and fight a war. What do we say about it? We say that there was no good reason and that Bush is an ass clown for doing so. What we didn't say was that it was someone elses fault for Bush's actions, or else we'd be taking responsibility for electing him twice rather than soap box an impeachment rant. SO, how then can we say that Osama isn't responsible for his actions of the same nature? We can't.

I fully agree with your first point about Osama, fair weather friend, all that.

But this:

What we didn't say was that it was someone elses fault for Bush's actions, or else we'd be taking responsibility for electing him twice rather than soap box an impeachment rant.

On that you can speak for yourself. I didn't elect him either time, and in 2004 I tried my best to get other people to not vote for him either. One friend of mine who voted for him, I had worked on him for months before the election, he voted Bush, a month later he confessed he had made a mistake. Yeah, too late. Lotta good it did then. And I lived in Ohio at the time, so if more people had listened to what I had to say, it might have made a difference, but nobody wanted to hear it.

As far as impeachment, at this point it wouldn't do any good, and we don't have the support in congress anyway. However, I wouldn't mind at all if we could get out of paying him $200,000 a year for the rest of his life.

And by the way, I hold Congress equally responsible for the war, and I am pissed at them for not standing up to him. I blame Bush, his entire administration, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the neo-cons who postured to get him into office and then became his cabinet, Congress for authorizing, and every American who voted Bush in 2004. There is plenty of blame to share.

Ronald Wilson Reagan rightly saw that this was utter bullcrap and rallied a nation to overcome the limits imposed on our nation by decades of misrule by the democratic congress.

Reagan armed and trained terrorists, mistreated the poor of the US. Lied to the people of the US, and nearly started WWIII. Broke the law with Iran /Contra.
The list goes on.

Reagan armed and trained terrorists, mistreated the poor of the US. Lied to the people of the US, and nearly started WWIII. Broke the law with Iran /Contra.
The list goes on.

Are you going to present

A.) something you didn't already say
B.) something specific to Reagan that other politicians old or new haven't done?

All you've accomplished is normalcy of his actions. You can find that most any president after WWII broke some kind of law, had some kind dirty tactic and in some way did something that bit us in the ass later...

In any event, I personally feel that the actions of Reagan led to a better America than to a worse America in the long and short run. Bush I, not really - Clinton, definitely not, Bush II also not so great in some things... but its become a moot point. All I did was ask for Reagan back, and I'm sure if we could re-animate him, he'd sweep an election all over again. Hell, I'd even go for Teddy Roosevelt as well... he'd need to be brought up to speed, but a solid and experienced progressive would do us well, especially one who actually addressed issues and took action to change things.

And Barack being compared to Kennedy I'm not sure would really BE a compliment, I was under the impression that had Kennedy been in office he'd have really screwed a few things up (outside of Cuba)

Shawn the point I made was Reagan was nasty immoral liar.
Thats all.
I made my case.

You've haven't made a case since you arrived here other than to be long on attitude and short on facts, which the testimonial to Reagan from Lech Walesa I linked underscored in spades.

Wrong Billy, your post about Lech proved my point exactly:
Reagan's accomplishments were nothing more than a myth, like the myth of the cowboy.

Shawn the point I made was Reagan was nasty immoral liar.
Thats all.
I made my case.

Um... you made a case based on opinion, not much fact... furthermore anyone could say the same about Clinton (another President with high approval)...

Reagan armed and trained terrorists

Clinton sold US technology to China, a country who had screwed us royally no less than 30 years prior in a little thing called Vietnam.

Lied to the people of the US

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" comes to mind. See, when Reagan lied he lied to protect the interests of the US. Clinton lied to cover his own ass. People say that there was no big deal about Clintons infidelity, but to me there was. A president is supposed to be virtuous and if a man can't be honest about something that really isn't viewed as a big deal, then how can I look up to that. Reagans lie - and I'm sure you'll agree.. was a big deal about a very serious thing.

People lie, its a fact. I do, you do - we all do - but Clinton lied about something menial.

And - christ on a stick - you keep going back to "Reagan almost started WWIII"... maybe he did almost start it, but did he? Clinton ALMOST started a war too, when we went to Kosovo and Bosnia (of which I've been to both) or when he sanctioned missile strikes on Iraq (Dec 19, 1998), you know, THAT could've been bad too... but we dont' hear Clinton supporters bring that up do we... no.

Reagan's accomplishments were nothing more than a myth

Then so were Clintons. Both presidents had tremendous impact on both the nation and the world in positive ways. To say the accomplishments of one great president were false because in the background there was ulterior political agenda that ultimately screwed a group of people is to also say that another great president who did similar things in a similar fashion (in accordance to their respective partisan affiliation) did nothing more than presnt and purport a great myth upon the people of the United Stated.

As much as I really did not like the ideas and things Clinton did, it cannot be denied that there was in some way a positive impact and the same shoudl be said for Reagan.

So one more time, I ask you - what president would you put on pedestal?

@Kevin

On that you can speak for yourself.

You elect officials in to power on a local level, who in turn acquire some of your power (because by electing them you invest your say and trust to them to make choices in the fashion you want them made). Somewhere along the line, even though you did not pull the lever and vote "GW Bush"... you put people into power or helped put people into power who did... therefore you did indirectly vote for Bush.

There is plenty of blame to share.

Likewise, you can speak for yourself. I'm sure there are people who vehemently disagree with where you want to place blame - but in truth, time for blaming people is long gone. Half the country still wants to play the blame game until someone takes responsibility for the totality of the issue and honestly its not something (as you've indicated) can lie on the shoulders of one person.

We were reactionary to go to war and now were equally reactionary to do what we can to not get back int he situation. We're pulling hard one way and when what we're pulling for snaps hard towards us we brace, take it and push too hard back - rinse and repeat....

So quick are we to rally on UNITY... until something get @!$%#ed up.... United We Stand. This means we win together and we lose together.

Shawn I never said Clinton was great president; he was a good president but not great, but Reagan had terrorists trained that raped and murdered nuns.
Some hero you have there.

Reagan lied about arming terrorists, Clinton lied about a b.j.
Do you really think the teo are in the same league?

Reagan lied about arming terrorists, Clinton lied about a b.j.

Technically, Reagan said he didn't know about arming terrorists and Clinton said he did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. Some would apparently argue that lying about adultery trumps lying about funding terrorists. In the case of Reagan, one must ask what did the President know and when did he know it? Some would argue that he was clueless in the matter.

As the trial of John M. Poindexter nears, it is clear that the former national security adviser is adopting a defense strategy that portrays Ronald Reagan as a knowing and active participant in the Iran-contra affair, not the disengaged President depicted by Mr. Poindexter in his testimony before Congress.

As the trial of John M. Poindexter nears, it is clear that the former national security adviser is adopting a defense strategy that portrays Ronald Reagan as a knowing and active participant in the Iran-contra affair, not the disengaged President depicted by Mr. Poindexter in his testimony before Congress.

...Mr. Poindexter's lawyers argue that he routinely and privately received direction from Mr. Reagan on matters that included the sale of arms to Iran and the covert program to support the Nicaraguan rebels, which are at the heart of the charges against Mr. Poindexter. Defense Strategy

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DA1330F932A25751C1A96F948260

Reagan should have been impeached. Clinton had sex, but the republicans screw everyone else and still deny it.

I see that a big case of Reagan envy has broken out here on the vine. That's ok, when he is on mount Rushmore you can have your fit about it.

:)

That's really funny. Nixon and Bush too I suppose. The Neo-cons couldn't even get Reagan on the Twenty Dollar bill, but you think he is going to be put on Mt. Rushmore....

Dan, Nixon wasn't the criminal Reagan was, he just got caught.

I see that a big case of Reagan envy has broken out here on the vine.

That is funny; imagine envy over a nasty law breaking dishonest old fool.

Dan, Nixon wasn't the criminal Reagan was, he just got caught.

Nixon was a criminal. Illegal wire tapping and the destruction of evidence is a crime. Nor is getting a Presidental pardon make you innocent. For that matter, not getting charged, does not mean you are not a criminal. ::HINT::BUSH::

I believe he was saying that both of them were criminals but the greater criminal was Reagan.

I believe you are correct Scott.
Now Bush II certainly is in the running for worst president ever.

Yawn

Somewhere along the line, even though you did not pull the lever and vote "GW Bush"... you put people into power or helped put people into power who did... therefore you did indirectly vote for Bush.

You're going to have to extrapolate on that. I don't get your meaning. If I consistently vote against everyone who ends up winning, then I am not to blame. The only people who I personally cast my vote for who were elected to office were Ted Strickland, now Governor of Ohio, but was not Governor in '04, and Dennis Kucinich for US. House of Representatives, who voted against the Iraq War Resolution. None of the people I voted for had anything to do with it. I never, directly or indirectly, voted for Bush. I certainly never voted for Ken Blackwell at any time for any position.

@ Kevin

okay then you indirectly had your say... in that case - maybe you aren't to blame for the Iraq War, but you live in a Federal Republic with a Democratic process, so you've got to deal with it, just like everyone else.

@ jdoyle

That is funny; imagine envy over a nasty law breaking dishonest old fool.

Yeah, I don't understand the whole Clinton envy either. But the amount of good vs the amount of bad that came from Reagan I still feel was deserving of much praise.

Reagan lied about arming terrorists, Clinton lied about a b.j.
Do you really think the teo are in the same league?

Again, lying about a BJ to Congress and the US people TWICE is not virtuous. As I said, the presidency is supposed to have someone in the position that the American people can look up to... I can't look up to anyone who cheats on their wife a couple of times, and then when caught lies about it.

I can look up to someone who tried to protect the interests of the nation or even break a law to try and help another nation who is in dire need (call it extenuating circumstance givn the time period and the anti-evil empire movement that Reagan had). I'm pro-military and honestly I feel that not everything that happens should be media accessible when it comes to military action. I feel that in some cases, a cover up is warranted.

but Reagan had terrorists trained that raped and murdered nuns.

Again, that's holding gun manufacturer responsible for murders committed with their guns. If I sell you a gun and you commit a murder with it a year later, it isn't my fault that you had zero self control and tossed your morals out the window, possibly lied to me about your intent and have no regard for human life. Or is it?

If so, then damn... there are a few people I'd like to give a dirt nap and you know, it wont be my fault - its the gun company, they made the gun and let me buy it. I would initially intend to exercie my 2nd amendment rights, but then someone made me mad and well... oops.

And hey - Reagan had the war on drugs... yeah I know... not very successful, but it was action - but then LBJs War on Poverty wasn't very successful either and its just as big a money pit if not bigger and with more losses.

Kevin - If you supported Kerry, you are guilty of continuing the war. I did. He was the only choice. Brother. That is all I need again.

I disagree. I didn't vote Kerry into the Senate before he voted for that bill. I tried to vote him into the Presidency on his position that he would end the war, but only because, as you said, there weren't any other options. I failed.

But the amount of good vs the amount of bad that came from Reagan I still feel was deserving of much praise.

Thats a pretty sad statement: a president who arms murderers and rapists is held in high regards by someone because it fits his agenda.

You forgot, ate babies for breakfast in the White House.

You guys are so cute when you are jealous of a great man.

::fart::

space guy:
What lasting things did Reagan do that makes him a "great" man?

Thats a pretty sad statement: a president who arms murderers and rapists is held in high regards by someone because it fits his agenda.

Like Kennedy, for example. Funny what Hollywood can do to polish up a tarnished political career.

1. Defeat the Soviet Union.
2. Repair the economy
3. Rebuild our national defenses.
4. Restore confidence in the financial system.
5. Rein in the unions unreasonable demands.
6. Reduce the unreasonable tax burden on Americans
7. Produce a 20 year expansion of the economy

Biggest failure

1. Failure to rein in spending (the dem congress would not agree)

Thats a pretty sad statement: a president who arms murderers and rapists is held in high regards by someone because it fits his agenda.

Okay... Any country who sells weapons to another country or group is selling them to 'murderers and rapists'... after all, why buy weapons in bulk if you're not planning on using them against someone.

Clunton supplied the PKK with weapons and helped terrorists too, except they were 'friendly terrorists'... kind of like Afghanistan and Iran at the time we sold them weapons... why do you keep expecting that if it is sunny today it will be forever sunny - that is just NOT going to happen.

And, your 'point' has officially reached a level of ridiculousness even I won't continue with.

Like Kennedy, for example. Funny what Hollywood can do to polish up a tarnished political career.

Yep. Funny how we never see in film a portrayal of Kennedy telling the CIA to stand fast, going back on a promise that resulted in Cuban rebels being slaughtered... and we wonder why a lot of Cubans still hate America.... Thanks Kennedy for a oddly familiar foreign policy.

I'll buy three and four but for:
1) The Pope and Charlie Wilson always get sold short by Reagan's supporters. You willing to admit the Pope and Wilson had equal hands in helping Reagan end the "Evil Empire"?
2) Republicans say Clinton wasn't responsible for the economy, that it was the Republican Congress. If that's true, then that means the Democratic Congress and not Reagan was responsible for the economy. Which do you want to argue? Bill Clinton was responsible for the economy in the 90's or the Congress was responsible for both?
5) They weren't unreasonable... especially if you were relying on a paycheck that Reagan jerked out from under you when he replaced you with scabs at air traffic control.
6) Some don't believe it was unreasonable. That's a subjective "achievement" at best.
7) We're back to the economy again.

1) The Pope and Charlie Wilson always get sold short by Reagan's supporters. You willing to admit the Pope and Wilson had equal hands in helping Reagan end the "Evil Empire"?

I'd admit that because it is true, but at the same time having help from people doesnt diminish the act - especially since the Pope and Charlie Wilson weren't either A.) American or B.) Presidents which are the two major qualifiers in this little side discussion.

Shawn & Scott

I absolutely agree with 1) but it was Ronnie who made the deal with the pope while Jimbo Carter kept talking about that we had to accept what happened in Afganland. That is the difference. Same with Iran. Ronnie signed off on the Stinger missiles to the Mujhadeen which is what forced the Russians from the country. They knew not to mess with us during the Reagan era, so did Libya.

These guys were civil servants, striking was not an option.

Yes we are back to the economy because Bush, with a republican congress refused to make the spending cuts necessary to balance the budget, which has undermined the dollar. I would even sacrifice my sacred cow, space, for a balanced budget.

Taxes were unreasonable. In 1981 when only making about $22k per year I had 43% of my paycheck taken in taxes. By 1984 when I was making almost $30k per year, my tax burden had dropped to 37% which is almost a $2000 per year savings. If those some feel that taxes should be higher why don't they write checks on their own to the government. Put up or shut up.

If those some feel that taxes should be higher why don't they write checks on their own to the government. Put up or shut up.

Because people of that mind set want to make everyone do it.

"I go to work because millions on welfare depend on me" comes to mind.

No, it's because taxes need to be raised on the top 2% of earners, because they are currently paying a lower percentage of their taxes than I am.

Besides, why would I send extra money to an Administration who is going to use it to fund a war I am vehemently against?

If I am ever insanely wealthy, I would expect to pay a higher percentage of my wages to taxes. That's just the way it should be. I feel this way now, and I would feel that way if I were in the top 2% of earners.

No, it's because taxes need to be raised on the top 2% of earners, because they are currently paying a lower percentage of their taxes than I am.

Yes, they are... but by taxing them more, you're also setting yourself up to become more dependent on their services. Ask Gray Davis about it...

and here...

..and its part of why Edwards kept his distance from "corporate".

f I am ever insanely wealthy, I would expect to pay a higher percentage of my wages to taxes.

When that happens, let us know because I cant' think f very many extremely wealthy people who want to give it to the government

When that happens, let us know because I cant' think f very many extremely wealthy people who want to give it to the government

I won't let anyone know! Last thing I need is a bunch of people trying to be friendly with me because I'm rich. I'll stay in the same neighborhood and keep the same lifestyle, as my current lifestyle keeps me extremely happy.

No, I don't know of many either, but that is not to say there are none, because I do know of a few who think the way I do. Most rich people got that way for love of money ... I have no love for money. I don't need any more of it than I require to live, and when I find myself with a surplus, I'm very generous with it and it does not stick around.

I disagree with the school of economics who believes in "trickle down". We could trade articles on economic policies all day long, and neither of us would change our minds about what we believe is the right one. This, I know: Reagan's economy sucked, and Bush's economy sucks.

I won't let anyone know! Last thing I need is a bunch of people trying to be friendly with me because I'm rich. I'll stay in the same neighborhood and keep the same lifestyle, as my current lifestyle keeps me extremely happy.

Good. Smart.

Most rich people got that way for love of money ... I have no love for money. I don't need any more of it than I require to live, and when I find myself with a surplus, I'm very generous with it and it does not stick around.

That's fine and well, but as you know - not everyone feels the same way. Would you say that (and I ask out of curiosity), that this mindset has influenced how you feel about how the economy shoudl work, or that this mindset is something that you think others shoudl also do and therefore would be good policy?

We could trade articles on economic policies all day long, and neither of us would change our minds about what we believe is the right one.

You are correct.

Total BS

Wager earners over $350k pay 38% federal taxes. There is no way that you pay that same percentage.

Just because you pay 38% in INCOME TAX does not mean you pay more taxes than someone earning $30k/year. Many taxes are Regressive, in that those who earn less pay a larger percentage of their income in tax. That is because of taxes like: Sales Tax, Gas Tax, User Taxes (like vehicle registration fees) and the list goes on and on.

I think that those earning more money should give a greater percentage of their money to fund government programs. Life has been good so give a little back. I know a lot of Democrats who are in the top 1% of wage earners and most of them do not complain about the taxes they pay, in fact many of them would be happy to pay more. Of course I have a number of wealthy Republican friends who don't think they should have to help anyone.

Wager earners over $350k pay 38% federal taxes.

Link, please.

here...

and

here...

It was pretty easy to find too, Kevin. Google + 'federal income tax bracket' = above

You'll notice that the more money you make the harder it is to actually jump to the next tier, but like a video game, it gets progressively harder to make more and more money. Because if it wasn't we'd all be in the 38% bracket. I think what sets people off is that people int he lower brackets FEEL the taxes more than those int eh higher brackets. We (onthe lower end) look at our wallet and see 3 to 4 digits in the bank account and look up to notice that the 6 figure makers have 6 figures when its all over and done with... and we envy it. We wonder, why not me too...

Looks like the top bracket is 35% now, it used to be 70%.

NEW STUDY FINDS "DRAMATIC" REDUCTION SINCE 1960 IN THE PROGRESSIVITY OF THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM

Well, I know I could have googled it. I google many things every day. I'm not the one who made the claim, though.

Now. From the first line of the first page you provided:

Your tax bracket is the rate you pay on the "last dollar" you earn; but as a percentage of your income, your tax rate is generally less than that...

Now, for someone earning $350,000 per year, claiming that they pay 35% of their income is misleading. 35% of $350,000 is $122,500. However, if you use the tax calculator on that page and put in your income as $350,000, it tells you your taxes would be $101,574. That is not paying 35% of your income in taxes. That's a difference of $20,953.

So, people making $350,000 are paying 29% of their income in taxes. 9% less than spaceguy claimed.

And those, as DD said, are just income taxes. That's ignoring the Social Security cap of $90,000 and several other issues.

NEW STUDY FINDS "DRAMATIC" REDUCTION SINCE 1960 IN THE PROGRESSIVITY OF THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM

oddly, since the 60's the income of politicians has increased sharply and steadily... more so than us common folk.

@ Kevin

Well, I know I could have googled it. I google many things every day. I'm not the one who made the claim, though.

You are however, the one who wanted to see the info. Yes, you have right to ask to see proof, but you shoudl also bear responsibility for using the resources available to you. In this case, the claimant and the inquirer have the exact same resource available.

In school teachers claim many things, and more often than not, if the student is in disbelief they're told to go look it up if they need proof - especially if the proof lies in a readily available and public resource. That's all I'm saying.

So, people making $350,000 are paying 29% of their income in taxes. 9% less than spaceguy claimed.

I suck at math (serisouly)... what is the difference in taxes for someone in the 15% range? It amy not end up at 9% but it'll be a whole hell of a lot less than 20K. With that, the point is that the higher income STILL pays more taxes.

That's ignoring the Social Security cap of $90,000 and several other issues.

SS isn't income tax, it's something different.

You are however, the one who wanted to see the info. Yes, you have right to ask to see proof, but you shoudl also bear responsibility for using the resources available to you. In this case, the claimant and the inquirer have the exact same resource available.

Yeah, I could have looked it up, but I frankly didn't feel like it. I had enough other facts to dig up for things I was arguing for in other threads. If someone provided a link on the subject, then I could come back here and continue debating it. If not, I would just assume the issue wasn't important enough for them to debate, and it wasn't first priority for me so ... But now I think I've wasted more time explaining why I didn't google it than I would have wasted googling it.

I know that SS isn't income tax, that's why I made that distinction in the following quote.

And those, as DD said, are just income taxes. That's ignoring the Social Security cap of $90,000 and several other issues.

The contention that rich people pay more tax is true from a whole dollar perspective. Certainly someone who pays 35k in taxes is paying more than someone who pays $3000. This is uninformative because what should be measured is what percentage of a person's income goes towards ALL taxes, not just income tax.

When you take into account all the taxes that people pay and all the deductions that people get, rich people pay a far smaller percentage of their income to ALL taxes than poor people. That is what is known as a REGRESSIVE tax system. One which results in the wealthier people paying less taxes as a proportion of their income than poor people.

I think that is a bad system. If the only tax we paid was income tax then we would have a progressive tax system but, at least here in Illinois, we have many taxes that are flat across the board and while rich people may spend more money it doesn't keep pace with income increases which results in a smaller portion of income being siphoned off for wealthier individuals.

Social Security is also a regressive system because the more you earn the less of a portion of your income is devoted to this program. Whether you classify it as a tax or not is up to you, but it still impacts poor people to a greater degree than wealthier people.

Batpucky

People that are wage earners that make over 350k per year pay 38% taxes while someone making $40k pay less than 10%.

That is more in percentage terms as well as raw dollars.

Kevin

www.irs.gov

It's 35%, not 38%, and that 35% is only on the last dollar earned. When you factor it all out, it ends up that they are actually paying 29% of their total income. Please see my post above on that. Also, see DD's comments concerning other taxes.

You keep up with this last dollar earned falderall. If you adjusted gross income is over $350k you pay that rate, end of story. The Social Security is an additional 7.65% (15.3% for the self employed) on the first $96k.

I'm sorry, space guy, but that's just not true. If you contend that it is, then you are going to have to provide a link that proves it. You can't, because no trusted link would claim that.

This is from the link that Shawn gave:

To take an example, suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2003 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:

($ 7,000 - 0 ) x .10 : $ 700
(28,400 - 7,000 ) x .15 :3,210
(57,325 - 28,400 ) x .25 :7,231
(87,350 - 57,325 ) x .28 :8,407
(100,000 - 87,350 ) x .33 :4,175 Total: $ 23,723

This puts you in the 33% tax bracket; but as a percentage of your income, your tax is about 23.7%.

And that's just how it works. You don't just pay a solid rate on your entire income. And that's just the way it is, and I'd be interested to find out why you so vehemently believe otherwise without any proof. You wrote the web address of the IRS, one I was already well aware of, but there is nothing on that entire site which supports your claim.

Didn't say anything about $100k. Said about adjusted gross income of over $350k

It's the same for $350 k, proportionally. What I laid out was merely an example. That's what my original post was proving, that people earning 350K pay 29%, not 38%.

The above example shows that while the tax bracket for 100k is 33%, they actually pay only 23.7%

Adjusted gross income of $350k pays 29%. Do the math laid out in the first link Shawn posted.

You know I did and you are right. However, the people in the lower brackets pay proportionally a lower percentage so the question is moot.
Lets do apples to apples.

Lol, that's my entire point. They SHOULD pay 35% of their entire income. But, hey, that's my opinion, and it's not your opinion ... so we won't get anywhere debating it because we are no longer debating what is fact, but what should be, and there is no way to prove who is right concerning the way things should be. I still feel they should be paying higher taxes. You make more, you pay more. You're doing well? Kick a little more back. That's my view.

SPACE GUY SAYS:

the people in the lower brackets pay proportionally a lower percentage

This is not true when you consider all taxes. It is true only if you consider Federal Income Tax but if you look at all the taxes that people pay, including social security, sales tax, user fees, etc, then the people in the lower brackets pay proportionally a higher percentage of their income in taxes. THAT IS IMPORTANT AND NO ONE EVER ADMITS IT.

Space Guy, can you please admit to me that this is a fact. And if you can contest it please provide a link for me or some math to prove it. Additionally, over the past 50 years Federal Income Tax Rates for the wealthy have decreased at a much greater rate of change than the rest of America. Does that make sense?

Our government needs money to operate. Other than War and Military expenditures Most of its operations go to help the most needy in our society. Since states can't seem to get it right (many states impose regressive taxes and user fees) then it is up to the Federal Government to make sure that the poor people in this country do not pay a larger percentage of their income to taxes than the rich people. Just my Opinion though.

What do you all think? Should poor people pay more taxes as a percentage of their income than rich people?

Dude rich people pay those fees as well. With more expensive houses they pay more in property taxes than poor people pay for a house payment. They get no breaks for their kids in college, get no support for their home heating bills and many other payments.

We should have a world where everyone pays the same rates. By ramping up the tax rates, I used to get killed in taxes when I worked overtime. It was a disincentive to working harder to just pay it to the government.

If the fee is flat it impacts the person with the lower income. I think rich people should pay a larger percentage, where you define rich is up to debate. Just about every kid can get loans for college. Poor people don't own homes, they are poor.

I had a class at one point where we investigated all taxes (state and federal) paid in Illinois as a percentage of one's income and the poorest people paid the largest percentage of their income in taxes.

Staple items take more of poor people's income than rich people so the more taxes you take from poor people the more you eat into their Maslow needs money. The rich easily meet their needs.

Yes and how do poor people get rich? It is called education. The rich did not just magically get rich, most of them had to work for it and that required education.

What does that have to do with what I said, space guy?

There are so many answers to this that I don't know where to start that was as good as any.

Let me reshape the question. There are roughly set costs for staple need items so how is it fair regardless of education to take a greater percentage from those less able to buy the staples?

Set costs? Batpucky. When I was a kid about 40 years ago, we had a garden that produced enough to feed us most of our veggies during the summer. Way cheaper than Safeway.

Ever hear of Costco? You could have several people band together and buy staples in bulk at cheaper prices.

How about making food at home?

There are many ways of saving money on food and I come from a very poor family and know most of them.

There aren't gardens for people that live in urban areas like our families had the option to grow with our land. Coming from poor I would think you'd want to relieve the tax burden on the poor. My family was dirt floors and living on a mountain in Kentucky a generation ago. Their poverty has shaped my view on government and taxes.

What has shaped my view of the poor is what it took to get out of it. Education is what did it. Most of my family went into the military, and got an education, and then got out, got good jobs, worked hard, and built lives for their families.

I am the first person in my family in over 100 years to have a college degree and strangely I make the most money (except for my nephew that built his own auto service business). Hard work and education are the way out of poverty and I really don't pity those who partied while I was studying and did nothing to better themselves.

Taxes should be equally distributed across the different segments of our society exactly because that removes a major impediment to advancement.

When's the last time you saw a Costco in the ghetto? Or any low cost store for that matter? Most of the public schools in my city are very bad. I had a guy in court yesterday who violated probation and decided to take a year in the Illinois Department of Corrections rather than go through an intensive therapy program. He is 18 years old. He could have finished high school if he took the program. That was his decision because he knows he will be out in a month and can get right back to work on the street. His mother is locked up for a long time and he never had a dad.

That's what's going on out there are you are suggesting these people band together to go to costco. A lot of teenagers see what is real: Cash. They don't see people going to college and getting degrees and moving up in the world. Those people are still in the hood trying to make ends meet for their families while people are getting murdered out their front doors.

I see them all the time. I live in a poor area and there is a Fred's and a dollar store less than a couple of miles from my house.

Ghetto's are usually fairly close to other urban areas that have Costco's. Then there is Walmart and Sam's clubs.

Don't give me any of your hoo haa on this subject.

Dude, there are no costcos, walmarts, targets, sams clubs in the poor neighborhoods of Chicago. Except for one Costco that is near a housing project that just so happens to be surrounded by rich neighborhoods, one target in an area accessible to some people from poor neighborhoods but mostly an up and coming area close to downtown. Most poor neighborhoods in Chicago have convenience stores where people buy stuff at highway robbery prices, with an occasional horrible grocery that you can get canned goods at very cheap prices in.

Poor people need capital to move up, space guy. Taxing them regressively doesn't help that one bit.

Scott

Load o crap. Poor people get college free of charge and get grants and loans for living expenses. I was on student committees giving out these grants. They can also join the military like my family did and all your education is paid for.

Double

I did not say that there had to be: There are Fred's & Dollar stores and other cheap outlet stores. If things are so bad then MOVE. Right now in Colorado and Wyoming the oilfields are hiring right and left. I moved from Alabama to California and lived in my car for six months till I could afford to move into a house.

We have been through these arguments before.

The funny trick about them going for "free" is that the "free" ride dries up when higher ed funds are cut from the government. You can just admit you don't think that you're your brother's keeper. I do think it's my responsibility.

Another load o hooey. The budget of the Education department has risen from $28 billion in FY 2001 (Clinton's last Budget) to over $65 billion per year under Bush.

Source is the department of education website.

Oh give that "my brother's keeper" stuff a rest. If my brother won't get off his ass and do something for him or herself then they are not there own keeper and why should I pay good money to support that?

So .... poor people are stupid, then. Hmm. Funny, I know a lot of highly educated, highly intelligent poor people.

I guess someone should have told Bill Gates that he needed an education to get rich, perhaps he wouldn't have dropped out of college and would have become successful. OH ... wait, that's right, he dropped out of college and THEN became successful.

Do you know how many multi-millionaire entrepreneurs are college, and sometimes high school dropouts? Don't ask me, because I don't have a number, but there are several. Education does not equal money. I know many college grads that are now poor, and there are many dropouts who are insanely wealthy.

I guess someone should have told Bill Gates that he needed an education to get rich, perhaps he wouldn't have dropped out of college and would have become successful. OH ... wait, that's right, he dropped out of college and THEN became successful.

You know nothing about Bill Gates. He was from a wealthy family and had been learning programming on the side in college and decided that he liked that more. He and his roommate Paul Allen moved to Albuquerque and lived in a motel room and hacked in assembly language the first microcomputer basic interpreter. His family paid the bills until their company took off.

A lot of dot commers did the same thing but they had a skill that they could exploit to develop a product to be sold.

They took a skill that they had developed (you should read about how many hours and pizza they put into the effort) and worked their ass off until their company reached critical mass.

I know nothing about Bill Gates? LMFAO. You know nothing about me. I know all about Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Paul Allen, Steve Wozniak, Linus Torvalds and the lot. Since programming is kinda my thing, I find their stories fascinating. My only point was that he didn't finish his college education. I am also intimately familiar with teaching oneself.

I should read? I have read. Please don't assume anything about what I know and what I don't know. But you weren't talking about how much work it takes to become wealthy, you were talking, the way I understood it, about the value of an "official" education, through either the military or college, and my argument was that a formal education is not necessary.

I know you referred to your nephew and his auto business, but the way I read it, it sounded as if you were painting him as the exception to the rule. So, pardon if I misunderstood, but I was just debating the need for an official formal education as a precursor to being successful.

Kevin

In that case, I do agree that an official education is not everything, by a long shot. Hard work and applying yourself is the key, especially in the computer industry. It is not as easy as it was 30 years ago but the door is still wide open. I know some of the folks like Elon Musk who is a modern incarnation of the drop out made good.

However, sitting on your ass and whining about how unfair the universe is that you are poor is what I was aiming at.

Some people work very hard at jobs that don't pay much, and they never did well in school. Some people are just not intellectuals, and they really can't do anything but do physical labor. We are not better than they are, by a long shot. Not everyone has the same capabilities and the same opportunities. Most poor people don't just sit around on their asses whining about being poor. They work hard, and come home with little to show for it.

You know that is fine as well. Many of my friends grew up and went to work in either the coal mines or steel mills. I know some incredibly fine people who were janitors. I know one guy that worked two jobs for 30 years and sent all five of his kids to college, one of the men that I admire most in the world. He waited till all of his kids had finished college before he got an operation to fix a knee that he injured while playing football in High School.

This started as a discussion that claimed that poor people have no options and should not be taxed and that rich people should pay for everything. That is a lot of hooey. My janitor friend is the poster child for making an incredible life out of very limited circumstances.

Though he never had much money, he was and is a very rich man.

And being taxed by the government sure didn't make life any easier for him. While it didn't hurt the well-off one iota. Money needed for survival shouldn't be taxed. Extraneous earnings should be taxed heavily.

We all live in a society and we all should have to contribute to the continuation of that society. To let the poor working people off completely scott free from taxes is to leave them with no stake in the system. It leads to the mindset that you apparently have which is that the rich should be soaked for everything. This does not work in that the rich have ways of keeping from having to pay for things that they feel that it is not fair to do so. You end up in a disfunctional system that ends up falling apart at the seams as the rich spend more time protecting what they have and the poor spend all their time and efforts trying to take more from them rather than working to get rich themselves.

This is the classic road to the collapse of a society based on class envy and class warfare.

Not everyone wants to be rich.

I disagree with you Space Guy. I think that issues like taxes are important. The problem is that people only consider ONE tax when they talk about tax policy: Income Tax. My point, which you still have not addressed, is that when you consider ALL taxes paid, poor people pay MORE as a percentage of their income than people in the top 10% of wage earners. That is a fact in Illinois, and I suspect it is true elsewhere.

I don't think that poor should steal from rich, in fact the Poor rarely steal from the rich, they more often steal from each other, but that is beside the point. My position is: Those who are rich (however it is defined, lets say households earning more than $200k/yr) should pay a higher portion of their income to support our government's activities than households earning $50k/yr. When I say "support our government's activities" this includes ALL TAXES AND FEES.

I believe that our government has 2 major responsibilities. (1) Make sure that every citizen has an equal opportunity to succeed and (2) Protect the public welfare (including against war, disease, famine, exploitation, etc.). If you do not agree with these two principles then you and I just disagree. If you agree with them, then all we disagree about is how to achieve these goals.

I believe that one way to ensure our government achieves its goals is by collecting taxes to fund government programs designed to achieve (1) and (2). I think that those citizens who are better equipped to provide support in the form of taxes should pay a larger percentage of their wealth to support government activities. I think that those who hail from less fortunate areas where schools are not as good and money for tutors and college prep classes is not as readily available should be assisted by our government so that they have an equal opportunity to the rich kid who grows up on the good side of town.

Children do not get to choose where their parents live, work and decide to raise them. Government needs to step in for people who don't have a voice and help them succeed. It is in our best interest to do so.

We have between 30 and 45 Million people in this country living below the poverty line. That is more people living in poverty in the USA than most countries have as a total population. Of more than 200 Countries in the world, the 38th largest country in the world has 30 Million people. Spain, the 28th largest has 45 Million.

Poverty is a problem and we need social services to assist people who are living in poverty. If that means rich people pay more than poor people as a percentage of their income, god bless rich people.

DD

I don't disagree with all that you said. The fact that poor people pay these fees (things like license plates, sales taxes [although many states do not have sales taxes on food items which is good], and other fees merely indicates a level of wealth rather than poverty.

We have between 30 and 45 Million people in this country living below the poverty line. That is more people living in poverty in the USA than most countries have as a total population. Of more than 200 Countries in the world, the 38th largest country in the world has 30 Million people. Spain, the 28th largest has 45 Million.

Your poverty is 99.9% of human history's wealthy. Poor people in this country have a standard of living that is light years ahead of most people in subsaharan Africa.

You negate your own argument in talking about the percentage of their income that goes to things that are mostly optional spending.

The people living in poverty pay no income taxes, but they still pay sales taxes, licensing fees, etc.

I don't know what you are talking about as far as option spending goes.

In many states there is no sales tax on food.

What licensing fees do poor people pay? Gimme a few examples.

DMV for one, space guy. Most places don't have adequate mass transit so you either drive to work or you don't work. Another is property tax paid directly if they live in their own home or through increased rent if they are renting. My property tax amounts to nearly $1,600 a year which is a pretty significant chunk of someone who makes less than $18K per year which is what is considered poor now.

Sales tax is still imposed on things like soap, mcdonalds, razors, shaving cream, clothing, etc.

Drivers' Licenses, Registration for automobiles, Stickers for Automobiles etc.

Social security deductions and medicare deductions as well.

DD:
Social Security is a major place where the rich have an advantage on the poor. The poor's entire income is taxed and anything over 90-some thousand dollars is not which means those people only have part of their income taxed for SS.

Scott

You own a home, you are ahead of me. The SS is now $96k and it is the only tax break that people really get when you make more. I have only had that one year and it was great! Since rich people get almost nothing back out of SS as their is a cap on payouts and the poor are far more likely to require it in retirement (as well as the healthcare) it is a good deal.

So basically you don't want to pay any taxes at all if you are poor. Why don't you go around the planet and see where that works.

You have to go to McDonalds? You spend a thousand bucks a year on clothing and things that you mentioned, that is about $80 in taxes.

I don't want them taxed at a greater rate, I just think they ought to be taxed equally for SS.

In addition to DMV fees there are also insurance payments that are required for driving a car by state law.

But you don't want them to get equal benefits relative to the money that they pay in.

To whom much is given much is expected.

Those who sit on their asses and do nothing want to get free ride from the government, paid for by those who worked their asses off to get what they have.

Children don't get to choose parents.

DD

Very true. However, parents good or bad can be object lessons. Trust me I know.

Tell a 12 year old with a crack head for a mom that.

I had an alcoholic child abusing coal miner. How's that?

At least he had a job. Crackheads don't work and if they do it is usually selling drugs or sex. No comparison in my mind b/w a Crackhead and an Alcoholic. As far as abuse goes, many children suffer this regardless of drug abuse. Nonetheless, I am sorry for your experiences and you are probably better adjusted than many children in the projects of Chicago.

There are not that many crackheads in this world, at least not for very long. I have seen a lot of people die from drugs and other forms of foolishness. For some of them, the kids are better off.

I see crackheads, heroin users, meth addicts, and coke heads EVERYDAY in court. Don't say there aren't that many in the world anymore, that is a lie. And if there are fewer now, more people have moved to Heroin because the street prices have come down now that Afghanistan is back in production.

I had a 18 year old kid in court last week whose mother was locked up for dealing crack and whose father was dead, in jail or nowhere to be found. I can't help but believe that he was seriously impacted by that life which led him astray and now he finds himself in a cell just like his mother.

DD

Look, I give you the benefit of the doubt but please at least read what I said. I said that there are not that many, at least not for very long. Just like there are no old Cocaine addicts, there are no old crack addicts.

That was my point.

Yes I understand about being 18 and screwed up, more than you will ever know. However, this does not describe the majority of poor people, which is where this started. Kids like this with some potential should be steered toward the military, where the structure can help them pull out of their problems. The whole point of this sidebar was putting forth the case that saving a little money on license taxes is not the make or break difference for poor people in our society and that all of the various socieoeconomic strata need to participate in the upkeep of the country.

It is not a rich persons fault that the kid you describe got that way or his mother for that matter. I do believe in safety nets for that class of folks, much of which does exist. A kid like that can take vocational education classes to learn a marketable skill. Now that he is in state custody (i am assuming that) he can be put into some type of activity where he can learn a skill. That is a good and wise use of taxpayer dollars. The discussion that we were having is that you want poor people not to have to participate in paying taxes into our system and the amount of taxes that they do pay does not amount to a hill of beans in terms of making a difference to their survival.

SORRY SPACE. I misread your post.

Unfortunately this kid turned down an offer like that because the system is so messed up that if you get 1 year IDOC (Illinois Dept. of Corrections) most people will be out in a month. He took that route, IMO, because that was the quickest way to get out of being closely supervised so that he can get back to dealing.

He also would have had to wait at least 6 Mo to get into that program and there was no guarantee he would be accepted because it was in a different county. We need more programs like that so that there isn't a time lag and everyone in a similar situation has access to these services. It is due to a lack of funding that there are not more programs like this, at least in Illinois.

So, I still believe that the Rich should pay more in taxes as a proportion of their income than Poor people. That seems fair to me. It is up to debate where you define rich. It is a fact, in Illinois (I've been searching for the link but it is at least 5 years old and may not be on the web any more) at least, that the bottom 25% of wage earners pay a high portion of their wages to all taxes than those in the top 25%. This seems backwards to me.

So, I say increase programs that keep kids safe and educated. If you want to cut things to do that, like War, ok. If you want to increase taxes to do it, ok. If you want to cut the taxes on the rich to do it, I don't think you can achieve the goal.

I don't blame the Rich, I see them as part of the solution. Maybe it isn't in the best interest of the family who lives on the North Shore of Chicago to make sure that these poor kids have an equal opportunity to succeed. But I think it is. I think that if everyone helps lift up those below us then we will all gain.

At its base I believe this is what the Democratic Party stands for. I believe that our government should help the poor and less fortunate and I think that is what the Democratic Party is all about which is why I support it.

I think the Republican Party is all about helping yourself and eliminating programs that help those in need. That is my perception. Democrats are unselfish while the Republicans are selfish. IMO.

At its base I believe this is what the Democratic Party stands for. I believe that our government should help the poor and less fortunate and I think that is what the Democratic Party is all about which is why I support it.

It may be what it stands for but in its implementation it is the opposite. It starts with feel good sounding programs like midnight basketball and then extends through things like housing projects, where poor people are segregated where they can be harassed by the cops more effectively. It continues with an education system that has been run by the democrats for decades and is in imminent collapse due to systemic incompetence. It is further enabled by generous welfare programs that rewards the women like the mother of the kid you are dealing with to sit on her ass and make extra bucks on the side by dealing crack. I grew up in this and saw it in action.

The republican party on the other hand, by making the bold statement that your life is what YOU make it, sets up a system where people can succeed. By setting up and fostering an economic system that promotes and rewards risk taking, you create new industries that creates a dramatic jump in the demand for jobs and skilled labor, giving those who take up the charge a means to better themselves. I am a product of this system as it was the ramp up in the computer industry coupled with my amateur radio interest that got me started in the field of technology.

The Republican philosophy does not blame anyone for the problems of the poor but extends a hand to those who want to escape poverty the means to escape it. Not all will take that hand and there are many, who bolstered by a sense of victimhood and who enabled by do gooder rich people whine about how unfair the universe is to them and demand that rich people fork over their riches because "we deserve it" and "it is their responsibility to fork the money over".

In the republican system this victimhood and divisive cancer is avoided and the most valuable asset known, human capital, is developed and in that development there is freedom.

Yes in this system there will be a few that are left behind. However, if you don't do this you set up a system that destroys far more lives, and ultimately brings about the destruction of civilization as it is a growing cancer on the body of our society that ultimately devours it as the class divisions grow, the resentment builds, and by pitting one faction against the other, you make it impossible to bridge the divide.

That in the end is what the policies that the democrat party stands for results in. There is an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and it is quite clear that the democrat policies lead our entire nation into national hell.

Whole heartedly and gladly disagree. End of my end of this discussion. If we disagree at that base of a level about who is better equipped to lead our country then so be it.

space guy:
So Democrats will destroy the universe but Republicans pave the way to success? If that's true why did the stretch from 2000-2006 go so badly for the Republicans that they were summarily swept out of control of Congress?

BTW, it's the "Democratic Party" not the "Democrat Party." The latter is the equivalent of me calling the Republicans the Republicant Party.

Scott

Because the Republicans abandoned their principles in the quest to retain power, thinking that they had to act like democrats to do it, handing out the pork right and left. They should have pushed for more spending restraint. In 2000 the Wall Street Journal predicted that Bush would be a big spender republican and he has not disappointed in that regard.

Also, the Republicans have not changed with the times, nor have the democrats, thus the incredibly low approval ratings. We have too damn many lawyers and not enough engineers and scientists in congress today and lawyers have no clue about how to move our civilization forward when our principle problems today are technical in nature and require wisdom regarding technology in order to understand what policies and laws to put in place to get us beyond the problems that beset us at this time.

It is technically incorrect to call the democrats "democratic" as it is "Republicans" Republicans. It has unfortunately entered the lexicon today but it is still incorrect.

Why is it always the workers who take it in the shorts?

because they're the only ones around when 'the man' gets horny...

How about we garnish the bank accounts of people who don't work to pay for this?

Because you can't get money from nothing.

Who is looking out for the rights of the workers?

No, thats why we have organizations who are in place to do that for them. It um.... helps create jobs...

The body does not start to fail us until we are 40 or older.

That was true once, it is not true now. One third of children under twelve are obese and at risk for type 2 diabetes, allergies, asthma ADD, and other diagnosed reasons for prescription medications are through the roof, one of every 165 is autistic and rates are climbing. Broken bones and brittle bones for kids under 18 are also skyrocketing both from weakend systems and more aggressive sports. Rates of infertility, premature birth and infant mortality are on the rise.

As a country we are sick and getting sicker. We continue to pour more toxins into the food and environment and medicate symptoms ignoring the causes. To assume this generation is like the Baby Boomers in terms of health is totally off base and will not hold up in a real life situation.

Pamela, then just simply answer me why we are living longer and longer if we are getting sicker and sicker. I'm sick to death of hearing this crap, actually, because it's simply not true.

That was true once, it is not true now. One third of children under twelve are obese and at risk for type 2 diabetes, allergies, asthma ADD, and other diagnosed reasons for prescription medications are through the roof, one of every 165 is autistic and rates are climbing. Broken bones and brittle bones for kids under 18 are also skyrocketing both from weakend systems and more aggressive sports. Rates of infertility, premature birth and infant mortality are on the rise.

Ever stop to think that maybe the body isn't designed to handle the ass pile of crap introduced to normally good food? Longer shelf life of food trades off for what? health concerns?

I've read elsewhere that over time (like the last 40 years or so) since the onset of preserving food and processing crap to taste good, our bodies have adapted to tak in the stuff, and it preserves us to live a little longer but it also means that since the source is preserved then its harder for the body to break it down properly so that we end up storing more fat and garbage.

Besides, in countries where thy don't process and preserve foods like we do in America they are generally thin. Granted they don't have the food source we do, but is our food source WORTH this long term problem? I guess it is if it lines the pockets of at least 5 or 6 other industries.

I wonder why they don't just regulate the kinds of preservatives or mandate a removal of preservatives so that while the food may not shelf as long it's better for us - and it may not cost as much because I've never heard of it being MORE expensive to remove something that youv'e already been adding - you just cut a step out.

That's true by the percentages, Dr K, but it isn't necessarily a good bet. You have to look at the utility function of the money. If you're earning ok you can (hopefully under a fair system of health care) afford to pay, but you can't afford to have a serious long term illness. That's sort of what insurance is all about, I guess, but the stakes are far bigger with health.

Unfortunately, I don't know the health care system in US as well. So I'd like to hear from one of you, folks, the explanation on this very simple situation.
For example, If I've signed this insurance for 20-year term, but If I haven't been sick for that period, will get my money back?

For example, If I've signed this insurance for 20-year term, but If I haven't been sick for that period, will get my money back?

Normally I'd chuckle at the notion, but you asked in all seriousness - so... no you wont.

Insurance is simply saying that you'll pay someone to make sure that if you DO get sick then you'll be okay or they'll help. It's paying for a service you MIGHT need. Sort of like... toilet paper. You dont need it everytime you use the bathroom, but its nice to have when you DO need it.

Insurance is simply saying that you'll pay someone to make sure that if you DO get sick then you'll be okay or they'll help.

Not really. You pay the insurance companies that deny your claim so they won't lose money on you.

Actually under the medical savings account solution, you keep all the money that you don't spend. This is tax free money and you get to roll it into your retirement.

The medical savings account looks good and as a small-government-guy I like the individual responsibility aspect of it, but I do wonder about those who are working jobs where they can't afford to put any money into such accounts? One of my coworkers told me that her husband lost his job as a result of hurricane Katrina and hasn't found another that pays as well as his old job did. She is the only one covered by insurance right now because they can't afford the "family rate" premium that would cover him too, plus pay the mortgage on the house that got washed away by the storm surge, plus pay the rent for their current apartment. I'm sure there are going to be exceptions to any sort of plan, which is why we need to come up with something that would allow everybody to participate in some way.

The medical savings account is pre tax money, which means that for every dollar that you put in, you get about $1.10-1.30 in benefit as it lowers your tax rate the more that you put into the fund, depending on where you live and your state & local tax rates. You are never going to have a program that works for absolutely everyone. The scenario that you laid out is an extreme case.

Normally I'd chuckle at the notion, but you asked in all seriousness - so... no you wont.

Insurance is simply saying that you'll pay someone to make sure that if you DO get sick then you'll be okay or they'll help. It's paying for a service you MIGHT need. Sort of like... toilet paper. You dont need it everytime you use the bathroom, but its nice to have when you DO need it.

I'm glad to feel the smile on your face and thanx for the understandable explanation ))

Actually, the medical savings accounts are use or lose. Any money you put in there, if it is not used by the end of the year, all that money goes to the government, you just made a donation to Uncle Sam. As for insurance, it's just like car insurance, you are paying money just in case you have an accident. With medical insurance though, you are also paying so that you can only pay a $20 copayment when you go see the doctor when you're sick. There is also the catastrophic aspect of it, in that if you require hospitalization, insurance pays most of it, usually like 80% after all deductibles have been met.

Personally, I like how Chris Rock explains insurance. He said it should just be called "in-case-@!$%#". Because that's what it is. You are paying money, just in case something happens. "Now, if nothing happens, shouldn't I get my money back?!" It's a funny joke, but unfortunately that's not how it works. Insurance companies use sophisticated algorithms and actuarial charts to determine what their over all risk is. They make money on those who pay and don't need or use the insurance. Just like car insurance. The vast majority of people are not going to get involved in a car accident the vast majority of the time. That's how they make their money.

Personally, I like how Chris Rock explains insurance. He said it should just be called "in-case-@!$%#". Because that's what it is. You are paying money, just in case something happens. "Now, if nothing happens, shouldn't I get my money back?!"

I love that bit! Chris Rock rocks ... and he's endorsed my man, Obama.

Actually, the medical savings accounts are use or lose. Any money you put in there, if it is not used by the end of the year, all that money goes to the government, you just made a donation to Uncle Sam

Perhaps you need a better plan. Ours roll over at the end of year and accrue interest.

Phaedrus72...Pamela, then just simply answer me why we are living longer and longer if we are getting sicker and sicker. I'm sick to death of hearing this crap, actually, because it's simply not true.

I know you loathe to see me be right Phaedrus72 but it happens; you are wrong and I am correct. Read it and weep, the details from the National Institutes of Health lest I be accused of biased sources for my data. You do trust NIH don't you? It is criminal that it is true though, because we are dying for %$#@ makers profits, nothing more.

Over the next few decades, life expectancy for the average American could decline by as much as 5 years unless aggressive efforts are made to slow rising rates of obesity, according to a team of scientists supported in part by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

But it isn't a worldwide problem just here where the American way is to eat %$#@ and swallow drugs!!

The projected decline contrasts with estimates by other leading researchers, which predict a continuation of the historic trend of increasing life expectancy in America and Europe dating back to the 1850s, according to Dr. Suzman.

In fact, he points out that the experience of other developed nations is instructive as a barometer of how much room might exist to increase U.S. life expectancy.

More than 20 other developed nations, including France, Japan, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have a higher average life expectancy than the U.S.

Women in Japan, for example, live about 5 years longer than women in the U.S. There is little evidence that life expectancy in these countries is approaching any kind of limit, Suzman says.

Read that last line a second time and appreciate what it means about what we are swallowing.

Pamela:
Phaedrus is right and you are wrong. Read more carefully and weep. Obesity is threatening a drop in life expectancy. If what you're saying is actually at fault the downturn would be reality and not a threat.

Why should spending be taxed? We want people to spend. A consumption tax, by its very nature, is non-sensical. Luxury tax? Sure. But this isn't smart business.

The income tax, on the other hand, makes sense. How do we know if you can afford the tax? Look at the income.

none of it makes sense. I've not ever believe that anyone knows how to better spend my money than me. I also do not believe that I should be penalized for not spending money - especially on something I may not feel I want or need by then having the money taken anyway.

The problem with a high sales tax is that unless there are exemptions for staples (food, clothing, electricity, etc) the poor wind up paying a disproportionately higher rate of tax on income. More of their income is going to the sales tax simply because they are spending a higher percentage of their money on basic necessities. If a rich person buys a similar amount of necessities and pay the same amount of tax, their rate of tax on income is a much lower percentage. For example, if someone spends 25% of their paycheck on food/bills, that is taxed. People who make more than that may be spending, say, 5% of their paycheck on basic necessities, will be assessed the same amount of money, but they will be paying a disproportionately lower amount of tax compared to their income.

Taxing spending hurts those who cannot save, and helps those who spend a disproportionately low percentage of their money on day-to-day expenses (IE the wealthy).

Galley-cat - And here I thought you supported Hillary Clinton.

How could s/he Cliff? As you've pointed out you're the only Clinton supporter here that hasn't been shouted down into silence so s/he wouldn't be speaking otherwise. ;-)

Can I vote for this more than once?

Not possible. those gorillas are siamese twins, joined at the hip.

Unless one is an anarcist or mabe a royalist, one accepts the need to have the governement step in when the private sector goes not function though normal competition in a market. Heath care and health insurance is broken. They had the warning shot in '93 and have only gotten worse.

The problem is when Congress steps in they too often make things worse because they don't act on behalf of the public. The perfect example is what happened with Medicare reform.

Between 2000 and 2004, health insurance, health services and pharmaceutical companies contributed $96,370,907 to candidates for public office - 71 percent going to Republicans. Thirteen administration and congressional officials who were in key positions during the writing and passage of this bill now work for pharmaceutical companies.

This includes Rep. Bill Tauzin, R-La., who is credited with guiding the law's passage and now works for the drug industry's top lobbying group, PhRMA, as one of the highest-paid lobbyists in Washington. Bush's former Medicare chief Tom Scully is now the top healthcare lobbyist for law firm Alston & Bird. Both reportedly negotiated their lobbying contracts while working on the so-called Medicare reform law from inside the US government.

The result is a plan that is needlessly confusing and expensive. A recent poll found more then half of American seniors think Part D is "hard to understand." Hardly a day passes when the newspapers aren't reporting some new frustration in the long list of headaches this ill-conceived program is causing Medicare's beneficiaries - older and disabled Americans. However, direct beneficiaries aren't the only victims of this exercise in free-market failure.

Last week, the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the Institute for America's Future released a joint report detailing the exact costs of Republican corruption in the Part D disaster. The report calculates that the actual cost to the American public is about $80 billion per year, or $800 billion over the next 10 years - as most federal budgets are calculated.*

Now how about calculating that same ratio for the 2006-2008 timeframe. YOu will see that it flipped for the dems. These companies contribute to whowever is in power.

What nonsense. Hillary Clinton was brought up a Republican and she and her husband have been the only people in the White House with any fiscal sense for the last thirty years.

Now you've said something I can agree with. That is true. The Clintons did a good job with that in the 90's. But I think Barack can do an even better job.

Lets not start giving Hillary credit for Bills accomplishments please.

she and her husband have been the only people in the White House with any fiscal sense

The Clintons did a good job with that in the 90's.

Lets not start giving Hillary credit for Bills accomplishments please.

Agreed. I get really tired of that. "The Clintons" didn't do anything.

Hillary was only the first lady.. you cannot give her credit, nor blame, for any aspect of his presidency. Judge Hillary on her own merits, or the lack of same.

I agree. My comment was just in general, and based on the fact that most people voting for Hillary ARE doing it because of Bill. I don't know anyone who believes that he's just going to sit back and be happy being First Lady.

and based on the fact that most people voting for Hillary ARE doing it because of Bill

Kevin, can you prove that? Because I, for one, don't think it is at all true.

I can't prove it, no. My statement was based on some exit polling information in Nevada in which the majority of Clinton voters said they wanted to see Bill back in the White House.

So, I guess I misstated my opinion a bit. I know there are Hillary supporters who support her on her own merits. I should have said "some" instead of "most", because it is a fact that some are, it is only my opinion that most are.

My statement was based on some exit polling information in Nevada in which the majority of Clinton voters said they wanted to see Bill back in the White House.

I was unaware of such polling. Still, I can easily imagine a scenario where an individual (I won't use myself as an example, because it wouldn't be true) would want to see Bill back in the White House, but, separately, wants Hillary in - not as surrogate, but as her own person, who just so happens to be married to Bill.

Just as I'm sure there were Dubya voters who'd have liked to see HW back in the White House (I, for the record, liked HW just fine). They were voting for Dubya, tho.

Actually I would rather be here, in Canada, then the US when it comes to health care. That is not to say I prefer socialism - I just can't get over the twisted wreck that is the American health care situation.

prompt, if you've never experienced the American health care system, how can you call it a wreck? Because of what you hear on television? Give me a break already!

In the current American system, as a non-citizen, I can "fall down go boom", get a Cat Scan, or MRI TODAY and give you the finger on my way out the door. Not subsidized by Uncle Sam, but by the Patients Bill of Rights" imposed by the American Government, paid for by not-for-profit private corporations, and the integrity by health care providers. Capitalism, not Socialism prevails.

Our Neo-Democracy, foreseen by the founding fathers to provide for the evolution of the American experiment MUST change for the betterment of All, saving the rights of One. It is a twisted wreck, but many Canadians buy into American insurance policies and find themselves in the U.S. for all their health care needs.

Actually, I do want socialized medicine. Far better in many ways than what we have hear. If you want to pay for it, you can get your own physician. Just do not make us pay for being special.

Physicians are like mechanics.

Cliff you cannot have socialized medicine and fiscal discipline at the same time, it simply does not work that way.

You cannot have an unjust war and fiscal discipline at the same time. You cannot cut taxes and fund a war and expect the economy to survive.

BTW, I am against socialized medicine. That's one of the reasons I'm voting Obama.

Physicians are like mechanics.

Except that physicians are much more highly educated.

Our good friends to the north can attest to that.

Sorry, but no we won't. Canadian citizens have fought and continue to fight very hard against the continuous assault on our public system by big-money privatization lobbyists, ie. our good friends to the south.

Kudo's to Canada. And for their Donuts.

I agree, Obama will win the Election.

You know Z I could deal with him over her any day. For more years of the lies, the corruption, camera's following Bill and his trysts, it's just too much.

At least with Obama when he screws everything up he won't blame a right wing conspiracy and then in four years, after John McCain is gone, we might get a real republican in the white house. A win win all around!

:)

Talk about screwing up.... it will be 40 years before any republican gets in the White House again, at least through the front door.

Sure, it took Jimmy Carter to bring Ronnie to the white house.

I do.

I'm afraid I have some bad news...

I've a feeling your bad news will have to wait, as I increasingly expect the convention to be brokered.

I find a few on the Vine. Most Clinton supporters have been strangled to death, but those Vine(r)s that keep at it are certainly a strong breed.

No you are incorrect.

The problem is that there are no guarantees in life in depending on the government. When Social Security was started there were 141 people contributing to it for every person receiving benefits. Today that number is about 2.8 to 1. That is what is unsustainable. We must only cover those that are truly needy, not the vast majority of people.

I think agree with your comment. However, your disagreement it's not relevant to my statement.

Not only do they want universal health care coverage, which SHOULD mean that all those who want it are covered, but now they are going to FORCE you to have health care coverage. This is their sick and twisted idea of what universal health care means. If I'm young and don't want coverage, I'll be damned if the government should be allowed to garnish my wages. @!$%# these @!$%#s!! Sorry, it's hard to be Christian like with bull@!$%# like this.

No, Phaedrus, not THEY ... SHE. Barack Obama is staunchly against this, as am I. As I said in another comment in this thread, we are supposed to stand for more choices, not less, and no American, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Independent wants further restrictions over our choices. Well ... I guess I can't say no Democrat, as Hillary Clinton has voters voting for her. But I sure as hell don't. I agree with your assessment with the exception of the word "they" because a hell of a lot of us are against this.

Kevin, while Obama may not be for this, I'm sure she is not the only one. I'm sure she is getting advice from someone.

"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans."

This is an extrapolation, not a quote from Sen. Clinton. Indeed, in the end, We all pay now for the misfortunes of our fellow citizens, as well as non Americans.

No president can categorically make that kind of legislation. Congress does.

Anyone who can pay health care premiums and refuses should be garnished (pro rated.) This does not include the poorest. Our government has been legislating us for our indiscretions for some time now. Seatbelt, helmet, child restraint, traffic, bicycling, and pedestrian laws abound. Hospitals eat what they can't get reimbursed for. Not good.
If you want to scorn someone, shame McDonald's, Walmart, Sears. any store in the mall, most of our grocery stores, and shame on your big business employer for not affording insurance for you. We will all pay one way or another. At least this way, everyone is covered.

You have little or no idea how healthcare would fare under a government controlled system. BTW, It's Medicare (The Government) that controls most of the system now. Reimbursement vs. Compliance. Set rates for procedures, regardless of actual cost. If you think that The Feds will sit as a silent partner through any of this, you're mistaken at the expense of timeliness, quality, and service provided by Capitalism - i.e - competition. I don't love it, but in the end, Hillary's plan provides for everyone that MUST afford it.

"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans."

This is an extrapolation, not a quote from Sen. Clinton. Indeed, in the end, We all pay now for the misfortunes of our fellow citizens, as well as non Americans.

I was about to jump all over you for this comment, as in the original version of the article her exact quote was there, however, when I went up to copy/paste it, I find that the version of the article you read did not include her quote. She did say it, pretty much exactly as they extrapolated.

I can't stand it when they change these AP articles. They even changed the title. It makes commenting extremely confusing.

Phaedrus,

Kevin, while Obama may not be for this, I'm sure she is not the only one. I'm sure she is getting advice from someone.

Getting advice from someone? She's been given marching orders by the corporations that have paid for her campaign and have bought a controlling interest in our government. They are not going to allow it to go down any other way.

Democrats only know one thing, punish, garnish, force, socialism, communism.

Get a grip. You are becoming delirious with self-righteousness.

Phaedrus72 Health care is a right in modern industrialized countries., However in ther US it is controlled by big business and so the poor are left out.
I have to chuckle when I read your comments about being a Christian and then your callous attitude about those who can not afford health care.

Democrats only know one thing, punish, garnish, force, socialism, communism.

This is just an out right lie.

A right? Give me a break. The constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself.

That's right: the writers of the Constitution foresaw the rise of corporate control of health care.

I like you space guy. I had just tried to explain that concept to someone else in another thread yesterday. For some reason, liberals just can't seem to understand the concept.

Phaedrus,

I would appreciate it if you would not make generalizations about liberals as if we are all of one mind. Clinton wants mandatory health care, Obama does not. Many liberals, I would say most, want more choice and freedom. I am not for "mandatory health care" or "socialized health care" I am for Universally AFFORDABLE health care. Having health insurance may not be a right, but getting medical care is a necessity. After all, how can you pursue happiness if you are dead because you couldn't afford the medications needed to keep you alive?