4rd4life Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 (edited) I am just curious about where this kind of opinion comes from... The measure primarily was introduced to clear up a conflict over a federal law allowing gun manufacturers and dealers to sell machine guns to law enforcement officials. In December, then-Attorney General Paul Morrison issued an opinion saying Kansas law doesn't allow those sales. The bill would make it clear that machine guns can be sold in Kansas to law enforcement authorities. A lobbyist for the National Rifle Association noted only law-abiding citizens would be able to pass the background check necessary to make a purchase, and a Wichita firearms dealer told committee members the cost of something like a machine gun, $30,000, was out of the reach of most people. Kansas remained one of the few states with no provision for the concealed carry of firearms until March 2006, when the state legislature passed Senate Bill 418, "The Personal and Family Protection Act." This bill made Kansas the 47th state to permit concealed carry (in some form) and the 36th state with a "shall issue" policy.[45] The bill was passed 30-10 in the state senate and 91-33 in the state house of representatives, gaining enough votes to override veto from Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D), who had previously vetoed several other attempts at concealed carry in the past. Under the law, the Attorney General began granting permits to qualified applicants on January 1, 2007. Previously, Kansas had allowed only open carry of firearms, except where prohibited by local ordinance. This is hardly Democratic support for gun rights... Since 1934, FAWs have been available for private citizenship ownership, and currently 42 of 50 states allow it. As our four bordering states allow private citizens to own FAWs, one has to ask why the citizens of Kansas are not trusted to do so. A brief Internet search revealed data that in 1995 there were over 240,000 FAWs registered with the BATF-approx. 1/2 owned by law enforcement and 1/2 by private citizens. From 1934-2005 2 crimes have been committed with such weapons: one by law enforcement and one by a private citizen. This leads me to two conclusions: 1) any FAWs used by criminals are obtained from other sources and thus are not legal in the US and have no bearing in this discussion; and 2) legal owners of such weapons are extremely law abiding. Your time line is way off here. May 26, 1977 - Replying to another question about reports that the Carter Administration planned to remove specialty steel quotas for imports, Mr. Speer said it was his "personal feeling that that would be a very, very counterproductive move by the Administration." IW Abel, president of the United Steel.... Oct 17, 1977 - With mounting layoffs providing a dramatic backdrop, the steel industry's difficulties these days are being characterized as a crisis. But the steelmakers' problems are clearly chronic, and they have been present to some degree for... three decades. Nov 30, 1977 - How much life is left in the steel industry's pioneering experiment in longterm labor peace now that the strike in the iron ore mines has dragged on longer than the 116-day industrywide steel strike of 1959, with two-thirds ... 'the miners still away rrom THe their jobs? ... Dec 6, 1977 - The steel industry will have to raise its prices in the near future even if imports decline, David M. Roderick, the president of the United States Steel Corporation, the nation's largest steel producer, said yesterday. Feb 5, 1978 - Thousands of workers who lost their jobs in one of the longest and deepest recessions of the world's steel industry found their voices last year. ... As a result unprecedented measures, particularly in Europe and the United States, have been taken to aid the ailing steel industry. ... Jan 22, 1981 - improvement in domestic steel industry shipments." If the predictions of industry executives are only vaguely optimistic, there ... An early indication of the strength of the 1981 steel market will come in. March, which Iron Age, an authoritative steel industry magazine, sees as the ... By January of 1981 (Reagan enters office) the steel industry was already dead, but the recovery was around the corner. On August 3, 1981 nearly 13,000 of the 17,500 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) walked off the job, hoping to disrupt the nation's transportation system to the extent that the federal government would accede to its demands for higher wages, a shorter work week, and better retirement benefits. At a press conference in the White House Rose Garden that same day, President Reagan responded with a stern ultimatum: The strikers were to return to work within 48 hours or face termination. As federal employees the controllers were violating the no-strike clause of their employment contracts. In 1955 Congress had made such strikes a crime punishable by a fine or one year of incarceration -- a law upheld by the Supreme Court in 1971. PATCO president Robert Poli demanded an across-the-board wage increase of $10,000/yr for controllers whose pay ranged from $20,462 to $49,229; the reduction of a five-day, 40-hour work week to a four-day, 32-hour work week; and full retirement after 20 years service note that Reagan was not inaugurated until January of 1981. 1979 16 July - President Al-Bakr resigns and is succeeded by Vice-President Saddam Hussein. "On September 22, 1980, Iraq announced that her planes had hit ten Iranian airfields and that her troops had penetrated into Iranian territory on three major fronts. A full scale war had been launched. Its purpose, according to Saddam Hussein, was to blunt the edge of Khomeini's ... movement and to thwart his attempt to export his Islamic revolution to Iraq and the Persian Gulf states."[20] Abrogating the Algiers Agreement, the main Iraqi thrust was in the Khuzistan province. Although the Iran-Iraq war from 1980–1988 was a war for dominance of the Persian Gulf region, the roots of the war go back many centuries. There has been rivalry between kingdoms of Assyria (the Fertile Cresent valley, modern Syria) and the rugged highlands to the East(Persia or modern Iran) since the beginning of recorded history in Sumer. Saddam Hussein biographers have described Saddam's anti-Iranianism, developed in his formative years living with his virulently anti-Iranian uncle Khairallah Talfah as a factor in his later foreign policy, including the Iran-Iraq War.[9][10] Talfah was the author of Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies, a pamphlet Saddam's government was later to republish 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait More than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers backed up by 700 tanks invaded the Gulf state of Kuwait in the early hours of this morning. Iraqi forces have established a provisional government and their leader Saddam Hussein has threatened to turn Kuwait city into a "graveyard" if any other country dares to challenge the "take-over by force". Sorry, that was Carter as well... On 14 April 1978 the Afghan government requested that the USSR send 15 to 20 helicopters with their crews to Afghanistan, and on 16 June the Soviet government responded and sent a detachment of tanks, BMPs, and crews to guard the government in Kabul and to secure the Bagram and Shindand airfields. In response to this request, an airborne battalion, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel A. Lomakin, arrived at the Bagram Air Base on 7 July. They arrived without their combat gear, disguised as technical specialists. They were the personal bodyguards for President Taraki. The paratroopers were directly subordinate to the senior Soviet military adviser and did not interfere in Afghan politics. After a month, the Afghan requests were no longer for individual crews and subunits, but for regiments and larger units. On 19 July, the Afghan government requested that two motorized rifle divisions be sent to Afghanistan. The following day, they requested an airborne division in addition to the earlier requests. They repeated these requests and variants to these requests over the following months right up to December 1978. However, the Soviet government was in no hurry to grant these requests. The anti-communist rebels also garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the American intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1978, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime. GHW Bush trade defict: 1988 ($114,566) 1992 ($39,212) Reduced by about 2/3rds.... Clinton 1993 trade deficit: 1993 ($70,311) 2001 ($379,835) More than 5 times the deficit he started with... And the cost of imported oil was falling... So the Bush family is personally responsible for 9/11? right.... Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008 Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250 I am not throwing any body under the bus, but where are these ideas coming from? As for Mission Accomplished, the US military did defeat the Iraqi army in about 100 hours. They did accomplish their mission. You know it is real easy to copy and paste only the parts you want but what about the rest of the articles I won't copy and paste but like the steel industry Reagan could have helped but refused because of special interest Afghan - Russia war yeah Carter was President in '79 but this war did last 10 years ending in '89 with Reagan and Bush Sr. giving them arms and aid look at the thanks were getting now. Iraq - Iran war yeah this war started Sep. 22 1980 Carter only had 3 months left in office even though elections were not till Nov. he and everyone else knew he was on the way out, nobody can deny that. This war also lasted 10 years although it was called the 8 year war ending in '88 a treaty was not signed by Iraq until '90 but again Reagan and Bush give arms and aid and for what OIL and now look at the thanks were getting now. Now Saddam just didn't become President because General Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr resigned, actually Bakr was Saddams cousin and he was forced out because of health reasons then after taking control he ordered the deaths of dozens of his rivals within days of taking power. There is a list of Unions that Reagan passed a law not allowing them to strike and if they did they would be fired, not that everyone wants to strike but sometimes you have no choice, do you think we would be where we are today if it wasn't for the like's of people like Walter Reuther and Jimmy Hoffa taking this country out on strike. The Deficit you need to get the facts straight here is a little copy and paste if it catches your attention follow the link and read the whole article. The deficits were much more closely related throughout most of the 1980s, however, when both reached their previous record highs and required substantial adjustment. The external deficits would probably be much larger today had the budget not improved so dramatically during the 1990s. The tax cuts and large spending increases of the early years of this decade clearly worsened the United States' external position, by further reducing national saving, and played central roles in pushing it to today's precarious levels. Indeed, less expansionary fiscal policy in recent years would have reduced the need for tightening of monetary policy by the Federal Reserve and produced a weaker dollar that would have strengthened our current account. Budget correction would almost surely promote external adjustment under current circumstances, perhaps by around one half of the improvement in the budget itself. http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publicati...?ResearchID=705 Now as far as the Bush family being personally responsible for 9/11. I never said that but they did piss of allot of people in this world and they are tied to the Bin Laden family and they did help cut Osama out of the family fortune. And now as far as Mission Accomplished we all know why, if it's not a war our military will not recive war pay any longer, or the benifits that come along with it and that is not right these men and women put their lives on the line everyday with very little pay, while Bush hire's private security frim's for who know's how much but each of their employees make 5 times as much as our millitary. Edited July 23, 2008 by 4rd4life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoomerjrt Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 I am just curious about where this kind of opinion comes from... The measure primarily was introduced to clear up a conflict over a federal law allowing gun manufacturers and dealers to sell machine guns to law enforcement officials. In December, then-Attorney General Paul Morrison issued an opinion saying Kansas law doesn't allow those sales. The bill would make it clear that machine guns can be sold in Kansas to law enforcement authorities. A lobbyist for the National Rifle Association noted only law-abiding citizens would be able to pass the background check necessary to make a purchase, and a Wichita firearms dealer told committee members the cost of something like a machine gun, $30,000, was out of the reach of most people. Kansas remained one of the few states with no provision for the concealed carry of firearms until March 2006, when the state legislature passed Senate Bill 418, "The Personal and Family Protection Act." This bill made Kansas the 47th state to permit concealed carry (in some form) and the 36th state with a "shall issue" policy.[45] The bill was passed 30-10 in the state senate and 91-33 in the state house of representatives, gaining enough votes to override veto from Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D), who had previously vetoed several other attempts at concealed carry in the past. Under the law, the Attorney General began granting permits to qualified applicants on January 1, 2007. Previously, Kansas had allowed only open carry of firearms, except where prohibited by local ordinance. This is hardly Democratic support for gun rights... Since 1934, FAWs have been available for private citizenship ownership, and currently 42 of 50 states allow it. As our four bordering states allow private citizens to own FAWs, one has to ask why the citizens of Kansas are not trusted to do so. A brief Internet search revealed data that in 1995 there were over 240,000 FAWs registered with the BATF-approx. 1/2 owned by law enforcement and 1/2 by private citizens. From 1934-2005 2 crimes have been committed with such weapons: one by law enforcement and one by a private citizen. This leads me to two conclusions: 1) any FAWs used by criminals are obtained from other sources and thus are not legal in the US and have no bearing in this discussion; and 2) legal owners of such weapons are extremely law abiding. Your time line is way off here. May 26, 1977 - Replying to another question about reports that the Carter Administration planned to remove specialty steel quotas for imports, Mr. Speer said it was his "personal feeling that that would be a very, very counterproductive move by the Administration." IW Abel, president of the United Steel.... Oct 17, 1977 - With mounting layoffs providing a dramatic backdrop, the steel industry's difficulties these days are being characterized as a crisis. But the steelmakers' problems are clearly chronic, and they have been present to some degree for... three decades. Nov 30, 1977 - How much life is left in the steel industry's pioneering experiment in longterm labor peace now that the strike in the iron ore mines has dragged on longer than the 116-day industrywide steel strike of 1959, with two-thirds ... 'the miners still away rrom THe their jobs? ... Dec 6, 1977 - The steel industry will have to raise its prices in the near future even if imports decline, David M. Roderick, the president of the United States Steel Corporation, the nation's largest steel producer, said yesterday. Feb 5, 1978 - Thousands of workers who lost their jobs in one of the longest and deepest recessions of the world's steel industry found their voices last year. ... As a result unprecedented measures, particularly in Europe and the United States, have been taken to aid the ailing steel industry. ... Jan 22, 1981 - improvement in domestic steel industry shipments." If the predictions of industry executives are only vaguely optimistic, there ... An early indication of the strength of the 1981 steel market will come in. March, which Iron Age, an authoritative steel industry magazine, sees as the ... By January of 1981 (Reagan enters office) the steel industry was already dead, but the recovery was around the corner. On August 3, 1981 nearly 13,000 of the 17,500 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) walked off the job, hoping to disrupt the nation's transportation system to the extent that the federal government would accede to its demands for higher wages, a shorter work week, and better retirement benefits. At a press conference in the White House Rose Garden that same day, President Reagan responded with a stern ultimatum: The strikers were to return to work within 48 hours or face termination. As federal employees the controllers were violating the no-strike clause of their employment contracts. In 1955 Congress had made such strikes a crime punishable by a fine or one year of incarceration -- a law upheld by the Supreme Court in 1971. PATCO president Robert Poli demanded an across-the-board wage increase of $10,000/yr for controllers whose pay ranged from $20,462 to $49,229; the reduction of a five-day, 40-hour work week to a four-day, 32-hour work week; and full retirement after 20 years service note that Reagan was not inaugurated until January of 1981. 1979 16 July - President Al-Bakr resigns and is succeeded by Vice-President Saddam Hussein. "On September 22, 1980, Iraq announced that her planes had hit ten Iranian airfields and that her troops had penetrated into Iranian territory on three major fronts. A full scale war had been launched. Its purpose, according to Saddam Hussein, was to blunt the edge of Khomeini's ... movement and to thwart his attempt to export his Islamic revolution to Iraq and the Persian Gulf states."[20] Abrogating the Algiers Agreement, the main Iraqi thrust was in the Khuzistan province. Although the Iran-Iraq war from 1980–1988 was a war for dominance of the Persian Gulf region, the roots of the war go back many centuries. There has been rivalry between kingdoms of Assyria (the Fertile Cresent valley, modern Syria) and the rugged highlands to the East(Persia or modern Iran) since the beginning of recorded history in Sumer. Saddam Hussein biographers have described Saddam's anti-Iranianism, developed in his formative years living with his virulently anti-Iranian uncle Khairallah Talfah as a factor in his later foreign policy, including the Iran-Iraq War.[9][10] Talfah was the author of Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies, a pamphlet Saddam's government was later to republish 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait More than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers backed up by 700 tanks invaded the Gulf state of Kuwait in the early hours of this morning. Iraqi forces have established a provisional government and their leader Saddam Hussein has threatened to turn Kuwait city into a "graveyard" if any other country dares to challenge the "take-over by force". Sorry, that was Carter as well... On 14 April 1978 the Afghan government requested that the USSR send 15 to 20 helicopters with their crews to Afghanistan, and on 16 June the Soviet government responded and sent a detachment of tanks, BMPs, and crews to guard the government in Kabul and to secure the Bagram and Shindand airfields. In response to this request, an airborne battalion, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel A. Lomakin, arrived at the Bagram Air Base on 7 July. They arrived without their combat gear, disguised as technical specialists. They were the personal bodyguards for President Taraki. The paratroopers were directly subordinate to the senior Soviet military adviser and did not interfere in Afghan politics. After a month, the Afghan requests were no longer for individual crews and subunits, but for regiments and larger units. On 19 July, the Afghan government requested that two motorized rifle divisions be sent to Afghanistan. The following day, they requested an airborne division in addition to the earlier requests. They repeated these requests and variants to these requests over the following months right up to December 1978. However, the Soviet government was in no hurry to grant these requests. The anti-communist rebels also garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the American intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1978, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime. GHW Bush trade defict: 1988 ($114,566) 1992 ($39,212) Reduced by about 2/3rds.... Clinton 1993 trade deficit: 1993 ($70,311) 2001 ($379,835) More than 5 times the deficit he started with... And the cost of imported oil was falling... So the Bush family is personally responsible for 9/11? right.... Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008 Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250 I am not throwing any body under the bus, but where are these ideas coming from? As for Mission Accomplished, the US military did defeat the Iraqi army in about 100 hours. They did accomplish their mission. What your not showing is that you should show the tax bracket for the 500,000 plus group, and look at what percentage they pay compaired to us under $125,000. This is what Bush did for the rich they make a ton more and pay a less in taxes and the rest of American tax payers carry the load, not fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4rd4life Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 Oh you wrote such a long responce. Over little ol me. Just wanted to make you feel special Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingranch Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 Barrack Husein Obama is bad for America! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4rd4life Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 Barrack Husein Obama is bad for America! yeah and your bad for the union I seen your post in "rat in the union" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 (edited) Barrack Husein Obama is bad for America! Really? And how do those of you who are either out-rightly for McCain, don't care for Obama, or some combination of the two, feel that somehow McCain, not as a military veteran, but as a U.S. Senator, has fully paid, top drawer health care with virtually zero out-of-pocket costs (for John McCain), that some how he is a better choice when his health care proposal involves removing the tax break Ford and other employers get for providing health insurrance? How do you guys figure he's a better choice? I keep seeing references to "the Jimmy Carter years", with no evidence to back that up, save for the fact that Obama is a Democrat. How the hell do working class people get roped into thinking that, under any set of circumstances, a Republican is a better choice for the country, and consequently better for working people? "Liberal" is automatically evil? Here's an absolute fact: McCain's health care proposal does absolutely nothing to help the millions of uninsured Americans. Zip. Nothing. It favors wealthy and the healthy, but not only does it not help those with pre-existing conditions (and how many of us, as we get older, don't have "preexisting" conditions?), but when Dr. Timothy Johnson, the medical editor of ABC News, pressed McCain at a forum to explain why he felt no need to "prevent insurance companies from cherry-picking" healthier customers and denying coverage to some people with preexisting conditions, McCain responded that the idea of imposing mandates on insurance companies was a simple answer, but one that he was not sure would be effective, then got a bit uppity, and said that Americans need to improve their physical condition, and suggested some people with preexisting conditions could be put in "high-risk pools" (Great. I have high cholesterol and osteoarthritis, and I get to go in the "high-risk pool"). Bottom line was that McCain would not put requirements on insurance companies to take on people with preexisting conditions. Whatever Obama's faults are, this guy is a Harvard educated lawyer who went on to at least try and help working class and poor people. McCain? Let's see - supporter by every other Republican senator, including Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH, who has consistently fought against extending unemployment insurance since January of this year, because, according to this Republican supported of McCain, it makes people lazy: February 3, 2008 "Most people find a job in the last two weeks of their unemployment," Gregg said. "That's human nature. They stay on unemployment almost until the end and then they find a job. If you extend it another year, those folks who could be productive, producing a job, creating economic activity by having a job will stay on unemployment even though there may be a job out there that they could take." Link Here Then he threatened to filibuster the extension this past June: Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said Republicans probably would filibuster the measure as too broad — providing benefits in states with low unemployment — and too expensive, costing about $16 billion over two years. Link Here McCain? Did nothing to talk or shout Judd down from his position of opposing extending unemployment insurance. And Obama is the lesser of the choice between a McCain and Obama for President? Why? And who, until this past Friday, was McCain's senior economic adviser and vice-chairman of his campaign. Former Senator Phil Gramm, now Vice Chairman of Switzerland based UBS. Who snuck the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 into a a badly needed appropriations bill, in December of 2000? Phil Gramm. Want to know the nick name of that bill = look it up -the "Enron Law", because Gramm's wife was on Enron's board of directors. Want to know how one of McCain's (who voted for the bill) advisers screwed over you, me, and every other working class person, white collar or blue collar? That law removed federal oversight from speculating in crude oil futures. That's right, my blue collar Republican sports fans -that one law did exactly what it's critics said, in 2000, it would do - lead to wide spread crude oil speculation and help run up the price of oil. Feel really secure in your job? I have a bachelors degree, was one third of the way done with an MBA, and have over twenty years experience, and I've been out if work for eleven months and counting (and I have a degree, finished one-third of an MBA,a nd have over twenty years experience). NBC news this evening showed a lady from Pasadena, California, a sales rep, out of work for eighteen months, and counting. Yea, the Republicans are really better for the economy and working people? What else did Gramm do, that McCain supported and voted for? Deregulating the financial markets, to both encourage and allow, the pushing of risky mortgages (serves UBS right that they got burned with $37 billion dollars in mortgage losses). And Obama isn't a good choice for working people - white collar and blue collar, union and nonunion alike? Republicans are better for us? They, including "Maverick" McCain, deregulated oil speculation, which contributed to the increase in oil prices. Republicans deregulated the investment banking industry, so they could get into high risk derivatives, "investment" instruments backed by high risk mortgages. And what do working people get? The bill for bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the tax payer brokered "rescue" of Bear Sterns, is going to borne by you and me, and our generations children. Thanks to Republican policies. Not Democratic party policies. McCain is better for working people? You mean by telling working class white collar professionals, including a Grand Rapids, Michigan businessman being hurt by Mexican competition, here in Detroit less than two weeks ago, ""I have to look you in the eye, and tell you I believe in free trade." This is the better choice? And yet Obama is the bigger risk to you? How can that be? How can you justify that position? Less experience or not, tax policies and shifting positions or not (you mean McCain being against Bushes tax cuts in 2001 or McCain now wanting to make them permanent?), who has been looking out for working people, and who has helped pass legislation that both benefited the wealthy while hurting the working person? Who still supports trade policies that unfairly hurt all American manufacturing? Who wants to tax your employer provided health insurance, sticking you with the tax bill? Who has no proposals to help the millions of Americans who have no health insurrance, to the point where even Fortune magazine said his (McCain's) proposal was unfair to both poor people and people with preexisting conditions? And somehow you guys still support the Republicans? Why? Edited July 24, 2008 by Len_A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatso Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 (edited) You tell em Len_A! Hey would somebody please tell John McCain that the USA lost the Vietnam War.And by the way what terrible calamity befell the United States of America as a result?There always has to be a war,man.To go along with all their fucking rules,man.I remember that time of U.S. History and let me tell ya the protesters against the war were eventually proven right.Wanna see courage 'silver spoon' McCain,,,remember Kent State University?Those students who were shot dead were 4 American Hero`s too.Marijuana should be legal already,prostitution too,,,,,,MAN,,,,they`re fucking with us,,,,MAN,,,,,our jobs are going to foreign countries,,MAN,,,,that television set,,,,,it ain`t my GOD,,,,MAN Edited July 24, 2008 by Fatso Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Really? And how do those of you who are either out-rightly for McCain, don't care for Obama, or some combination of the two, feel that somehow McCain, not as a military veteran, but as a U.S. Senator, has fully paid, top drawer health care with virtually zero out-of-pocket costs (for John McCain), that some how he is a better choice when his health care proposal involves removing the tax break Ford and other employers get for providing health insurrance? How do you guys figure he's a better choice? I keep seeing references to "the Jimmy Carter years", with no evidence to back that up, save for the fact that Obama is a Democrat. How the hell do working class people get roped into thinking that, under any set of circumstances, a Republican is a better choice for the country, and consequently better for working people? "Liberal" is automatically evil? Here's an absolute fact: McCain's health care proposal does absolutely nothing to help the millions of uninsured Americans. Zip. Nothing. It favors wealthy and the healthy, but not only does it not help those with pre-existing conditions (and how many of us, as we get older, don't have "preexisting" conditions?), but when Dr. Timothy Johnson, the medical editor of ABC News, pressed McCain at a forum to explain why he felt no need to "prevent insurance companies from cherry-picking" healthier customers and denying coverage to some people with preexisting conditions, McCain responded that the idea of imposing mandates on insurance companies was a simple answer, but one that he was not sure would be effective, then got a bit uppity, and said that Americans need to improve their physical condition, and suggested some people with preexisting conditions could be put in "high-risk pools" (Great. I have high cholesterol and osteoarthritis, and I get to go in the "high-risk pool"). Bottom line was that McCain would not put requirements on insurance companies to take on people with preexisting conditions. Whatever Obama's faults are, this guy is a Harvard educated lawyer who went on to at least try and help working class and poor people. McCain? Let's see - supporter by every other Republican senator, including Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH, who has consistently fought against extending unemployment insurance since January of this year, because, according to this Republican supported of McCain, it makes people lazy: February 3, 2008 "Most people find a job in the last two weeks of their unemployment," Gregg said. "That's human nature. They stay on unemployment almost until the end and then they find a job. If you extend it another year, those folks who could be productive, producing a job, creating economic activity by having a job will stay on unemployment even though there may be a job out there that they could take." Link Here Then he threatened to filibuster the extension this past June: Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said Republicans probably would filibuster the measure as too broad — providing benefits in states with low unemployment — and too expensive, costing about $16 billion over two years. Link Here McCain? Did nothing to talk or shout Judd down from his position of opposing extending unemployment insurance. And Obama is the lesser of the choice between a McCain and Obama for President? Why? And who, until this past Friday, was McCain's senior economic adviser and vice-chairman of his campaign. Former Senator Phil Gramm, now Vice Chairman of Switzerland based UBS. Who snuck the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 into a a badly needed appropriations bill, in December of 2000? Phil Gramm. Want to know the nick name of that bill = look it up -the "Enron Law", because Gramm's wife was on Enron's board of directors. Want to know how one of McCain's (who voted for the bill) advisers screwed over you, me, and every other working class person, white collar or blue collar? That law removed federal oversight from speculating in crude oil futures. That's right, my blue collar Republican sports fans -that one law did exactly what it's critics said, in 2000, it would do - lead to wide spread crude oil speculation and help run up the price of oil. Feel really secure in your job? I have a bachelors degree, was one third of the way done with an MBA, and have over twenty years experience, and I've been out if work for eleven months and counting (and I have a degree, finished one-third of an MBA,a nd have over twenty years experience). NBC news this evening showed a lady from Pasadena, California, a sales rep, out of work for eighteen months, and counting. Yea, the Republicans are really better for the economy and working people? What else did Gramm do, that McCain supported and voted for? Deregulating the financial markets, to both encourage and allow, the pushing of risky mortgages (serves UBS right that they got burned with $37 billion dollars in mortgage losses). And Obama isn't a good choice for working people - white collar and blue collar, union and nonunion alike? Republicans are better for us? They, including "Maverick" McCain, deregulated oil speculation, which contributed to the increase in oil prices. Republicans deregulated the investment banking industry, so they could get into high risk derivatives, "investment" instruments backed by high risk mortgages. And what do working people get? The bill for bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the tax payer brokered "rescue" of Bear Sterns, is going to borne by you and me, and our generations children. Thanks to Republican policies. Not Democratic party policies. McCain is better for working people? You mean by telling working class white collar professionals, including a Grand Rapids, Michigan businessman being hurt by Mexican competition, here in Detroit less than two weeks ago, ""I have to look you in the eye, and tell you I believe in free trade." This is the better choice? And yet Obama is the bigger risk to you? How can that be? How can you justify that position? Less experience or not, tax policies and shifting positions or not (you mean McCain being against Bushes tax cuts in 2001 or McCain now wanting to make them permanent?), who has been looking out for working people, and who has helped pass legislation that both benefited the wealthy while hurting the working person? Who still supports trade policies that unfairly hurt all American manufacturing? Who wants to tax your employer provided health insurance, sticking you with the tax bill? Who has no proposals to help the millions of Americans who have no health insurrance, to the point where even Fortune magazine said his (McCain's) proposal was unfair to both poor people and people with preexisting conditions? And somehow you guys still support the Republicans? Why? Without companies.. there is no work...... Without freetrade... the world is more unstable :shades: Some people are born or marry into money and powerful positions. The people that are not.... complain. Whoever wins the election will become a moderate with a slight tilt to the left or right.. It really doesn't matter who will win... The sun will come up and the new President will do the best job he can... and the people without will still complain... and companies will still need tax cuts... The poor takes too much and the rich get taxed too much..... and the sun still rises each day. :reading: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Obama is so effective just look at Chicago. Is it a place any one really wants to live or work? With the current murder rate using his reasoning we should pull out of Chicago. Maybe Chicago needs a surge? Actually pick any major city run by liberals and use that as an example,it's a shit hole. Detroit,Chicago,Cleveland,Washington D.C. and the same people want to expand that success story to a national level? No thanks. If your liberal and have that mind set you can move to your mecca of living be it Hollywood or a major city where you want someone to take care of you. The biggest contrast in actions and mindset is looking at past disasters and how they were handled. In New Orleans you had wide spread looting and nothing but problems. Contrast that with the people in the central U.S. and they fended for themselves without the widespread looting and blaming others. One group of people I would call "conservative" and the other group I would call "liberal". You can better see which group can handle problems and crisis better. If Obama really wanted to prove he is qualified for the job what measure of success does he have on a smaller scale? I am not giving Mccain a pass either but it really makes me laugh when a shit load of people vote party line because the democrat is "for the working man". Truth be told you pick any politician in Washington and you will see they are very wealthy (rich) on a job that grosses much less than the assets they have. They are completely different than any of us working class people and are completely removed from any of the topics they might be discussed here or at work. The comparison to Carter is based on what Obama stated he intends to do. Letting the current tax cuts expire IS a tax increase not including the other planned spending that the working will have to pay for. he is not alone in this mindset. I am sure all the others in congress that oppose using all our own natural resources to be energy independent or lower cost is for the "working man" also. If Mccain is dumb Obama is dumber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99ktpbirdman Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Just wanted to make you feel special stop flirting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 (edited) Obama is so effective just look at Chicago. Is it a place any one really wants to live or work? With the current murder rate using his reasoning we should pull out of Chicago. Maybe Chicago needs a surge? Actually pick any major city run by liberals and use that as an example,it's a shit hole. Detroit,Chicago,Cleveland,Washington D.C. and the same people want to expand that success story to a national level? No thanks. If your liberal and have that mind set you can move to your mecca of living be it Hollywood or a major city where you want someone to take care of you. The biggest contrast in actions and mindset is looking at past disasters and how they were handled. In New Orleans you had wide spread looting and nothing but problems. Contrast that with the people in the central U.S. and they fended for themselves without the widespread looting and blaming others. One group of people I would call "conservative" and the other group I would call "liberal". You can better see which group can handle problems and crisis better. If Obama really wanted to prove he is qualified for the job what measure of success does he have on a smaller scale? I am not giving Mccain a pass either but it really makes me laugh when a shit load of people vote party line because the democrat is "for the working man". Truth be told you pick any politician in Washington and you will see they are very wealthy (rich) on a job that grosses much less than the assets they have. They are completely different than any of us working class people and are completely removed from any of the topics they might be discussed here or at work. The comparison to Carter is based on what Obama stated he intends to do. Letting the current tax cuts expire IS a tax increase not including the other planned spending that the working will have to pay for. he is not alone in this mindset. I am sure all the others in congress that oppose using all our own natural resources to be energy independent or lower cost is for the "working man" also. If Mccain is dumb Obama is dumber. I'm not voting the party line, but I can't think of much in this election that would be dumber than a vote for McCain, or this current crop of Republicans. We're not talking about Ronald Reagan here. I'm a former card carrying (and I do mean card carry), dues paying Republican, and I can't think of anything worse than the mess this current crop of neoconservatives have created in this country. Cal50, you can harp about the mess that the big cities are in, but the bottom line is that under Clinton, much more in the way of federal dollars were funneled to the police departments to put officers on patrol, on the streets (and I know what I'm talking about here - I can count about three local judges, one of them a neighbor, two police chiefs, and about six other cops among my friends), and crime was going down. I understand that national security concerns changed some of the priorities, but the tax cuts for those whose incomes are above $200K is inexcusable, especially after 9-11 put the country on a war footing. True conservatives don't cut funding for law enforcement, especially after a devastating incident like 9-11. True conservatives don't shift law enforcement dollars around, to meet neoconservative-cut-government-spending ideology. They obtain more funds for law enforcement, in addition to funding the added national security related functions. This is, including McCain, the first crop of Republicans to try cut taxes when war efforts necessitated increased federal spending. This current crop of Republicans aren't true conservatives, but neoconservatives, out more for the wealthy and less and less for the working middle class. The fact is that you have to see past your own narrow ideologies, and stop dismissing any information that contradicts the old ideologies. Free-market conservatism is helping cost 47 million Americans (that's 47,000,000) any health insurance. Mind you, I say this with a quarter of a century business experience and a business degree. Free-market conservatism is failing in health-care, plain and simple, and the rise in costs to American business is making us uncompetitive in a free-trade environment. Free-trade Republicans signed off on making other countries national health-care and generous national pensions subsidies of their industries a subject-non-grata at all these "free trade agreement" talks. That's right, sports fans, going back to Bush 41, and including this current administration, and all of the Republican members of the Senate, including McCain, any reference during trade talks, to other countries essentially subsidizing their industries through national-health care and generous national pensions (their versions of social security) are off-limits. The only brief time this ever gets attention from these neocons, the line of B.S. they fed us was that superior American productivity would more than offset that subsidy. Well, those days are over. Health insurance premiums for American business have been rizing inthe 8% to 12% annual rate for over eight years, and there is no way our productivity can offset that. Worse yet is the Republicans ideological obsession with "growth", which is not working because there is too much collateral damage, namely increased inflation. Under this current crop of so-called conservatives (actually neoconservatives) the U.S. dollar has lost substantial value to the euro because the Republican leadership, including so-called "maverick" McCain, has been convinced that a trade policy funded by debt makes sense. Instead, trade deficits are outsourcing American wealth and jobs, oil has increased over 300%, in part due to legalized hyper speculation, and, adjusted for inflation, the stock market is lower than it's been in many years. And the best you've got is blame Obama for Chicago crime rates that rose under a Republican administration after that Republican, with the support of every Republican senator including McCain, cut federal law enforcement spending? The best you've got to blame liberals for the looting in New Orleans that happened when a supposed conservative Republican administration dropped the ball, related to FEMA? McCain's senate votes were for approving those changes in FEMA, too. The best you've got is that while you say McCain doesn't get a pass, Obama is a worse choice? Cal50, I've seen your past posts, and you're more intelligent that, but if you can't see past the smoke screen of conservatives own narrow ideology, then perhaps I've given you more credit than I should have. We, as a country, and especially those of us affected by the fortunes of the Detroit automakers, have lost a hell of a lot of money in the markets, and a hell of a lot of ground socially and economically, under this grand conservative ideology of the past eight years, that John McCain now completely endorses. Edited July 24, 2008 by Len_A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 I'm not voting the party line, but I can't think of much in this election that would be dumber than a vote for McCain, or this current crop of Republicans. We're not talking about Ronald Reagan here. I'm a former card carrying (and I do mean card carry), dues paying Republican, and I can't think of anything worse than the mess this current crop of neoconservatives have created in this country. Cal50, you can harp about the mess that the big cities are in, but the bottom line is that under Clinton, much more in the way of federal dollars were funneled to the police departments to put officers on patrol, on the streets (and I know what I'm talking about here - I can count about three local judges, one of them a neighbor, two police chiefs, and about six other cops among my friends), and crime was going down. I understand that national security concerns changed some of the priorities, but the tax cuts for those whose incomes are above $200K is inexcusable, especially after 9-11 put the country on a war footing. True conservatives don't cut funding for law enforcement, especially after a devastating incident like 9-11. True conservatives don't shift law enforcement dollars around, to meet neoconservative-cut-government-spending ideology. They obtain more funds for law enforcement, in addition to funding the added national security related functions. This is, including McCain, the first crop of Republicans to try cut taxes when war efforts necessitated increased federal spending. This current crop of Republicans aren't true conservatives, but neoconservatives, out more for the wealthy and less and less for the working middle class. The fact is that you have to see past your own narrow ideologies, and stop dismissing any information that contradicts the old ideologies. Free-market conservatism is helping cost 47 million Americans (that's 47,000,000) any health insurance. Mind you, I say this with a quarter of a century business experience and a business degree. Free-market conservatism is failing in health-care, plain and simple, and the rise in costs to American business is making us uncompetitive in a free-trade environment. Free-trade Republicans signed off on making other countries national health-care and generous national pensions subsidies of their industries a subject-non-grata at all these "free trade agreement" talks. That's right, sports fans, going back to Bush 41, and including this current administration, and all of the Republican members of the Senate, including McCain, any reference during trade talks, to other countries essentially subsidizing their industries through national-health care and generous national pensions (their versions of social security) are off-limits. The only brief time this ever gets attention from these neocons, the line of B.S. they fed us was that superior American productivity would more than offset that subsidy. Well, those days are over. Health insurance premiums for American business have been rizing inthe 8% to 12% annual rate for over eight years, and there is no way our productivity can offset that. Worse yet is the Republicans ideological obsession with "growth", which is not working because there is too much collateral damage, namely increased inflation. Under this current crop of so-called conservatives (actually neoconservatives) the U.S. dollar has lost substantial value to the euro because the Republican leadership, including so-called "maverick" McCain, has been convinced that a trade policy funded by debt makes sense. Instead, trade deficits are outsourcing American wealth and jobs, oil has increased over 300%, in part due to legalized hyper speculation, and, adjusted for inflation, the stock market is lower than it's been in many years. And the best you've got is blame Obama for Chicago crime rates that rose under a Republican administration after that Republican, with the support of every Republican senator including McCain, cut federal law enforcement spending? The best you've got to blame liberals for the looting in New Orleans that happened when a supposed conservative Republican administration dropped the ball, related to FEMA? McCain's senate votes were for approving those changes in FEMA, too. The best you've got is that while you say McCain doesn't get a pass, Obama is a worse choice? Cal50, I've seen your past posts, and you're more intelligent that, but if you can't see past the smoke screen of conservatives own narrow ideology, then perhaps I've given you more credit than I should have. We, as a country, and especially those of us affected by the fortunes of the Detroit automakers, have lost a hell of a lot of money in the markets, and a hell of a lot of ground socially and economically, under this grand conservative ideology of the past eight years, that John McCain now completely endorses. Make no mistake I am not a McCain or Obama fan and I do not like either choice. As far as the 100,000 officer mandate under Clinton it provided up front money to hire additional law enforcement people. There was no provision to maintain that funding to "keep them on". It was a nice gesture but another impulsive action form our elected people to do good. I also have friends in the law enforcement field that know first hand how the money was divided up. They received one piece of needed equipment and that was it. Once they learned that the fed money ws for training or hiring and not sustaining they opted for the equipment that had no residual cost. There is corporate welfare and regular welfare. I hate both forms of give aways. The better government is one that is the least invasive and lets the people that work keep more of their earnings. Government has grown each and every year and no one in congress can spend or hold to a balanced budget and we are paying for it. My example of hurricane disaster illustrates how different people react in a given situation. There is a segment of our population that will take everything that you give them and more. Then there is the truly rich that will act the exact same way. The working class people are stuck in the middle paying the way. Anytime taxes are raised on a corporation it is passed along to the consumer or taken from the employees. When government raises taxes it affects the working. Again we are paying the bill. Both are organizations that spend money and produce zero product. Unfortunately I truly believe if Obama is elected there will be a repeat of the economy as in the Carter years. Raising taxes and spending under the current conditions is just stupid and will guarantee a recession. I would rather have a candidate that would cut foreign aid and spend it domestically anywhere for a start. Never happen! There is no solution. Everyone has health care. It's how you pay for it being the problem. Until someone comes up with a way to control costs be it medical,pharmaceutical,insurance or energy it will always be the more you make the more the government or management will take. Just keep in the middle and try to stay healthy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatso Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Republican ads bashing Woodstock? They are are out their collective hard-ass minds man.Don`t buy that shit.The coolest people in the world at that time were at Woodstock.I know the government did an 'about face' and started treating military personnel better.For what man?To kill for oil?To kill for Israel?Oil Sheiks who by the way are hated by their own people.Who is making money off the war in Iraq?Humans exist AND compete on this planet.There is much underlying contention."Something happening here",Buffalo Springfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4rd4life Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 stop flirting Not flirting why is your deliverance side coming out, I'm sorry you’ll have to find somebody else to bend you over and make you squeal like a pig, because I'm not that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Make no mistake I am not a McCain or Obama fan and I do not like either choice. As far as the 100,000 officer mandate under Clinton it provided up front money to hire additional law enforcement people. There was no provision to maintain that funding to "keep them on". It was a nice gesture but another impulsive action form our elected people to do good. I also have friends in the law enforcement field that know first hand how the money was divided up. They received one piece of needed equipment and that was it. Once they learned that the fed money ws for training or hiring and not sustaining they opted for the equipment that had no residual cost. There is corporate welfare and regular welfare. I hate both forms of give aways. The better government is one that is the least invasive and lets the people that work keep more of their earnings. Government has grown each and every year and no one in congress can spend or hold to a balanced budget and we are paying for it. My example of hurricane disaster illustrates how different people react in a given situation. There is a segment of our population that will take everything that you give them and more. Then there is the truly rich that will act the exact same way. The working class people are stuck in the middle paying the way. Anytime taxes are raised on a corporation it is passed along to the consumer or taken from the employees. When government raises taxes it affects the working. Again we are paying the bill. Both are organizations that spend money and produce zero product. Unfortunately I truly believe if Obama is elected there will be a repeat of the economy as in the Carter years. Raising taxes and spending under the current conditions is just stupid and will guarantee a recession. I would rather have a candidate that would cut foreign aid and spend it domestically anywhere for a start. Never happen! There is no solution. Everyone has health care. It's how you pay for it being the problem. Until someone comes up with a way to control costs be it medical,pharmaceutical,insurance or energy it will always be the more you make the more the government or management will take. Just keep in the middle and try to stay healthy! Well, to put a little twist on your advise, I'm going to vote for the guy who seems to have the best intentions for the middle, and that's Obama. That's our choices and why I'm making mine the way I am. No doubt, the more we make, the more they take, but a four year extension on the last eight years is something I can't stomach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99ktpbirdman Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Not flirting why is your deliverance side coming out, I'm sorry you’ll have to find somebody else to bend you over and make you squeal like a pig, because I'm not that way. You must be that way. You sure love obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99ktpbirdman Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Not flirting why is your deliverance side coming out, I'm sorry you’ll have to find somebody else to bend you over and make you squeal like a pig, because I'm not that way. A 4rd4life what happens when you cross a pig with a democrat? Nothing. There are some things a pig won't do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4rd4life Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 You must be that way. You sure love obama. So by me backing Obama that constitutes me loving him so that would be the same for you and McCain which could be more possible since he does belong to the Republican (LOG Cabin) party after all look at how many there are. Just to mention a few Josh Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, Mary Cheney, daughter of Vice President Cheney, Charlie Crist, Gov.-Elect of Florida, David Dreir, U.S. Congressman, Matt Drudge, conservative website publisher: The Drudge Report, Mark Foley, former U.S. Congressman, Jeff Gannon, former hooker and White House correspondent, Ted Haggard, former head of the National Evangelical Association, Ken Mehlman, outgoing chairman of the Republican National Committee, Armstrong Williams, former pundit and columnist this list could go on for ever but I would rather stop since this has nothing to do with the original post which was McCain bad for the UAW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4rd4life Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 A 4rd4life what happens when you cross a pig with a democrat? Nothing. There are some things a pig won't do. Childish and how old are you? I just hope your not raising kid's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99ktpbirdman Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Childish and how old are you? I just hope your not raising kid's just f**king with you get over it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Well, to put a little twist on your advise, I'm going to vote for the guy who seems to have the best intentions for the middle, and that's Obama. That's our choices and why I'm making mine the way I am. No doubt, the more we make, the more they take, but a four year extension on the last eight years is something I can't stomach. The best intentions for the middle because he has moved to the middle only to get votes. His voting record is a liberal one. Since I can only estimate a person's actions by what they have done and not what they "will do" I can not in good faith vote for him. McCain is only marginally better but he is a maverick. He is unpredictable and really does what he wants to do. He is more middle road than any of the others that ran. Either way I am not looking forward to voting and I will not be pleased no matter who wins it. It's about time for a tea party of sorts........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 The best intentions for the middle because he has moved to the middle only to get votes. His voting record is a liberal one. Since I can only estimate a person's actions by what they have done and not what they "will do" I can not in good faith vote for him. McCain is only marginally better but he is a maverick. He is unpredictable and really does what he wants to do. He is more middle road than any of the others that ran. Either way I am not looking forward to voting and I will not be pleased no matter who wins it. It's about time for a tea party of sorts........ McCain complete abdicated his "maverick" status by now endorsing Bush's tax cuts seven years after he lambasted them. He's just as guilty of pandering, except in his case it's pandering to the wealthier that benefited from those cuts. Also, his health-care policy isn't friendly to the middle class, and especially those people who have decent employer provided health insurance. That alone makes any liberal perfectly fine with me. I'm going on 49 years old, and already found out how hard it is to buy health insurance as an individual when you have a few minor preexisting conditions. I have three family members who were born here, like I was (our parents were immigrants) and left to live in Europe. All three would love to come back, were it not for the health care costs. McCain makes repatriating to the USA even more unlikely because of his health care proposals. I'm not calling for national health care, but between that and a stated goal of ending employer-based health insurance, it's a no-brainer. Add to that his support for Phil Gramm's past legislation, and his lack of denunciation of Senator Judd Gregg's "unemployment payments make people lazy" diatribe (twice - in February when they tried to add unemployment insurance extensions to the stimulus bill, and then last month when he threatened to filibuster the extensions were added to a military appropriations bill), plus McCain's lack of support for a new G.I. Bill, makes him totally unpalatable. While I agree with you that a "tea party of sorts" is in order, to me, Obama seems a good alternative. Liberal is not necessarily a four-letter word. "Conservative", the likes of what we've had for the last eight years, makes swinging the pendulum back the other way long over due. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Here is the McCain insurance plan. Why is this bad for middle class people? (aside from paying the taxes to cover it...) John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts. John McCain's Plan Cares For The Traditionally Uninsurable. John McCain understands that those without prior group coverage and those with pre-existing conditions have the most difficulty on the individual market, and we need to make sure they get the high-quality coverage they need. John McCain Will Work With States To Establish A Guaranteed Access Plan. As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow - a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP - that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage. One approach would establish a nonprofit corporation that would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingac70 Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 John McCain has an extensive anti-union, anti-American worker voting record. http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/02/27/mccain-i...rking-families/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4rd4life Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Here is the McCain insurance plan. Why is this bad for middle class people? (aside from paying the taxes to cover it...) I don't mean to offend your intelligence but do you read full articles, or research to find out what others are saying, I have and I can't find anyone other than McCain himself, that say's his health care plan is good for America, just do a search for John McCain Health Care Plan and see what people are saying or do as I did and go to McCain's web page click on his health care plan and read the entire plan then break it down with his plan by the time you hit 40 and the insurance companies cheery pick their insured the tax credit you are given won't come close to paying for your health care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.