Anybody still undecided this election?

[I335]

Where's Ross Perot these days?

[scalbert]

From what I have read, I see the basis for Obama's fiscal concepts and since this is an automotive forum, the analogy will follow suit.

You plan on purchasing a shiny new BMW. But Obama steps in and tells you that you need to share your wealth so money is taken away even though you have already paid in a healthy 25% of your income. So, the money that was taken away will provide the additional free income to allow someone not working the chance to upgrade to an Accord from a Civic. That person pays no taxes yet benefits off others and chooses not to work while you now drive a Nissan instead of a BMW.

And before people get all worked up, this is meant to be light hearted and I know Obama will not take my BMW away. But I will most likely pay significant additional taxes that could have been put away for retirement so as not to load SS later on. Or to fund my twin daughters’ college education so as to eliminate the need to rely on state scholarships. More importantly, I may need to lay off one to two employees if some of the more outlandish proposals come to fruition. So much for helping the common worker.

On another note, I am beginning to have a deep disgust for the blind love of Obama. This is even stemming from employees, one in particular. An individual claims he will vote for Obama because of the change he promises (sounds very familiar around here). But this stems deeper as to what I witness daily. It should suffice to say that handouts are well and alive and the desire to increase them is motivating some, who have never voted, to head for the polls this year.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by I335

Where's Ross Perot these days?

I think he went back to hauling punch cards in his trunk.

[mistermojorizin]

Originally Posted by scalbert

From what I have read, I see the basis for Obama's fiscal concepts and since this is an automotive forum, the analogy will follow suit.

You plan on purchasing a shiny new BMW. But Obama steps in and tells you that you need to share your wealth so money is taken away even though you have already paid in a healthy 25% of your income. So, the money that was taken away will provide the additional free income to allow someone not working the chance to upgrade to an Accord from a Civic. That person pays no taxes yet benefits off others and chooses not to work while you now drive a Nissan instead of a BMW.

And before people get all worked up, this is meant to be light hearted and I know Obama will not take my BMW away. But I will most likely pay significant additional taxes that could have been put away for retirement so as not to load SS later on. Or to fund my twin daughters’ college education so as to eliminate the need to rely on state scholarships. More importantly, I may need to lay off one to two employees if some of the more outlandish proposals come to fruition. So much for helping the common worker.

On another note, I am beginning to have a deep disgust for the blind love of Obama. This is even stemming from employees, one in particular. An individual claims he will vote for Obama because of the change he promises (sounds very familiar around here). But this stems deeper as to what I witness daily. It should suffice to say that handouts are well and alive and the desire to increase them is motivating some, who have never voted, to head for the polls this year.

isn't this just a simplified explanation of republicans vs. democrats?

i think you're just looking at the expense side of things. How about the revenue side? the economy prospered under Clinton, a democrat, and is in the crapper under Bush, even though Bush cut taxes. When the economy tanked, business revenue suffered, businesses had to lay off employees. I would much rather pay a little extra in tax and have more job security and make my $40K bonuses than worry about not having enough work. Obama will be better for the economy than McCain, because you need to tax to be able to spend. Repubs think you can spend without taxing. Also, a big drain on the economy is the war. Economists don't believe, like they used to, that wars help the economy. It is killing our economy and McCain wants to perpetuate it.

also, i don't like analogies. they don't prove anything. they can be useful for explainig highly technical concepts in simplified terms if that concept is PROVEN already, but I don't think the concept of who will be better for our pocket book has been proven yet.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by mistermojorizin

isn't this just a simplified explanation of republicans vs. democrats?

i think you're just looking at the expense side of things. How about the revenue side? the economy prospered under Clinton, a democrat, and is in the crapper under Bush, even though Bush cut taxes. When the economy tanked, business revenue suffered, businesses had to lay off employees. I would much rather pay a little extra in tax and have more job security and make my $40K bonuses than worry about not having enough work. Obama will be better for the economy than McCain, because you need to tax to be able to spend. Repubs think you can spend without taxing. Also, a big drain on the economy is the war. Economists don't believe, like they used to, that wars help the economy. It is killing our economy and McCain wants to perpetuate it.

also, i don't like analogies. they don't prove anything. they can be useful for explainig highly technical concepts in simplified terms if that concept is PROVEN already, but I don't think the concept of who will be better for our pocket book has been proven yet.

Perhaps on the first account. As stated, I was being lighthearted. Does everyone here need to be called Francis? The analogy was stated as such. Shall I provide an analogy for the use of Reverse Thermal Oxidation processes used in Carbon conversion processes since it is better suited for technical discussions.

If I recall correctly, Clinton was fiscally moderate and benefitted from some international changes in the marketplace unrelated to any Government action. Obama isn't presenting himself this way. Bush was not fiscally conservative. So trying to play a party affiliation is irrelevant, thankfully. Your concept of spend without taxing does not follow traditional fiscal conservatism. It is spend only where needed and tax an appropriate proportion.

If we are to get into misinterpreted stereotypes, do you feel more comfortable that your employer may have to let you go due to additional burdens? I just do not see how the additional taxes placed on you and your employer will allow you to feel more secure.

Additionally, where has McCain’s plan spelled out lower taxes with additional spending? From what I have gathered, spending would be reduced.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by mistermojorizin

Obama will be better for the economy than McCain, because you need to tax to be able to spend. Repubs think you can spend without taxing. Also, a big drain on the economy is the war. Economists don't believe, like they used to, that wars help the economy. It is killing our economy and McCain wants to perpetuate it.

Also, we have expanded and hired more people during the last eight years than the prior. I would like to chalk that up to the excellent management and leadership skills in the company rather than the current administration.

Seriously, growth in our market is difficult and fortunately we have grown even during the lows in 2001 and 2002. Which were, IMO, a hangover of the unrealistic balloon of the late 1990’s.

From what I recall, the war cost less than 1% of GDP. That is hardly a dint in the economy. You failed to mention that much of the dollars spent are going right back into citizens pockets through defense contracts.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by mistermojorizin

isn't this just a simplified explanation of republicans vs. democrats?

i think you're just looking at the expense side of things. How about the revenue side? the economy prospered under Clinton, a democrat, and is in the crapper under Bush, even though Bush cut taxes. When the economy tanked, business revenue suffered, businesses had to lay off employees. I would much rather pay a little extra in tax and have more job security and make my $40K bonuses than worry about not having enough work. Obama will be better for the economy than McCain, because you need to tax to be able to spend. Repubs think you can spend without taxing. Also, a big drain on the economy is the war. Economists don't believe, like they used to, that wars help the economy. It is killing our economy and McCain wants to perpetuate it.

also, i don't like analogies. they don't prove anything. they can be useful for explainig highly technical concepts in simplified terms if that concept is PROVEN already, but I don't think the concept of who will be better for our pocket book has been proven yet.

Are you aware that the last two quarters of 2000 and the first qtr of 2001 showed negative growth for 2 of those 3 periods? The economy under Clinton was marginally better than it has been under Bush and Clinton did not have to deal with the impact of 9/11 on the economy.

Economic growth fills the federal treasury more effectively than higher tax rates and higher marginal rates depress growth. Believing that raising taxes will lead to prosperity is just counter factual.

As for the war, John McCain does not want to prolong it, he wants to win it. Wars are not something you simply stop or end, you must either win or lose it.

[325/528]

Originally Posted by NoKids

ya it was a pun. i dont like US foreign policy with regards to installing democracies over dictators; i think the US intervenes in order to profit from these moves and doesn't give a crap about democracy or the people. i dont like USA's blind support for Israel. i think US military spending is disgusting. why so much money invested in killing? John McCain will spend on bombs, while Obama will spend on books.

As far as the internal affairs of the USA, i think the people get what they deserve. When the American people will get fed up of their crappy health care or education system they will force the government to do something about it. if nothing changes it's because the American citizen sat on his lazy ass and didnt make a change happen. I think John McCain will keep the status quo and wont change anything for 8 years. I think Barrack will 'attempt' to change things and will have the majority of congress behind him to effectuate those changes. So i think Americans should give Barrack a chance, even though it's a lot of power he will have, to change America and in turn change the world.

That's the choice i think Americans have before them.

I laugh every time I hear about the "crappy health care" in America - especially since, as an anesthesiologist, I have recently had a Canadian patient come here for cardiac bypass surgery - since he was on a waiting list in Canada. I also have a patient from Canada that got Proton therapy here for a face/ sinus cancer. The patient paid out of pocket for the cardiac bypass surgery. I fully expected it to be a freebee, but was shocked to get payment. I don't think that people have any idea about how much free care we give out and write off, and can't even write it off as bad debt. You just take the good with the bad and go on with your life. It's really nice that you can get sued by someone who doesn't pay their bill, too, but that's another story.

I also cringe when I hear Obama say he'll "reverse George Bush's tax plan" - since EVERYONE'S taxes were decreased under Bush's plan. Great, we'll all be paying more to the federal government, just look what a good job they've done with social security and medicare...

Universal health care run by the federal government... where can I get off of the sinking ship??? I venture to say that the older docs will retire and the younger ones like me will opt for something else. I don't have a problem with regulating health care as long as you regulate all other aspects of day to day life - lawyers, bankers, stock brokers, ...

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by mjfloyd1

I laugh every time I hear about the "crappy health care" in America - especially since, as an anesthesiologist, I have recently had a Canadian patient come here for cardiac bypass surgery - since he was on a waiting list in Canada. I also have a patient from Canada that got Proton therapy here for a face/ sinus cancer. The patient paid out of pocket for the cardiac bypass surgery. I fully expected it to be a freebee, but was shocked to get payment. I don't think that people have any idea about how much free care we give out and write off, and can't even write it off as bad debt. You just take the good with the bad and go on with your life. It's really nice that you can get sued by someone who doesn't pay their bill, too, but that's another story.

I also cringe when I hear Obama say he'll "reverse George Bush's tax plan" - since EVERYONE'S taxes were decreased under Bush's plan. Great, we'll all be paying more to the federal government, just look what a good job they've done with social security and medicare...

Universal health care run by the federal government... where can I get off of the sinking ship??? I venture to say that the older docs will retire and the younger ones like me will opt for something else. I don't have a problem with regulating health care as long as you regulate all other aspects of day to day life - lawyers, bankers, stock brokers, ...

Ah, must be because you had 2 (rich) Canadians come to you that our healthcare is superior...
What about 43M of our own that could have heart issues??? Or much simpler issues that could wait, but cannot afford? At least they (and other civilized countries) have the choice, we don't. THey can go through the system, or fly down here and pay out of pocket (and I hear that they are working on privatizing portion of their own health system for even more flexibility).
Again and again -- the "wait propaganda" of Canadian health system is something not necessarily uniform -- everywhere. It happens, I know the cases that went in no time.
I waited for the dermatologist appointment in Florida for 8 months for something that could have been dangerous, but it does not mean that someone in NC would have to wait that long...

As for the Bush tax cuts -- for the majority those were joke, just like any increases that could come under the dems. The richest have seen the "real" tax cuts under Bush. I'd much rather give back 3 or 4% tax break from Bush than 80% food price increase and 400% gas increase that he served to us...

[325/528]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Ah, must be because you had 2 (rich) Canadians come to you that our healthcare is superior...
What about 43M of our own that could have heart issues??? Or much simpler issues that could wait, but cannot afford? At least they (and other civilized countries) have the choice, we don't. THey can go through the system, or fly down here and pay out of pocket (and I hear that they are working on privatizing portion of their own health system for even more flexibility).
Again and again -- the "wait propaganda" of Canadian health system is something not necessarily uniform -- everywhere. It happens, I know the cases that went in no time.
I waited for the dermatologist appointment in Florida for 8 months for something that could have been dangerous, but it does not mean that someone in NC would have to wait that long...

As for the Bush tax cuts -- for the majority those were joke, just like any increases that could come under the dems. The richest have seen the "real" tax cuts under Bush. I'd much rather give back 3 or 4% tax break from Bush than 80% food price increase and 400% gas increase that he served to us...

Please show me where I said that the American medical system was superior. I merely pointed out a couple of cases with deficiencies of the system to our north. No system is perfect. Our system has its good and bad points, just as the Canadian system does. It does seem that the Canadian system will soon be a two tiered system - is that fair in a socialistic system?

How will Obama's FICA taxes affect businesses and how will it affect you since you will have to pay 1/2 of it out of your pocket.

How will the monies raised from the reversal of the Bush tax cuts be used? Will they be used for pork barrel projects? Will they be wasted on burocracy?

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by mjfloyd1

Please show me where I said that the American medical system was superior. I merely pointed out a couple of cases with deficiencies of the system to our north. No system is perfect. Our system has its good and bad points, just as the Canadian system does. It does seem that the Canadian system will soon be a two tiered system - is that fair in a socialistic system?

How will Obama's FICA taxes affect businesses and how will it affect you since you will have to pay 1/2 of it out of your pocket.

How will the monies raised from the reversal of the Bush tax cuts be used? Will they be used for pork barrel projects? Will they be wasted on burocracy?

How and will they -- remains to be seen.
It was so obvious after 2003 that nothing positive will happen under Bush, but he got re-elected...

The key is to have the options -- it is sad that many cannot afford and do not have health coverage in this country. The health of a being is more important than any wealth, cars we drive or anything else, and we seem to ignore that.
I am not sure I understand where the term "Reversal of Bush tax cuts" comes from. It is clear and it was clearly pointed out that there would be no "reversal" but a "reform".

Although, not from you, I saw the expression "wealth distribution" used by the opposed to Obama. Again, pure manipulation of reality, and pure speculation...

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Although, not from you, I saw the expression "wealth distribution" used by the opposed to Obama. Again, pure manipulation of reality, and pure speculation...

Well, he did use the Marxist pharse in one speach: "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" What would you define that as?

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scalbert

Well, he did use the Marxist pharse in one speach: "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" What would you define that as?

WHat was the context of what he said...
I'd like to see the stuff around this saying to comment it...

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by dr325i

WHat was the context of what he said...
I'd like to see the stuff around this saying to comment it...

It was during a discussion concerning the tax code changes he is proposing.

[325/528]

Originally Posted by dr325i

How and will they -- remains to be seen.
It was so obvious after 2003 that nothing positive will happen under Bush, but he got re-elected...

The key is to have the options -- it is sad that many cannot afford and do not have health coverage in this country. The health of a being is more important than any wealth, cars we drive or anything else, and we seem to ignore that.
I am not sure I understand where the term "Reversal of Bush tax cuts" comes from. It is clear and it was clearly pointed out that there would be no "reversal" but a "reform".

Although, not from you, I saw the expression "wealth distribution" used by the opposed to Obama. Again, pure manipulation of reality, and pure speculation...

The insurance industry makes a huge profit. Unfortunately there are tons of people who game the medicaid and medicare systems as well. There are also those that can afford health care insurance but choose to spend their money on other things. That being said, at least where I live, we take care of the uninsured and underinsured through a local system. You take the good with the bad. Life is not fair, and unfortunately I see that everyday too. People who have never smoked with lung cancer. Young women with breast cancer, toddlers with brain cancers...

The other side of the coin is that we have people involved with self destructive behaviors and the great american entitlement issue.