US Elections - FK CL October vote

[FlashLackey]

Do you have any evidence to back that up?
I have yet to see anything they've published that was biased and I receive their email alerts everyday.
They've got no problem with slamming either side on a falsehood.

I used to look at their site from time to time as well. But, there were a few different articles that misrepresented issues. I don't have time to dig up the specific articles, etc. to show what I'm talking about.

[FlashLackey]

your bothing lying. Thats the only thing iv come up with after watching and listening to people debate. its that both sides are liars. Im not voting. i dont care anymore.

I hear you. Unfortunately, it's not enough to decide how to vote based on what any side says. It never has been in politics. Instead, you have to arm yourself with knowledge.

For example, if both sides have conflicting arguments about economics, the best thing to do is to take some time to study economics for yourself. In this case, even a light understanding reveals that Obama's plan go against even the most basic of economic principles in regard to how to create a healthy and growing economy.

It's really not difficult to understand that it is not possible for government to "create" jobs. Taxing the businesses that offer the jobs just makes those businesses less able to add new jobs or offer increased wages. It is an economic fallacy that jobs are added via government spending as Obama suggests he can do with environmental programs. That is because every dollar that is spent on his program is a dollar that has to be taken via taxes from another business. It is merely moving jobs from private efforts to a public project. In the best case scenario, it's a wash regarding jobs. But, usually, government proves less efficient than private industry because if the employees and people running a government program fail, there is no consequence to them where as everyone loses their jobs when private companies fail.

It really is not rocket science.

communisim isnt sounding so bad right now. One dude telling everyone what to do. no left wing, no right wing just a dude with a **** ton of power.

One dude telling everyone what to do is a monarchy. Communism doesn't end up being much different except that it's a political party with no competitors allowed telling everyone what to do... and Communism is left wing.

[silverx2]

I hear you. Unfortunately, it's not enough to decide how to vote based on what any side says. It never has been in politics. Instead, you have to arm yourself with knowledge.

For example, if both sides have conflicting arguments about economics, the best thing to do is to take some time to study economics for yourself. In this case, even a light understanding reveals that Obama's plan go against even the most basic of economic principles in regard to how to create a healthy and growing economy.

i dont want to learn economics in order for someone to tell me something and have it be the truth.

Est Sularus Oth Mithas

We need a leader who isnt going to bull **** and lie. We need someone that will tell us the truth. Both sides Lie. Both sides are not worthy. Regardless of their plan you and electing someone that is blatantly lying about things that are key to our nation. With clear conscience i can have no part of it.

Right now there are to my chiefs, And not enough indians.

It's really not difficult to understand that it is not possible for government to "create" jobs. Taxing the businesses that offer the jobs just makes those businesses less able to add new jobs or offer increased wages. It is an economic fallacy that jobs are added via government spending as Obama suggests he can do with environmental programs. That is because every dollar that is spent on his program is a dollar that has to be taken via taxes from another business. It is merely moving jobs from private efforts to a public project. In the best case scenario, it's a wash regarding jobs. But, usually, government proves less efficient than private industry because if the employees and people running a government program fail, there is no consequence to them where as everyone loses their jobs when private companies fail.

Tax buisness more then the consumer, The consumer ends up with more money to spend at the buisness. Is that not correct? How is this different then the health care issue, where everyone gets that 5000 dollar credit which is taxed on employee benefits?

Again http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/ Tells me Obama. Can anyone confirm if this site is bias? because if its neutral thats good enough for me.

[FlashLackey]

i dont want to learn economics in order for someone to tell me something and have it be the truth.

You aren't learning it to make someone tell the truth. You are because you can't and should not assume that politicians are telling the truth.

Tax buisness more then the consumer, The consumer ends up with more money to spend at the buisness. Is that not correct? How is this different then the health care issue, where everyone gets that 5000 dollar credit which is taxed on employee benefits?

The $5000 credit is not taxed.

Yes. Tax cuts for the consumer generally are good for the economy as well and I have no objection to that. Note though that a tax cut is different than a distribution like Obama plans. A tax cut gives a break to people who have worked and accrued taxes. Obama's plan is to pass out checks regardless of whether or not the person worked and accrued taxes. He is funding these checks by increasing taxes for the people and corporations that provide the most jobs in our economy. Essentially, Obama is buying votes by writing checks paid from other peoples accounts.

Some value from those checks will make it back to the corporations via consumer spending. However, corporations typically just raise prices on their goods to adjust for increased taxes. So, much of the benefit of having an extra $1500 a year is nullified by having to spend that much more over the year to cover increased prices.

The bottom line is that the higher taxes are on business, the more challenging it becomes to run a business successfully, meaning fewer jobs and less investment or attempts at starting a business.

[Loyal Rogue]

Obama's plan is to pass out checks regardless of whether or not the person worked and accrued taxes. He is funding these checks by increasing taxes for the people and corporations that provide the most jobs in our economy.

What part of Obama's tax plan are you referring to?
That's not mentioned anywhere in his taxplan at all.

The bottom line is that the higher taxes are on business, the more challenging it becomes to run a business successfully, meaning fewer jobs and less investment or attempts at starting a business.

Really?
Obama is proposing to rollback the Bush taxcuts on the wealthy back to the levels they were at under Bill Clinton's Presidency which saw the longest economic expansion in history and created about as many jobs as Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. combined.
Looks like history and the facts disagree with your arguements.

However, corporations typically just raise prices on their goods to adjust for increased taxes.

Again it looks like you are confusing taxes with costs.
Businesses raise prices when their costs go up.
Taxes are only assessed on the profits after all the costs are deducted.

[flipsideguy]

One dude telling everyone what to do is a monarchy.

Actually, that would be a dictatorship. Most modern monarchies are democracies, with elected goverments.

[silverx2]

both canidates should be hooked up to lie detectors.

[FlashLackey]

According to dictionary definition, a monarchy is "supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person."

Sounds quite a bit like "one dude telling everyone what to do."

What you are referring to are forms of Constitutional (or Limited) Monarchy.

[Frets]

Interesting point.

Oddly the only good thing I've read about McCain as of recent is his promise that he won't issue signing statements.

Signing statements effectively turn a president into a dictator/monarch
After a bill is signed into law it is a law. The presidents responsibility as holder of the executive office is to enforce the laws, not rewrite or ignore them.

[silverx2]

where is all the money for that $5000 tax credit for health care coming from?

[FlashLackey]

where is all the money for that $5000 tax credit for health care coming from?

It comes from removing the current tax break that businesses get on health care costs for employees.

Gerbick, that article contains information that is not correct. The $5000 tax credit would not be taxed itself. The lack of information he refers to is available elsewhere. For instance, if you spend less than your health tax credit on a plan, the remaining value goes into a health savings account which is similar to retirement savings account but you can pull money out before retirement for health costs without penalty. [And it is not correct that the cost of the $5000 would come from "your" taxes.]

[gerbick]

That $5000 credit will come from your taxes... this explains it rather well, imho. Seems like that person goes after both parties for basically not getting it 100% right.

[gerbick]

Where does it say it will be taxed? I didn't read that.

As far as it goes... 5k for healthcare does not cover my costs I pay already a year.

[FlashLackey]

McCain: Proposes no government involvement except for the 5,000 dollar tax credit which will be taxed. Gives the individual the ability to choose their provider, even if it means going across state lines.

The plan is intended to address the cost of health insurance which most people agree is unreasonably inflated. The amount of the credit is intentionally less than what is typically spent on inflated insurance premiums so that it will force insurance companies to charge less. McCain's plan sticks it to insurance companies by flooding the market with customers who have an exact amount that they can spend on a policy. They will have no choice but to offer competitive plans for that price.

[cancerinform]

The plan is intended to address the cost of health insurance which most people agree is unreasonably inflated. The amount of the credit is intentionally less than what is typically spent on inflated insurance premiums so that it will force insurance companies to charge less. McCain's plan sticks it to insurance companies by flooding the market with customers who have an exact amount that they can spend on a policy. They will have no choice but to offer competitive plans for that price.

You have much trust in insurance companies. They won't charge less. What people will do is take a cheaper plan, which will cover only a small portion of their costs. And they are still screwed. Unless the health insurances are regulated by laws as it is the case in Europe, nothing will change.

PS: I didn't know you fix toilets now

[FlashLackey]

Fixing toilets makes me $250k in profits!

I'm not trusting insurance companies. I'm trusting competition. If one insurance company makes the "tax credit plan" too cheesy, that will just open the door for their competing insurance company to offer a better plan and take the customers. The fact that more people will be making direct decisions about their own policies will force insurance companies to sell and earn business more than they have to now by landing giant groups of payers via company contracts where the employees had little or no say in the particulars of the plan. In the worst case scenario, people would have to pay what they already do through their employee plans in order to have a boosted plan. But, even that would be better since people wouldn't do it unless the company earned and demonstrated a real value for that extra amount.

[cancerinform]

Fixing toilets makes me $250k in profits!

It's amazing isn't it?

I'm not trusting insurance companies.

i agree.

I'm trusting competition.

That is where we disagree. I am not trusting the free market per se. Free market is perfectly ok, when it comes to any product sale such as cars or services such as web design etc. Health insurance is not a usual product or service nor is health service. Therefore, it has to be governmentally controlled and is not subject to large profit margins if at all. This is how it works in Germany and it works well. Health insurance companies are not allowed to profit.

This is something we basically cannot further discuss, because it is a matter of a certain point of view, where we have different opinions. So far, no system has been proven better for the individual. Since I was living in Germany for 34 years I know the system works. I also know that here it sucks and it is becoming worse.

Another thing, which needs to be changed is that insurance companies should not be allowed to refuse anybody, who is predisposed, or to refuse to pay for treatment when it is absolutely necessary: cancer etc. This is something none of the candidates has so far addressed.

[Loyal Rogue]

That is where we disagree. I am not trusting the free market per se. Free market is perfectly ok, when it comes to any product sale such as cars or services such as web design etc. Health insurance is not a usual product or service nor is health service. Therefore, it has to be governmentally controlled and is not subject to large profit margins if at all. This is how it works in Germany and it works well. Health insurance companies are not allowed to profit.

This is something we basically cannot further discuss, because it is a matter of a certain point of view, where we have different opinions. So far, no system has been proven better for the individual. Since I was living in Germany for 34 years I know the system works. I also know that here it sucks and it is becoming worse.

I couldn't agree more.

The free market does not work in every situation, just like socialism doesn't work in every situation.
The best overall system acknowledges the inherent flaws in each individual system and strikes a successful and mutually beneficial compromise.

The free market ideaology works fantastically for most products and luxury items.
Unfortunately it is extremely unsuccessful when it comes to the things that should be considered "the commons" or basic neccessities and services that are the basis of a functioning civilization.

Those "commons", like roads, airports, bridges, education, healthcare, old age insurance (social security), clean water and air, fire and police, hospitals, military, worker protections, and a myriad of other public services and protections need to be regulated and separate from the types of businesses that are based on profit alone.

Just like neither the Republicans nor the Democratic party, nor the conservatives nor the liberals have a 100% perfect solution or ideology for every situation, the best and most successful solution for our current problems is a compromise between ideologies utilizing a hybrid of the best ideas from both sides.

I am very biased in my own extreme fiscally conservative/socially liberal ideology but I can acknowledge that my chosen side of the isle doesn't have all the answers, and that sometimes there needs to be compromise even when it goes against some of my base feelings.
Obama has both pissed me off and taught me that at the same time with his actions and decisions to reach across and find middle ground with the other side.
His healthcare plan does that as well.
It strikes a hybrid compromise between private and public healthcare which may not satisfy all of my wishlist for Americans, but I'm starting to accept the idea that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

Another thing, which needs to be changed is that insurance companies should not be allowed to refuse anybody, who is predisposed, or to refuse to pay for treatment when it is absolutely necessary: cancer etc. This is something none of the candidates has so far addressed.

Actually that is one of the main differences between Obama and McCain's plans.
Obama specifically said that a provision of his plan is that those with pre-existing conditions will not be discriminated against or treated to different coverage.
Under McCain's own plan, McCain himself would not be able to get coverage due to his previous 4 cases of skin cancer.

From Obama's site:

Healthcare is an issue that many Americans care about. Parents worry about having insurance that covers their children, seniors worry about being able to pay for prescriptions and others worry about having pre-existing conditions.

Jason in New York has Multiple Sclerosis but unfortunately does not have health insurance. He is paying for medical bills out of pocket and can't afford physical therapy. He's supporting Barack Obama because Barack has a health care plan that will work for people and not the insurance and drug companies. Jason explains his story and how Barack will help him in a YouTube video.

Barack's plan provides affordable, accessible healthcare for all Americans, builds on the existing healthcare system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats. Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year.

Barack will require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums. He will create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.

A healthcare plan that promotes public health and looks out for ordinary Americans is the change Washington needs.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...dascott/gGxGFb

[FlashLackey]

Those "commons", like roads, airports, bridges, education, healthcare, old age insurance (social security), clean water and air, fire and police, hospitals, military, worker protections, and a myriad of other public services and protections need to be regulated and separate from the types of businesses that are based on profit alone.

A plausible argument. But, clearly not true. Most of those commons, as run by government, are either inefficient failures (education, healthcare, social security) or they outsource most of the work to private companies (roads, airports, bridges, military) who make a profit.

I am very biased in my own extreme fiscally conservative/socially liberal ideology but I can acknowledge that my chosen side of the isle doesn't have all the answers, and that sometimes there needs to be compromise even when it goes against some of my base feelings.

I can appreciate your effort to moderate your views. But, what position do you have that makes you a fiscal conservative?

Actually that is one of the main differences between Obama and McCain's plans.

McCain addresses this too. Not really different.

[FlashLackey]

That is where we disagree. I am not trusting the free market per se. Free market is perfectly ok, when it comes to any product sale such as cars or services such as web design etc. Health insurance is not a usual product or service nor is health service. Therefore, it has to be governmentally controlled and is not subject to large profit margins if at all. This is how it works in Germany and it works well. Health insurance companies are not allowed to profit.

I had a German girlfriend in college. She described a major crisis in Germany due to doctors not getting paid competitively enough and all the good ones leaving for places like the US to earn better pay. It sounds like the system didn't work well at all.

I respectfully disagree about health care needing to be non-profit. We aren't "ok with" some products being on the free market as some kind of luxury. The reason that the free market is good is that, when not interfered with, it delivers the best quality for the best price to the consumer. The same is true for health care. The problem with the current system is that the mechanism that makes a free market work, competition, is diminished via government policy.

I do agree that health care is different than other goods in that it's a vital need. It's also a benefit to the common good to have healthy citizens. That's why McCain's plan is good. It provides health care to everyone and also makes use of the free market to ensure that prices stay at market level and that institutions will have to compete to offer the best quality.

Another thing, which needs to be changed is that insurance companies should not be allowed to refuse anybody, who is predisposed, or to refuse to pay for treatment when it is absolutely necessary: cancer etc. This is something none of the candidates has so far addressed.

They have actually both addressed it.