Obama, Clinton. Which is the lesser of two evils?

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

It seems more and more people are happy to have the government take what they make and give them back what the government thinks they need, food stamps, housing, healthcare, etc. I did an international law program in France and our host family was upset at the idea of having to work 38 hours a week. They felt the government owed them a job, at no more than 35 hours a week, and at least 5 weeks vacation.

I know a family from Italy who’s spent considerable time in France and the Netherlands that feels the same way. Of course I asked why they felt that way. The wife answered and explained that they feel they need the time to be a “family”, to pursue faith, and health. She doesn’t like America. She tells me American families don’t have time to be a family like they do in Italy. I’m big on health care and so we talked a bit about that. She said America’s system is the most frustrating and confusing thing she’s ever seen. And she is absolutely floored at the cost. She’s wondering why we as a people don’t demand greater efficiency and services.

There’s a story about a Harvard President named Neil Rudenstine. He suffered from extreme burn out and nearly had a nervous breakdown. Rudenstine took a 3 month sabbatical to recoup. While away he realized that many of us have lost the concept of the sacred rhythm of rest and community. The ancients understood this to some degree and that old world thinking is still found in much of Europe today. It’s very alien to our workaholic, consumerist, non-stop, toil and struggle to acquire culture in America. Americans have never worked longer or harder. And I believe that if you look closely you’ll see that it’s the American family that suffers most. Divorce, crime, and mental/emotional breakdown are more prevalent in America than Europe. They invest in “humanity” as national community. That’s why liberal nations like Belgium have the lowest abortion rate on earth. They can breathe and raise a family without fear of absolute destitution.

I think welfare is an issue to be handled at the state level. I’d like to see health care addressed at the state level too but in America it seems that the federal government has to take the lead or no serious reform take place.

I have a question about something that I’ve yet to get a firm understanding about….

You had mentioned lighter taxes. What good are lighter taxes when the cost of other things like health care and fuel are steadily rising far beyond the savings we’d save if they cut all our taxes altogether? I mean, if they could negotiate a price for every citizen for a service (like health care) and subsidize it with a tax increase that is even less than what we pay for the same service right now including the negotiated premium, thereby landing more of your own money in your pocket, is that not lightening your burden?

****Not interested in directly debating health care. I’m just interested in understanding why the idea of a moderate tax increase with negotiated costs for a service that are lower than current free market cost is undesirable when we’d save more of our own money with it.****

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So He is NOT more liberal than Clinton? Can you prove this?

Not on health care. LOL

I'd have to look at the issues individually. If Hillary is like her husband...she's more conservative than Obama. However, she's repeatedly voiced that she disagrees with her husband's economics which causes me to think she's quite possibly more liberal there too.

[Praxeas]

Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.

Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas...t-connections/

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

I know a family from Italy who’s spent considerable time in France and the Netherlands that feels the same way. Of course I asked why they felt that way. The wife answered and explained that they feel they need the time to be a “family”, to pursue faith, and health. She doesn’t like America. She tells me American families don’t have time to be a family like they do in Italy. I’m big on health care and so we talked a bit about that. She said America’s system is the most frustrating and confusing thing she’s ever seen. And she is absolutely floored at the cost. She’s wondering why we as a people don’t demand greater efficiency and services.

There’s a story about a Harvard President named Neil Rudenstine. He suffered from extreme burn out and nearly had a nervous breakdown. Rudenstine took a 3 month sabbatical to recoup. While away he realized that many of us have lost the concept of the sacred rhythm of rest and community. The ancients understood this to some degree and that old world thinking is still found in much of Europe today. It’s very alien to our workaholic, consumerist, non-stop, toil and struggle to acquire culture in America. Americans have never worked longer or harder. And I believe that if you look closely you’ll see that it’s the American family that suffers most. Divorce, crime, and mental/emotional breakdown are more prevalent in America than Europe. They invest in “humanity” as national community. That’s why liberal nations like Belgium have the lowest abortion rate on earth. They can breathe and raise a family without fear of absolute destitution.

I think welfare is an issue to be handled at the state level. I’d like to see health care addressed at the state level too but in America it seems that the federal government has to take the lead or no serious reform take place.

I have a question about something that I’ve yet to get a firm understanding about….

You had mentioned lighter taxes. What good are lighter taxes when the cost of other things like health care and fuel are steadily rising far beyond the savings we’d save if they cut all our taxes altogether? I mean, if they could negotiate a price for every citizen for a service (like health care) and subsidize it with a tax increase that is even less than what we pay for the same service right now including the negotiated premium, thereby landing more of your own money in your pocket, is that not lightening your burden?

****Not interested in directly debating health care. I’m just interested in understanding why the idea of a moderate tax increase with negotiated costs for a service that are lower than current free market cost is undesirable when we’d save more of our own money with it.****

This will have to wait until tomorrow. I have got to get over to a Family Law Clinic, so I can help raise the divorce rate in America. The short answer is...

Taxes are high enough, if the government wants to do more with the money they take then they ought to cut their spending elsewhere. I don't get to go to my boss and say, "I spent my paycheck by Wednesday so I'm going to need a raise this week." The government gets plenty, I personally pay in more taxes now than I made just 5 years ago. NO MORE TAXES.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.

Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas...t-connections/

You're right on que there swift.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

This will have to wait until tomorrow. I have got to get over to a Family Law Clinic, so I can help raise the divorce rate in America. The short answer is...

Taxes are high enough, if the government wants to do more with the money they take then they ought to cut their spending elsewhere. I don't get to go to my boss and say, "I spent my paycheck by Wednesday so I'm going to need a raise this week." The government gets plenty, I personally pay in more taxes now than I made just 5 years ago. NO MORE TAXES.

I look at the bottom line. Some families are paying $900 a month for services (let's keep the issue un-named) on the free market. If the government can negotiate a lower monthly cost of about $90 a month based on group rates and then subsidize it with a tax increase of about $100 for the same services (for a total monthly cost of about $190 to $200 a month)...that's one tax increase that would save some families nearly $700 a month. I'm sure these families would benefit from having an extra $700 of their own money in their pockets. Yours might be one of these families.

I'm interested in why so many would disagree with the above example seeing they'd keep more of their own money in a subsidized program with negotiated costs.

Primary question:

If the tax increase for a program would save you money...why would you oppose it?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

You had mentioned lighter taxes. What good are lighter taxes when the cost of other things like health care and fuel are steadily rising far beyond the savings we’d save if they cut all our taxes altogether? I mean, if they could negotiate a price for every citizen for a service (like health care) and subsidize it with a tax increase that is even less than what we pay for the same service right now including the negotiated premium, thereby landing more of your own money in your pocket, is that not lightening your burden?

****Not interested in directly debating health care. I’m just interested in understanding why the idea of a moderate tax increase with negotiated costs for a service that are lower than current free market cost is undesirable when we’d save more of our own money with it.****

Its been proven that tax cuts, if done correctly, can actually increase revenue, because it stimulates economic activity and increases the movement of capital. The flow of money in the economy provides larger revenue even at the lower tax rate.

And tax increases many times will reduce revenue. Higher taxes reduces investment, reduces hiring by employers, and reduces the amount of money in the hands of businesses and consumers. This stifles economic growth, and causes a reduction of the flow of capital within the economy... leading to less tax revenue coming in, even with the higher tax rates.

Its a concept most liberals fail to understand, for some reason [even though it's been statistically observed over and over again!].

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Its been proven that tax cuts, if done correctly, can actually increase revenue, because it stimulates economic activity and increases the movement of capital. The flow of money in the economy provides larger revenue even at the lower tax rate.

And tax increases many times will reduce revenue. Higher taxes reduces investment, reduces hiring by employers, and reduces the amount of money in the hands of businesses and consumers. This stifles economic growth, and causes a reduction of the flow of capital within the economy... leading to less tax revenue coming in, even with the higher tax rates.

Its a concept most liberals fail to understand, for some reason [even though it's been statistically observed over and over again!].

TRFrance....you're talking taxation on business and production.

I'm talking about individual income taxes. For example...imagine that America adopted a single payer national health insurance system. First, businesses would no longer be burdened with facilitating health insurance for employees. Suddenly individual Americans become responsible for their health insurance. The Government negotiates with the industry for lower premiums for citizens based on group rates. The government passes down a $90 monthly premium to households and increases income taxes nearly $110 dollars or so. A household's health insurance now costs only $200 a month instead of the $900 a month they were paying. Several things are accomplished....

-Business is unshackled and free from the burden to provide health insurance.

-Citizens pay lower premiums according government negotiated group rates and citizens are responsible for a percentage of this new reduced premium.

-Taxes are increased on individual to subsidize the system. However, the premium and tax increase combined is lower than the current premiums paid on the free market.

It appears that all would be winners. Total cost for your health insurance goes from $900 to $200, you now bring home an extra $700 with the government's program. I'm just looking for sound reasons to reject this proposal.

If increasing taxes with a federal or state program would ultimately cut overall costs for the individual...why oppose it?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I suspect that is why the rating is so low.

I would have to look but I suspect if you look at when the immagration thing blew up last year, Bush dipped from the mid 40's to the mid 30's because conservitives became dissapointed in his stance on that issue.


Bush is hated by the left in an almost pathalogical way.
Bush is a disappointment to the right because of medicade reform, immigration reform and on over all spending.

Those in the middle disapprove because their attention span is more related to heating burritos in their microwave than it is related to understanding the nuance of fighting a protracted war against a dangerous ideology.

so GWB gets hit from all sides. I am not happy with him for the stated conservative reasons, and because of an abject failure of the administration in communicating the goals, and successes of the war on terror.

i am also disappointed with him for failing to control republicans in congress and letting them turn into Democrat light.

so, yea, GWB isn't approved of by cons either.

[Moe]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Oh, that's mature. Why don't all the Republicans mess with the Dem primaries, and get Peewee Herman nominated? That'll show 'em.

No, my dear that is called strategy. The republicans learned that trick from the democrats. Not mature in any sense of the word but very effective.