Obama Exposed

[Balloon guy 158]

How? Not to stir things up, but I haven't heard anything about this.. What were his motives for lying and provoking?

I edited my post.Why..to sell books, to look smart, to show his anger at not being the decider of Iraq? I do not know.He cries about being kicked out of Iraq, demands to have full access, when it was denied by Saddam, he then goes out and says he knew there where no WMDs? Then why the fuss to go back Hans? If there were no WMDs, then your agency was a waste of money, which shows the depth of your character. Either you were sucking up UN resources that you knew we didn't need to spend, or you were not sure and to now say 'you knew' shows you are a liar.But this thread is supposed to be about Obama, not the war.The war is, why it is doesn't matter until after the war ends, then we can worry about our methods for starting it. To sit around and accuse people is counter productive.

[Balloon guy 158]

Not to sidetrack even further but I really enjoyed Oslo this summer, and the trip to the country side was amazing, beautiful country.

[Johan 0]

Not to sidetrack even further but I really enjoyed Oslo this summer, and the trip to the country side was amazing, beautiful country.

Thanks for the answer;) Haven't read all of it yet, but I will.Glad you liked it! Bit expensive, but I guess that's not your biggest consern;)

[Balloon guy 158]

Thanks for the answer;) Haven't read all of it yet, but I will.Glad you liked it! Bit expensive, but I guess that's not your biggest consern;)

I did shudder when the guie told me the top marginal tax rate was 66% on income.Plus the 25% VATYea, that concerned me.But the country is gorgous for sure.

[Balloon guy 158]

Back to topic:Here is a recent Q&A that Barak participated in:Question number 5:5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?Barak: No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.The Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld back in 2004 that the president has the power to detain American citizens without charges as enemy combatants.Now you can not like it, but the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional or not, not the President. Barak is either ignorant of the law, or is willingly telling a falshood that polls well.

[TheCinciKid 0]

Hey Balloon Guy, I just wrote a long reply on here and somehow it got deleted. Maybe I'll try to duplicate it at some point. Sorry.

[TheCinciKid 0]

I always wanted to live and work and vote and be proud of a country that sidestepped issues, let dictators run amok and instead of lending a hand to other nations and or people in trouble stayed home and watched Seinfeld reruns. My only regret is it that it took 9/11 for the country to wake the **** up to the the possibilities.

I understand that sentiment, but I think that we have enough problems here at home. Poverty, inner city drug and gang violence, and millions of Americans without health insurance just to name a few. Until we solve all of our domestic problems, I don't think it's our place to go out and try to help the people of other countries' like this. I don't like brutal dictators, but I don't think we have any place trying to stop them from doing what they do within their own borders. If they start trying to expand, then maybe it is in the best interests of the world community to try to stop them, as we did with Saddam in Desert Storm. Maybe once we get our own house in order, then we can go out and try to police the world, but until then I don't think it's our place.

umm, beg pardon, but in Novemeber this American will wipe out that Americans vote.It's up to Jamie now.

In the popular vote, you will cancel out his vote. But, if you live in Arizona and he lives in Califonia, then your vote will count towards Arizona's electoral votes and his toward Califonia's, so when it comes to actually ELECTING the President, you can't cancel out his vote. Sorry.

[Nimue1995 1]

One thing that really disgusts me is people who go on and on about how many casualties we've taken and innocent people have died, etc. when 30,000 children die every day from various causes. Keep that in your perspective when you decry your outrage of thousands of brave (all volunteer) servicemen who died fighting for a cause (freedom) that as Americans I think we have quickly forgotten how hard it was to obtain. We can fight them there or we can fight them here. I know which way I lean. There is no greater threat to their existence than spreading of free democracies in their lands.

Since there's still no politics forum I'll post this here. That statement assumes there is a "war". Most citizens do not view it that way, with respect to iraq. A war is something that kind of stops a society in its tracks, focuses it's attention totally to a mission, because it trips the survival instinct. I'd figure none of you have been alive when we've truly been at war. Neither have I. We can be forgiven, I suppose for not comprehending the term very clearly. When you just send a bunch of expendable working-class teenagers to murder people in a nation that represents no threat to the US, the thing is more accurately described as a low-grade military adventure (or misadventure). Nothing's really at stake for citizens, unless they happen to be vendors or contractors. Historically, most conflicts do NOT involve any legitimate security interest. The target of the invasion might legitimately claim they are at "war". The aggressor nation is just trying to achieve some limited economic benefit. Hey, IF this was a war, we would have already lost. If 70% of the population supports immediate withdrawal, there is very clearly no real "war".As for the idea that this is somehow "fighting terrorism" I'd remind you that as far as we know Osama is still alive and well and living in either Afghanistan or Pakistan, neither of which are Iraq. There's been no credible evidence that Al Quada operated to any degree in Iraq before we foolishly invaded and gave them the chance. There comes a time when you have to make a management decision about whether what you've already invested in an at best stalemate situation is worth more investment. For that you have to have some idea of how long that investment will take to pay off. Iraq is a foolish investment because we're asking for a payoff that given the political and cultural climate of the country isn't possible without installing another dictatorship or partitioning the country. The puppet government we have now has no power to enforce anything including any shared power agreement. And they're not even showing any signs of desiring to do that. The "surge" was supposed to give the Iraqi government some "breathing room" to get their act together. Do you see any signs of that happening? So far the Iraqi government has kept pretty darn quiet since the surge. And you can bet that if there was ANY kind of agreement or formation of a true shared government, there would have been bells and whistles all over the place announcing that fact. The fact that there hasn't been shows that the surge has done nothing to resolve the core problem in Iraq. And to that person that's pointed out that we still have troops in Germany and Japan, the citizens of those countries haven't made a habit of trying to blow them up either. If we just had a base in Iraq and everything was relatively peaceful that would be one thing. But that's not the case and with the present political and cultural situation there, it's part of a friggin pipe dream to think that it's going to happen. And now let the flames begin.....

[TheCinciKid 0]

You are making the case you knew the motives of the Bush admin. Please tell us the current motives for the Russian administration.You're right, I don't KNOW the motives of the Bush Administration. I don't have any hard evidence. I recall hearing or reading somewhere that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others were talking about going into Iraq long as soon as Bush was elected and long before September 11th actually happened. They used 9/11 as an excuse even though, Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11 and they wanted to go in before that happened. That's my understanding of the situation. I don't have hard evidence, so I'll just say that that's what I've inferred from what I've heard and read and from my own opinions and leave it at that.The two bolded points contridict each other. Is it our fault that French and British forced together these different ethnic groups, or is it our fault we don't allow their near slavery to save their lives? Next you'll say defeating communism was bad because they kept Yugoslavia intact. Was Bush idealic in his goal, probably. But it was never on anything but the best interest of the nation to remove a terrorist sympathetic dictator from an oil rich country. The fact that he was telling everyone he had nukes to keep the Iranians and others at bay worked against him, and it tricked us, along with every other country in the world. The UN placed demands that Saddam thumbed his nose at, eventually you can't keep saying 'better not' and you have to do something. If Saddam had let the inspectors back and shut his mouth, we never could have invaded.I don't think my points really contradict each other. I'm saying that we caused the civil war by deposing the dictator that was holding that country together with both of his brutal iron fists. I'm not saying that Saddam was a good and benevolent ruler. But, he wasn't a religious extremist and he wasn't a direct threat to United States. He cared only about power. He may have been a small threat to some of the countries' around him, especially if he got nuclear weapons, and if he'd invaded another country in the region we almost certainly would have come to their aid as we did with Kuwait in the early 90's. But, until then I don't believe Saddam was any threat to us. We should have been looking for bin Laden, not going after a dictator in Iraq who had no interest in attacking us. I'm sure you and I would agree more than we disagree, but I think that putting motives on the Bush administration that are based on nothing but dislike only preps you to buy into conspiracy theories of his psychological state of mind and hidden desires, things that none of us are going to probably ever know.The war is not the disaster the left wants to make it out, and if the Iraqis ever step up and decide they like freedom more than oppression, they may become a peaceful effect on the region that no outsider could ever accomplish. Last year we began talking about withdrawing troops out of Germany, it's been 60 years since we occupied it. We still deny Japan from having a standing army, and it is mostly our military that protects them because of this, 60 years later. We spent billions in France, Germany, Britian, etc after the last war, money we didn't really have. None of this is new, but we are all pretending that Bush should have been able to finish Iraq in a couple years and then get us out. The fact that they never bought in to the political wind that made this a popular mind set shows me they have more character than the left. When Clinton bombed Iraq, even though the papers all said he did it to misdirect from the Lewinski story, the republicans stuck by the president. When troops are in harms way, the congress and senate should support them and not bad talk their mission. At least you do if you are a responsible leaders. The democrats have proven they are not. The time for dissent was before they sent the troops in, now support the war and put pressure where it belongs, on the Iraqis.Finally, I want to briefly address the point above that I've bolded. I don't think that we can expect the Iraqis to step up and "decide they like freedom more than oppression." I think it's much more complicated than that. I don't believe that someone from Baghdad would identify himself as an Iraqi in the same way someone from Los Angeles would identify himself as an American. Iraqis almost certainly would first identify themselves as Sunnis, Shia or Kurds and therein lies the problem. Until we can find some way to keep these people from fighting among themselves we can't get peace in the region. Furthermore, freedom and democracy cannot simply be forced on a people or a region. They have to be ready for it and probably bring it about themselves. Democracy is based on a respect for the rule of law. You can't simply take a people that have lived under brutal oppression for all of their history and ask them to switch over to just respecting the rule of law. You can't rule people at the point of a sword or the end of a gun, then stop and expect them to switch right over to living as free citizens. It doesn't work that way. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Also, I disagree that the time for dissent is over. The very nature of our democracy says that we have the right to disagree with our government and disagree with what they're doing. I will continue to state loudly that this war was a mistake. That said, we can't just pull out and leave now. That would be catastrophic and so I will be voting for John McCain in November.

[Balloon guy 158]

Cinci,I have no problem with us arguing the war, freedom of speech etc. Nor do I have a problem with Hollywood idiots pretending they have any clue about the real world, they pay taxes, they can complain.I have a problem with people that voted on the war coughHillarycough, who read the same intelligence reports as Bush, attended the same meetings etc, I hate it when they act like they were innocent in their votes because Bush decieved them. They want to just cast a vote because they were swept up in the moment, then they do not deserve to be senators or congressmen. If they are that flippant with their votes, then they should not be allowed to have the keys to a car coughKennedycough, let alone make decisions that send our troops into harms way.And for the newspapers to pretend they were equally duped, shows the moral vaccum that exist in what was supposed to be the check and balance of we the people on our government officials. But us guys from Ohio, we can argue all day long and it's just lively debate.

[TheCinciKid 0]

Cinci,I have no problem with us arguing the war, freedom of speech etc. Nor do I have a problem with Hollywood idiots pretending they have any clue about the real world, they pay taxes, they can complain.I have a problem with people that voted on the war coughHillarycough, who read the same intelligence reports as Bush, attended the same meetings etc, I hate it when they act like they were innocent in their votes because Bush decieved them. They want to just cast a vote because they were swept up in the moment, then they do not deserve to be senators or congressmen. If they are that flippant with their votes, then they should not be allowed to have the keys to a car coughKennedycough, let alone make decisions that send our troops into harms way.And for the newspapers to pretend they were equally duped, shows the moral vaccum that exist in what was supposed to be the check and balance of we the people on our government officials. But us guys from Ohio, we can argue all day long and it's just lively debate.

I agree with you on Hillary and some of the other Democrats. I wish I could have seen the intelligence that these votes were supposedly based on, maybe I'd even have thought differently about the war. But, I really just think that those votes were really cowardly. They were afraid that everything would go perfectly, we'd be in and out in weeks like Bush and Rumsfeld and everyone were saying. If that happened they'd look like idiots for voting against it and have committed political suicide. Politicians never do what they think is write, they do what they think will be popular and that makes me sick. And as much as I dislike George Bush, one thing I'll say about him is that he does what he thinks is right, the consequences be damned. I disagree with him on pretty much everything, but I respect his courage.

[El Guapo 8]

Good retort about flippants vote BG.Iraq had nothing to do about 9/11, they just happen to coincide in region and timeline. There had been reptorts of weapons violations from the treaty the signed after gulf war 1. So we went to enforce the violations that had been ignored by the clinton admin. The UN was too wishy washy to go in with any authoity, and they have not military so why would Hussein care about them, he continued to have weapons thhat violated the sanctions that were imposed on him.The war has been messy and mismangaged, but every war from now on will be with as much media exposure as it gets. Hell 5 years ago, I was watching live video feeds of our soldeirs blowing up buildings with Iraqi soldeirs in them. That is not right. War is not pretty, and until someone in power goes all out like WWII or previous wars, we are going to keep getting Vietnams and Iraq's etc.Its not popular to blow up a country full of innocent civilians, but half fighting wars, which we have done, string them out for 7 years or longer.I do not know what the correct answer is, but I know we have not done it.

[checkymcfold 0]

Very sobering and right on point BGNo one can dispute that those points are all valid.

watch me.

Recently there have been several public focus group discussions with dozens of Obama supporters in attendance. When asked what significant accomplishments Barack has made since being a politician, no one could come up with anything. NOTHING. Not one example. Ziltch.Now I've said it before, I like this guy as a person. Seems like a very cool dude.But I need more than just to like someone before I give them the keys to my wallet and the country's nukes (even though I know we are safe from him ever going near them).None of the Democratic candidates are telling us specifically just what they plan on doing.

yes they are, people are generally idiots and not really paying attention. i could outline both obama's and clinton's plan for the future of the country and put fine points on the differences between them. i could not do this for the republicans, nor would i expect you to be able to do that for the democrats, as we're both fairly one-party men. (insert gay joke here)

WHAT are theses changes?, in DETAIL PLEASE.

health care: repeal bush tax cuts on those making over 200k/yr to pay for government-run health care. yes, this is raising taxes. but you have to increase revenue in order to increase spending. even conservatives know that (except bush, apparently, oh, and post-running-for-president mccain, and romney, and....).(obama): because some people don't want to participate in anything govt and will fight against insurance, only make it mandatory for children and use a stipend system to pay for those who have the hardest time affording it. by introducing more competition from another health care system, he believes that in the longview, healtcare prices and thus premiums will go down. personally, i don't really believe the latter will happen to the degree he claims, but the plan still makes a lot of sense and would placate all the crazy libertarians who think that being forced into a government system would be akin to gassing.(clinton): maintain total govt control of universal health care, make participation mandatory. this plan probably makes more sense in practical terms and actually cost a little less to run, but the problem is that the word "mandatory" will rile up so many people on the conservative side that it has a LOT lower chance of actually passing. (fwiw, this is how i feel generally about clinton's policies--they're probably better ones, but will piss people off so much that i prefer obama's, with a few exceptions)iraq: war=bad. get out.(obama): start withdrawing troops immediately after he enters office, no specific timetables or plans, but aims in general terms for 75% withdrawal in his first year of office.(clinton): start withdrawal in first 60 days of office. has a full-on phased withdrawal plan laid out."illegal immigration": basically a non-issue for anyone with an IQ over 55 (my thoughts, not theirs). both candidates support a quickly-implemented documentation program with incentives offered in order to have those here already come forth of their own accord. both candidates want to get a broader view in the public mind of "secure borders" that doesn't just mean building a fence across the us-mexico border and includes port security, etc. the only point on which they differ here really is that obama thinks that aliens in the country already should be given driving tests and drivers' licenses, whereas clinton favors another form of documentation. practically speaking, i think obama's idea here is slightly better, but not without drawbacks.environmental concerns: both candidates want to implement a carbon-credit system with regard to industry with "cap and trade" flexibility, a system that has been implemented on a smaller scale elsewhere and has been shown to function with great success. both candidates also have somewhat conservative goals for car fuel efficiency (i believe clinton's is like 35 mpg by 2010 and obama's is similar--both of these are far too low, imo, when the science for doing better is already out there).

HOW are they going to be implemented?

most of that i've already answered. more questions? i'll answer em.

HOW are they going to pay for it all?

repeal bush tax cuts for people making over 200k/yr. yes, that pays for everything. when we get out of iraq and aren't throwing millions across the ocean every day, we might be able to balance the budget again.

WHO will most likely gain and WHO will most likely lose (trick question).

i'm not sure how anyone will "gain" other than troops coming home and some poor people not going into crippling, lifelong debt in order to pay for their child's medical care. as for "losers," well, i suppose the wealthy will have a few thousand less to spend every year, but they won't notice it for the most part. it's fabricated, made-up bullshit to think that all policies have "winners" and "losers"--don't get tricked by the polarizing tards on either side of the aisle.

I know there is a ton of time yet, and hopefully a lot of this will get wrung out, but these and many other questions have yet to be answered. I fear the Dems because they are drooling at the chance to ride scorched earth style and really mess things up. Too radical a change too fast would do far more harm than good imo.Gonna be a wild ride to November.

neither candidate is "radical" on the democratic side. promise. kucinich or paul, maybe, but not clinton, obama, or mccain.

[MDXS 0]

So far he has basically offered no real plans for the country.

I hear this a lot...no doubt due in part to the nature of the media - always looking for a sound byte; focusing more on the superficial. Since that is what gets coverage and attention, it forces the candidates to boil much of the substance out of their message. As a result, getting good information takes a good deal of effort. It's unfortunate, but it's the way things work these days.If you're looking for more information about what change actually means to Obama, here's 64 pages of policies and plans with links to further information. The big knock on Obama from Hillary is his experience. This article (and others like it) illustrate in part why I am optimistic about his ability to get things done.

[Loismustdie 0]

I understand that sentiment, but I think that we have enough problems here at home. Poverty, inner city drug and gang violence, and millions of Americans without health insurance just to name a few. Until we solve all of our domestic problems, I don't think it's our place to go out and try to help the people of other countries' like this. I don't like brutal dictators, but I don't think we have any place trying to stop them from doing what they do within their own borders. If they start trying to expand, then maybe it is in the best interests of the world community to try to stop them, as we did with Saddam in Desert Storm. Maybe once we get our own house in order, then we can go out and try to police the world, but until then I don't think it's our place.In the popular vote, you will cancel out his vote. But, if you live in Arizona and he lives in Califonia, then your vote will count towards Arizona's electoral votes and his toward Califonia's, so when it comes to actually ELECTING the President, you can't cancel out his vote. Sorry.

You don't even want to know my views on inner city drug and and gang violence, poverty and health insurance. Aww, hell with it. Here is the truth: We cannot end poverty. Can't do it. Some people just don't want to do shit. The ones that do, well, they do, and they work there way out of poverty. Happens everyday. Drug and gang violence. Bwahahahahaha. You kid, right? Why would we have an actual all out effort to stop this? It helps to keep that poverty thing going, and furthermore keeps those impoverished voting democrat, so they can continue to be paid for nothing. In all seriousness, though, the best way to end this would be to start a whole business empire, that brings in billions of dollars a year that glorifies it at every step. Wait, no, that didn't work? No way!! Health insurance? Good luck. People that want it, go and get it. It's available, and programs already exist that make it free if you make under a certain amount. Literally hundreds of programs, nationwide. They work well, too, I grew up in that system.

[nutzbuster 7]

watch me. :)yes they are, people are generally idiots and not really paying attention. i could outline both obama's and clinton's plan for the future of the country and put fine points on the differences between them. i could not do this for the republicans, nor would i expect you to be able to do that for the democrats, as we're both fairly one-party men. (insert gay joke here)health care: repeal bush tax cuts on those making over 200k/yr to pay for government-run health care. yes, this is raising taxes. but you have to increase revenue in order to increase spending. even conservatives know that (except bush, apparently, oh, and post-running-for-president mccain, and romney, and....).(obama): because some people don't want to participate in anything govt and will fight against insurance, only make it mandatory for children and use a stipend system to pay for those who have the hardest time affording it. by introducing more competition from another health care system, he believes that in the longview, healtcare prices and thus premiums will go down. personally, i don't really believe the latter will happen to the degree he claims, but the plan still makes a lot of sense and would placate all the crazy libertarians who think that being forced into a government system would be akin to gassing.(clinton): maintain total govt control of universal health care, make participation mandatory. this plan probably makes more sense in practical terms and actually cost a little less to run, but the problem is that the word "mandatory" will rile up so many people on the conservative side that it has a LOT lower chance of actually passing. (fwiw, this is how i feel generally about clinton's policies--they're probably better ones, but will piss people off so much that i prefer obama's, with a few exceptions)iraq: war=bad. get out.(obama): start withdrawing troops immediately after he enters office, no specific timetables or plans, but aims in general terms for 75% withdrawal in his first year of office.(clinton): start withdrawal in first 60 days of office. has a full-on phased withdrawal plan laid out."illegal immigration": basically a non-issue for anyone with an IQ over 55 (my thoughts, not theirs). both candidates support a quickly-implemented documentation program with incentives offered in order to have those here already come forth of their own accord. both candidates want to get a broader view in the public mind of "secure borders" that doesn't just mean building a fence across the us-mexico border and includes port security, etc. the only point on which they differ here really is that obama thinks that aliens in the country already should be given driving tests and drivers' licenses, whereas clinton favors another form of documentation. practically speaking, i think obama's idea here is slightly better, but not without drawbacks.environmental concerns: both candidates want to implement a carbon-credit system with regard to industry with "cap and trade" flexibility, a system that has been implemented on a smaller scale elsewhere and has been shown to function with great success. both candidates also have somewhat conservative goals for car fuel efficiency (i believe clinton's is like 35 mpg by 2010 and obama's is similar--both of these are far too low, imo, when the science for doing better is already out there).most of that i've already answered. more questions? i'll answer em.repeal bush tax cuts for people making over 200k/yr. yes, that pays for everything. when we get out of iraq and aren't throwing millions across the ocean every day, we might be able to balance the budget again.i'm not sure how anyone will "gain" other than troops coming home and some poor people not going into crippling, lifelong debt in order to pay for their child's medical care. as for "losers," well, i suppose the wealthy will have a few thousand less to spend every year, but they won't notice it for the most part. it's fabricated, made-up bullshit to think that all policies have "winners" and "losers"--don't get tricked by the polarizing tards on either side of the aisle.neither candidate is "radical" on the democratic side. promise. kucinich or paul, maybe, but not clinton, obama, or mccain.

[x] switches vote to Obama...[x] hates Jamie, but will still buy him a martini

[checkymcfold 0]

[x] switches vote to Obama...[x] hates Jamie, but will still buy him a martini

haha. 3 drinks and i'll make you a liberal yet, old man. i always thought you were too nice to really be a republican. BG is obv a lost cause, but you, i think we have something to work with .

[Nimue1995 1]

You don't even want to know my views on inner city drug and and gang violence, poverty and health insurance. Aww, hell with it. Here is the truth: We cannot end poverty. Can't do it. Some people just don't want to do shit. The ones that do, well, they do, and they work there way out of poverty. Happens everyday. Yes why don't you just hide in your little gated communities so that you don't have to see those undesirable poor people out there. We don't need no stinkin' charities. Just give them little buggers a dose of elbow grease and they'll straighten up right? Never mind that they don't know any more about how to dig themselves out of poverty than the Iraqis know about running a democracy. Drug and gang violence. Bwahahahahaha. You kid, right? Why would we have an actual all out effort to stop this? It helps to keep that poverty thing going, and furthermore keeps those impoverished voting democrat, so they can continue to be paid for nothing. In all seriousness, though, the best way to end this would be to start a whole business empire, that brings in billions of dollars a year that glorifies it at every step. Wait, no, that didn't work? No way!!And of course all those poor people enjoy living in fear every day don't they? And as long as they're tucked away where we don't have to deal with them then that's just fine too. Of course if those drug dealers better not come around your kid's school right? But oh my, if you talk to your kid they're already there. And gangs too. Those dam poor people just won't stay in their own neighborhoods? How uncivilized of them. Health insurance? Good luck. People that want it, go and get it. It's available, and programs already exist that make it free if you make under a certain amount. Literally hundreds of programs, nationwide. They work well, too, I grew up in that system.

You grew up in that system but heaven forbid that you have to pay for anyone else to do the same. Instead let's just continue with the same old same old and have health care costs continue to skyrocket until the only people that can afford health care are the rich. Everyone else can just use the emergency room for their doctor. Or better yet, just die off without causing such a friggin fuss about it. Such an abundance of good old common sense in your post. Sadly we have way too much of that old common sense in this country when what's really needed is some uncommon sense.

[hblask 1]

health care: repeal bush tax cuts on those making over 200k/yr to pay for government-run health care. yes, this is raising taxes. but you have to increase revenue in order to increase spending. even conservatives know that (except bush, apparently, oh, and post-running-for-president mccain, and romney, and....).

This is why democrats are in trouble. We've seen how the rest of the world is doing with socialized medicine; we've seen how the US gov't runs it's medical centers (yea for veterans!); we've seen how the federal gov't runs education. American's don't like being treated like cattle.

(obama): because some people don't want to participate in anything govt and will fight against insurance, only make it mandatory for children and use a stipend system to pay for those who have the hardest time affording it. by introducing more competition from another health care system, he believes that in the longview, healtcare prices and thus premiums will go down. personally, i don't really believe the latter will happen to the degree he claims, but the plan still makes a lot of sense and would placate all the crazy libertarians who think that being forced into a government system would be akin to gassing.(clinton): maintain total govt control of universal health care, make participation mandatory. this plan probably makes more sense in practical terms and actually cost a little less to run, but the problem is that the word "mandatory" will rile up so many people on the conservative side that it has a LOT lower chance of actually passing. (fwiw, this is how i feel generally about clinton's policies--they're probably better ones, but will piss people off so much that i prefer obama's, with a few exceptions)

Does Hillary's plan still include prison time for doctors who treat people for free or at discounts, like the last one she proposed? Or for doctors who provide a treatment that a bureaucrat has not approved to someone who wants to pay for it? Last time it was 10 years in the slammer. Is that what it is this time? Because I don't think Americans want their best and brightest jailed for trying to help.

environmental concerns: both candidates want to implement a carbon-credit system with regard to industry with "cap and trade" flexibility, a system that has been implemented on a smaller scale elsewhere and has been shown to function with great success.

Thank god the dem's are finally moving into the 20th century and understanding that free markets work. Another 50 years or so, maybe they'll be caught up with reality!

most of that i've already answered. more questions? i'll answer em.repeal bush tax cuts for people making over 200k/yr. yes, that pays for everything.

The ending of this sentence always seems to be left off. That would be: "....assuming that the people over 200K make no changes to their behavior in response to the negative incentives the gov't is imposing on them. "As someone who made that much for a couple years, I can tell you that it is absolutely false. In fact, as someone who is lower middle class right now, I can still tell you that it is false. I make financial decisions with taxes in mind.

[checkymcfold 0]

This is why democrats are in trouble. We've seen how the rest of the world is doing with socialized medicine; we've seen how the US gov't runs it's medical centers (yea for veterans!); we've seen how the federal gov't runs education. American's don't like being treated like cattle.

would it be better for kansas to teach creationism instead of evolution in public schools? governmental regulations are there for a reason--to prevent bad shit.fwiw, socialized medicine (stop using that scaremongering word, btw--it's government run health care, properly speaking) is working better than fine in canada, where i lived for two years. it's also working fine in most of scandinavia. if the US were actually capable of learning from others and not trying to do everything its own way, it's more than conceivable that we could pull it off.also, veterans hospitals are horribly underfunded, by and large--at least the one i've seen and the one a family friend attended.

Does Hillary's plan still include prison time for doctors who treat people for free or at discounts, like the last one she proposed? Or for doctors who provide a treatment that a bureaucrat has not approved to someone who wants to pay for it? Last time it was 10 years in the slammer. Is that what it is this time? Because I don't think Americans want their best and brightest jailed for trying to help.

i honestly don't know, but your odd spin here is kind of weird. "doctors who provide a treatment that a bureaucrat has not approved" also often provide unapproved treatments that actually worsen a patient's condition, or misapply experimental techniques in order to gain themselves a bigger name. that's bad. the FDA isn't the best thing in the world, but at least it keeps doctors from doing that.

Thank god the dem's are finally moving into the 20th century and understanding that free markets work. Another 50 years or so, maybe they'll be caught up with reality!

federally regulated free market: "cap and trade"free market: "just trade"you can't claim this one for you, kaczynski, and mcveigh, henry .

The ending of this sentence always seems to be left off. That would be: "....assuming that the people over 200K make no changes to their behavior in response to the negative incentives the gov't is imposing on them. "As someone who made that much for a couple years, I can tell you that it is absolutely false. In fact, as someone who is lower middle class right now, I can still tell you that it is false. I make financial decisions with taxes in mind.

dear god. taxes are not a "negative incentive." they are "the way the government takes in money to provide public services via centralized funding." you can't just give something a bad name and think that doing so makes it bad. i could do that with lassiez-faire economics--let's just call it "money means more than people economics" or "may the best human rights abuser win." that's not productive, so don't do it. taxes are not bad in and of themselves; neither is purely free market economics. you have to evaluate each on the merits of their consequences, both positive and negative.as to your half-argument, sure, i'm sure some people would change their spending habits. that's fine by me. they still have more money than single mothers working two jobs because they got pregnant and couldn't go to college. also, fwiw, my parents are lower middle class and don't give a flying **** about how much they're taxed.

[Balloon guy 158]

would it be better for kansas to teach creationism instead of evolution in public schools? governmental regulations are there for a reason--to prevent bad shit.But you have to trust politicians to be on the up and up when they regulate. I don't trust them, right or left.fwiw, socialized medicine (stop using that scaremongering word, btw--it's government run health care, properly speaking) is working better than fine in canada, where i lived for two years. it's also working fine in most of scandinavia. if the US were actually capable of learning from others and not trying to do everything its own way, it's more than conceivable that we could pull it off.

You can't ignore that America having such a strong military, and being the world's police doesn't give many of these smaller government a chance to reduce their military spending to a level that allows for them to provide free healthcare.If USA closes it's borders, and leaves the world to fend for themselves, most of these countries would be financially ruined in a few short years.We're not going to any time soon, so it's not like they need to worry, no are they bad for doing what they are doing, but they don't get a "We can do it, so USA can too" with impunity.

[Balloon guy 158]

haha. 3 drinks and i'll make you a liberal yet, old man. i always thought you were too nice to really be a republican. BG is obv a lost cause, but you, i think we have something to work with .

Best way to make someone a liberal is to cloud their judgement, I'll give you that.and yea, I'm a lost cause, as long as I stay off the golf course

[checkymcfold 0]

You can't ignore that America having such a strong military, and being the world's police doesn't give many of these smaller government a chance to reduce their military spending to a level that allows for them to provide free healthcare.If USA closes it's borders, and leaves the world to fend for themselves, most of these countries would be financially ruined in a few short years.We're not going to any time soon, so it's not like they need to worry, no are they bad for doing what they are doing, but they don't get a "We can do it, so USA can too" with impunity.

i agree to a point about military spending infringing on the US's ability to do other things, but i'd still contend that there are plenty of examples of other, more heavily taxed (zomg!) areas of the world that are doing just fine, and if we can pay for universal health care by rolling back some idiotic tax cuts, why not? if the numbers don't play out, i'd obviously reevaluate things, but i haven't heard an argument yet that suggests that we couldn't pay for health care by ONLY removing the recent round of bush cuts.as to the US's place in the world, i also agree. but i think that properly acknowledging that means a lot more military action in places like rwanda, the former yugoslavia, and darfur than it does dealing with dictators we originally installed. i'm also getting the impression that i wasn't totally clear with regard to what i meant by learning from others. do i mean implementing a system just like canada? no, of course not. but to start formulating our own system using theirs as a perfectly functional model--that's an idea that i wish we'd use in more areas than we do right now. there's some serious downside to good ol' american individualism, and this is one of them. things we do needn't be entirely done on our own. we have to acknowledge that there are other people and countries in the world doing things in a way that may be different and, zomg, better! than the ways we do them here, and it behooves us to learn as much as we can about other countries in order to make our own better for it. that was my point.but yeah, since you don't drink, i have to win your vote via golf. i figure that with our respective ages, i can expect more improvement in my game than yours, so the dems should be safe until 2020 at least.

[mk 11]

Thank god the dem's are finally moving into the 20th century and understanding that free markets work. Another 50 years or so, maybe they'll be caught up with reality!

Sigh...Schlesinger:"Liberalism in America, has been a party of social progress rather than of intellectual doctrine, committed to ends rather than to methods. When a laissez-faire policy seemed best calculated to achieve the liberal objective of equality of opportunity for all -- as it did in the time of Jefferson -- liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least. But, when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state." -- from "Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans" (1956), from The Politics of Hope (Boston: Riverside Press, 1962).

[Balloon guy 158]

but yeah, since you don't drink, i have to win your vote via golf. i figure that with our respective ages, i can expect more improvement in my game than yours, so the dems should be safe until 2020 at least.

Sometimes I find myself thinking bad thoughts towards you...