2008 Presidential Candidates Comparison ( Side By side)... DOn't know what to think.

Status
Not open for further replies.

concertina

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrtykitty
Why do so many seem to think that everyone is entitled to have insurance coverage?

I just wanted to highlight this. Because this is one of the most selfish things I've ever seen written IN MY LIFE. I read it five times just to make sure I wasn't seeing things.

And for those that don't want their money going to 'handouts'. Well, I don't want MY money going for school vouchers for religious private schools, the war in Iraq, or abstinance-only sex education. So we'll just call it even, yes?

Also, why should a portion of your paycheck go to those still struggling? Because you've utilized public programs your entire lives. Its time to give back.

And yes, I *HAVE* government run health care. And its not the best and the care is sometimes questionable but it beats nothing, which is what millions of Americans have. The Tricare system may not be perfect, but it works.

The Canadians seem to have their healthcare pretty well managed. They've had issues pop up within the last few months, but for the most part, they do just fine and dandy. As a Canadian friend recently told me 'Our healthcare system works great. American's tell themselves it doesn't because they don't like the idea of everyone having insurance'. And based on the quoted post from above, I'm tending to agree with her.
 

concertina

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbella
I do believe you have a congress made up of a democratic majority that you may also thank for your misfortunes. President Bush does not control every aspect of what you stated. And the "hype" more surrounds Obama than any other candidate in past history.

Hmmm let me think. That congress was elected....two years ago? And we've had Bush and Co for....eight years?

Yeah...sorry. That doesn't add up.
 

rbella

Well-known member
^^^True, however, two years is enough time to make a change. If things are getting worse, which seems to be what many on here believe, then I should think that the past two years might be relevant. That, in my opinion, adds up quite well.
 

*Stargazer*

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by concertina
The Tricare system may not be perfect, but it works.

Our experience with Tricare sucks. We'll never face financial problems because of a lack of health coverage, but that's about the best thing I can say about it. My son has spina bifida. I can't even begin to tell you how long he has to wait to see his specialists or how poor the standard of care is for him. Of course, a lot of it is service specific, with the Army and the Marine Corps getting treated like crap, as usual.




I think that every single child in the US should be covered from birth to 18 by comprehensive gov't sponsored health insurance. Outside of that, I don't support a full government run system. A hybrid of sorts, possibly.
 

*Stargazer*

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbella
^^^True, however, two years is enough time to make a change. If things are getting worse, which seems to be what many on here believe, then I should think that the past two years might be relevant. That, in my opinion, adds up quite well.


Yeah, I'm busy writing a letter asking Nancy Pelosi where the lower gas prices she promised me are
winks.gif
 

ragdolly

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Stargazer*
I think that every single child in the US should be covered from birth to 18 by comprehensive gov't sponsored health insurance. Outside of that, I don't support a full government run system. A hybrid of sorts, possibly.

This is actually a really good idea!!!

but as for socialized medicine as a whole. screw that all to hell!!!!!!!!!!!!

look at it this way.
drug companies come out with new stuff all the time. better stuff. do you know how much that costs to test and produce...it's seriously an insane figure, drug prices are so high because the company is given 17(or 14)years to make the profit to pay back all the money it took to get a drug approved and then the patent is up and other companies can make generics for cheaper
so lets say no one has to pay for health care...what incentive does that give to come up with new drugs and technology to further advance the health care field...i don't see any at all and how can a stagnant market be beneficial to the people
and i do understand that canada doesn't do bad but america doesn't have or ever have had as far as i know, socialized health care...that big of a change does not sound good in my head


a few of my other opinions
no abortion past the first trimester
i say yes to guns...i wanna be able to protect myself in that way and if guns are completely illegal how am i supposed to feel secure about the people that have them illegally anyways...yeah...
we don't need to pull out of iraq immediately...like someone else mentioned, that's a whole new trouble that we'd have to deal with

based on all this if i vote it would be for mccain
 

concertina

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Stargazer*
Our experience with Tricare sucks. We'll never face financial problems because of a lack of health coverage, but that's about the best thing I can say about it. My son has spina bifida. I can't even begin to tell you how long he has to wait to see his specialists or how poor the standard of care is for him. Of course, a lot of it is service specific, with the Army and the Marine Corps getting treated like crap, as usual.

My godson has Cerebral Palsy; his father is in the Army. They fight for treatment as well and it takes a while...but it comes through. It happens. He gets the care he needs.

I've had Tricare for over 18 years now; as a child and now as a wife. Its not the best. Its demoralizing at times. Its made me cry and scream.

But dear sweet baby jesus, how many Americans would LOVE to be in my shoes?

And please no one say 'Well, they should just join the military!' Thats not a valid solution.
 

concertina

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbella
^^^True, however, two years is enough time to make a change. If things are getting worse, which seems to be what many on here believe, then I should think that the past two years might be relevant. That, in my opinion, adds up quite well.

If you see a 6 year wall of water coming at you, and you only have 2 years to build a damn, but all the funds you need are being used elsewhere....then no, thats not nearly enough time.
 

*Stargazer*

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by concertina
My godson has Cerebral Palsy; his father is in the Army. They fight for treatment as well and it takes a while...but it comes through. It happens. He gets the care he needs.

I've had Tricare for over 18 years now; as a child and now as a wife. Its not the best. Its demoralizing at times. Its made me cry and scream.

But dear sweet baby jesus, how many Americans would LOVE to be in my shoes?

And please no one say 'Well, they should just join the military!' Thats not a valid solution.


No, it's a terrible solution!

But I do think Tricare demonstrates just how bad an entirely gov't run national health service would be.

Like I said, at least we won't be bankrupted by health problems.
 

valabdalnabi

Active member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkylarV217
This isn't really new news, While doing your research did you happen to come across other Vietnam Vets & POW Divorce rates? Vietnam Vets alone the Divorce rate is more that double the National Average (especially for that time period) It stands at somewhere b/w 80-90% and that's simply Vets thats not looking at the POW's.



I'm not saying its alright to leave your family or to cheat, I'm very much against both of them but while looking into someone's personal life you can find mistakes everywhere. How many of us don't love someone that has "run out " on their family or cheated on their wives. Does that choice in their personal life make them any less capable of doing their job ?


I commend McCain for publicly stating in an interview with Rick Warren I believe that his Greatest Moral failure was the failure of his first marriage. So he realizes what he did was wrong and accepts responsibility, something most people never do...




*****My dad is a vietnam vet...and this one is funny actually...just another excuse for his poor decision to be unfaithful. By the way my father suffered mental problems and had no help from the government in treating his ptsd....but he never cheated on my mom. PLEASE. Divorce is one subject and infedelity is another.... get a divorce if you are that unhappy...but dont cheat on you wife...two different subjects!

***thats great he admitted it...why wouldnt he admit it??? But it still means he is a cheater.

****yes, it shows the kind of decision maker he is. A cheater is a cheater. We need an honest president.
 

valabdalnabi

Active member
Quote:
Originally Posted by MxAxC-_ATTACK
You are right. TAX the hell out of the rich!! Its not fair that they worked their ass off to become successful and make all that money! They should have just sat on their asses
/sarcasm.


Edit:

Also about the capital gains tax, If he isn't going to apply it to anyone who doesn't make 250,000 a year. Then what happens if you sell your house that is valued at well over 250,000 , Well guess what, you are one of those people. and you are gonna get taxed. Its going to apply to everyone in one way or another.


nonono.gif
****Obama will continue to exempt the first 250,000 dollar profit of a home sale (500,00 would be exempted from married couples). This is info from factcheck.org and
Tax Policy Center: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” 20 June 2008. Once again people making stuff up for their candidates political gains.
 

valabdalnabi

Active member
Q: Is this email true?







No. A new e-mail being circulated about Obama's tax proposals is almost entirely false.
Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up. This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate.



Update, Aug. 27:One version of this e-mail was sent around by a financial professional, Robert Jenkins, a vice president of Wachovia Securities in St. Louis, Mo. Even though Jenkins is an investment adviser and not a tax expert, we thought his endorsement might seem to some readers to give this false e-mail greater credibility. So we attempted to ask Jenkins about the matter. But instead of a reply from him, we received the following message from another Wachovia official, whose identity we confirmed by telephone: Thank you for contacting Wachovia regarding a recent email regarding "proposed changes in taxes after the 2008 General election." Please know that Wachovia does not endorse any political party, candidate, or initiative, and that our Firm did not endorse or approve the email as it is contrary to our Code of Conduct and Corporate Values.

Members of executive and departmental leadership in Wachovia Corporation and Wachovia Securities have been made aware of the email, and Robert Jenkins has been dealt with appropriately and directly. Every effort has been made to ensure that no additional emails or communications of this nature will be issued by any member of our Firm.

We sincerely apologize for this unfortunate incident.

Cynthia Plackemeier
Assistant Branch Manager

Our own sources for the following are Obama's own Web site and other statements, interviews with Obama's policy advisers, and a comprehensive analysis of both the McCain and Obama tax plans produced by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, plus additional sources to which we have provided links.Home Sales: The claim that Obama would impose a 28 percent tax on the profit from "all home sales" is false. Both Obama and McCain would continue to exempt the first $250,000 of gain from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) which results in zero tax on all but a very few home sales.
Capital Gains Rate: It's untrue that Obama is proposing a 28 percent capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that." Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more (or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all.


Tax on Dividends: Another false claim is that Obama proposes to raise the tax rate on dividends to 39.6 percent. Dividends currently are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, and Obama would raise that to the same rate as he would tax capital gains, somewhere between 20 percent and 28 percent but likely "significantly" lower than 28 percent. This higher tax also would fall only on couples making $250,000 or more or singles making more than $200,000.


Taxing IRAs and 529s: Contrary to the claim in this e-mail, raising tax rates on capital gains or dividends would not result in higher taxes on any investments held in Individual Retirement Accounts or in popular, tax-deferred "college funds" under section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code. The whole point of such tax-deferred plans is that dividends and capital gains are allowed to accumulate and compound tax-free, and neither Obama nor McCain proposes to change that. And as previously mentioned, any capital gains or dividend income from stocks, bonds or mutual funds owned outside of tax-deferred accounts would continue to be taxed at current rates except for couples making over $250,000, or singles making more than $200,000.


Doubled Taxes? The claim that "Under Obama your taxes will more than double!" is also false. The comparative rate tables this e-mail provides for McCain and Obama are entirely wrong, as we explained in an earlier article March 13 about another false e-mail from which these tables are copied. It is supposedly a comparison of tax rates before and after the Bush tax cuts, but it grossly overstates the effect of the Bush cuts. Furthermore, Obama proposes to retain the Bush cuts for every single income level shown in this bogus table.


Estate Tax. The claim that Obama proposes to "restore the inheritance tax" is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush "repealed" it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more.

The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million (effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent.

Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million ($10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent.


"New Tax" Falsehoods: The e-mail continues with a string of made-up taxes that it falsely claims Obama has proposed. He has not proposed a tax on new homes with more than 2,400 square feet, or a new gasoline tax or a tax on retirement accounts. The most laughably false claim is that Obama would tax "water."

Two claims in this message, while not completely false, are still grossly misleading.

The claim that Obama would impose "new taxes on natural resources" may refer to his support for a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which indeed would impose large costs on industries burning coal, gas or oil and, indirectly, on their consumers. But McCain also supports cap-and-trade legislation, and even coauthored an early version of a bill that reached the Senate floor this year. Obama's plan would give the federal government more of the revenue from auctioning pollution permits than McCain's plan. Whether cap-and-trade amounts to a "tax" is a matter of interpretation. The fact is neither McCain nor Obama call it that.

There is also some truth to the claim that Obama would impose "new taxes" to finance his health care plan, depending on your interpretation of "new." He has said he would pay for much of his plan "by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do." That would certainly be a tax increase for those high-income persons, compared with what they are paying now. But whether that's imposing a new tax, or just letting an old one come back, depends on your point of view. It may well be that Obama will eventually propose tax increases to finance some of his plan. We've noted before that the "cost savings" that he says will finance much of his plan are inflated and probably won't materialize, according to independent experts we consulted. But it's wrong to say that he's proposing such taxes now.

The short answer to our reader's question is, no, this message isn't real. It's a pack of lies.

-Brooks Jackson


Sources
“Background Questions and Answers on Health Care Plan.” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008.

“Energy and Environment. “Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008.


News Release: “CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo Speaks with Senator Barack Obama on CNBC’s “Closing Bell.” 27 March 2008. CNBC Web site.


“Plan to Strengthen the Economy.” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008.


Tax Policy Center: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” 20 June 2008.
all from factcheck.org........
 

Shimmer

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by valabdalnabi
***thats great he admitted it...why wouldnt he admit it??? But it still means he is a cheater.
yahoo.gif


So was JFK. So was Clinton.
So is damned near every other politician in the field.

And?
 

valabdalnabi

Active member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shimmer
So was JFK. So was Clinton.
So is damned near every other politician in the field.

And?


and John McCain.
winkiss.gif
 

valabdalnabi

Active member
im just setting strait the question of this topic ....the original post is about an email that was being sent to people...and now we all know this information was false and have the proof to show it....thats all. I have the right to make some kind of judgement when it comes to the decision of picking a US president, naturally.
 

Shimmer

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by valabdalnabi
and John McCain.
winkiss.gif


Big fucking deal.
Wanna know the difference between McCain and the others?
A) He admitted it.
B) He admits remorse for the situation.
C) He's actually part of a fairly large statistical trend given the history of the situation he was in, and his demographic.

Now, given he's admitted to it, he hasn't lied on the stand and perjured himself nor has he had her killed, I ask you again, and?


Are you seriously going to base your whole vote on that? Or are you thinking that it's some kind of moral high ground where it's the tipping point for a voter?
If it IS a tipping point for a voter, I'd have to call any voter out who condemned him for it, while endorsing Clinton in the same breath.

Hypocrisy tastes so good.
 

Shimmer

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by valabdalnabi
im just setting strait the question of this topic ....the original post is about an email that was being sent to people...and now we all no this information was false and have the proof to show it....thats all. I have the right to make some kind of judgement when it comes to the decision of picking a US president, naturally.

Of course you do, we all do.
It just helps when what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
You know, when you hold ALL politicians to the same standard, not just the one who represents the party we score cool points for not liking.
 

valabdalnabi

Active member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shimmer
Big fucking deal.
Wanna know the difference between McCain and the others?
A) He admitted it.
B) He admits remorse for the situation.
C) He's actually part of a fairly large statistical trend given the history of the situation he was in, and his demographic.

Now, given he's admitted to it, he hasn't lied on the stand and perjured himself nor has he had her killed, I ask you again, and?


Are you seriously going to base your whole vote on that? Or are you thinking that it's some kind of moral high ground where it's the tipping point for a voter?
If it IS a tipping point for a voter, I'd have to call any voter out who condemned him for it, while endorsing Clinton in the same breath.

Hypocrisy tastes so good.


oh and you swear too..your so classy.
Look I never said I am basing my vote on that. Thats the problem with you all. You love to mind read. I can vote for whoever i want...CLEAR??? For what ever reasons I want...CLEAR???? This post is originally about a fraudulent email sent out to distort peoples view on Obamas tax policies to scare them into voting for McCain, which it seems alot of people seemed to believe....so... GET LOST!
yahoo.gif
 

SkylarV217

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by valabdalnabi
But it still means he is a cheater.
yahoo.gif


and your happy he cheated on his wife?

I will ask that if you quote me, don't make your remarks inside the quote, I would rather not have people thinking I wrote those things =)
 

purrtykitty

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbella
That is such a dangerous statement. "Just people with lotsa money". Just out of curiosity, who do you think these people are? They could be your neighbor. Also, people who make "lotsa" money should not be punished for being successful. Just because someone doesn't have what another person does, does not make it right to try and "even things up" for the benefit of the lesser. It's quite sickening if you ask me. It reminds me of a little brat who can't have the better toy another child has.

I guarantee that if you busted your ass and made $250,000, you would be mighty pissed to watch a majority of that money go to people who are abusing the system so they don't have to work. As a matter of fact, I can also almost guarantee that at least once in your life you have commented on how pissed you were that a large portion of your paycheck went to taxes. Put that on a larger scale, add a 60-70 hour work week to it and a 40% total deduction of your paycheck and get back to me. You would not be pleased.



Ok, seriously. Is this a joke? Ridiculous comments like this make it very hard for me to take your statements seriously.


I do believe you have a congress made up of a democratic majority that you may also thank for your misfortunes. President Bush does not control every aspect of what you stated. And the "hype" more surrounds Obama than any other candidate in past history.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkylarV217
What I was going to say is :

I don't want to be rude .... BUT ( and thats a big BUT ) .... I have not worked my ass off to graduate with honors and continue school at a graduate level while helping my DH get through a Mechanical Engineering degree to go on further in school so that WE can help those that chose not to go to school have a better standard of living...

I understand the need to pay taxes, but why should we work hard to build our lives up if we are simply going to have to give up nearly half of the money we make .... not including the rest of the taxes we would have to pay.

Those people that make a "lotta money" generally have worked hard to earn that money... and while we won't be in the second tax bracket until the end of the 4 year presidency term and we are barely making it as it is We are doing something to make our lives better , why should we pay double the taxes of other people just b/c of the professions we chose ?

I have NO problem what so ever helping people that honestly need help

but my major problem with this is that more "help" systems will be started in order to help those in "need" and i'm supposed to be okay with that b/c "its time for us to pay our fair share". I am a bigg supporter of charities and schools. I just want MY HARD EARNED MONEY to go where I wish it to under this system it will go where i definitely DON'T want it to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by *Stargazer*
I had NO idea that Specktra had an income cap guideline for members.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MxAxC-_ATTACK
You are right. TAX the hell out of the rich!! Its not fair that they worked their ass off to become successful and make all that money! They should have just sat on their asses
/sarcasm.


Edit:

Also about the capital gains tax, If he isn't going to apply it to anyone who doesn't make 250,000 a year. Then what happens if you sell your house that is valued at well over 250,000 , Well guess what, you are one of those people. and you are gonna get taxed. Its going to apply to everyone in one way or another.


I could just give all of you a big, wet kiss!!
winkiss.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top