OBAMA

[imported_GC1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlueWahooChambor</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vthokie22</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlueWahooChambor</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yet meanwhile he wants a universal healthcare system

how do you plan to fund that?

think about it </div></div>

by taxing the wealthiest 5%, getting out of Iraq, getting rid of programs that don't work or could work for less money, etc. </div></div>
you are clueless

</div></div>

Pretty pathetic reply. </div></div>

OK, how about this one...First off, I'm no where close to wealthy. But I do have enough sense to know that the "wealthy" people are the ones that are creating the majority of the jobs. The top 1% in wealth in this country are already shouldering 40% of the tax base. Thats a lot. The more you tax these "wealthy" people the more jobs/spending they will cut to meet their earnings. Look at people like Gates, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, etc. These are people who are/were incredibly rich. How many thousands did/do they employee? How many families are raised from these jobs? Eventually the wealthy will get wise, shut their doors or move overseas. Then who will bear nearly 1/2 the tax burden? What we need to do is stop giving tax rebates, refunds, credits and incentive checks to people who don't even have to pay taxes! If you don't have to pay any taxes why do you get a check?

[neutral88]

Aww come on GC1, us employers wouldn't close doors because you MADE us offer insurance we couldn't afford either would we??? Leaving the 4 ladies that work full time for me, and their children, with no income???

There is another train of thought, since the small biz is exempt-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27121059/
Far more instructive was the argument Obama instigated with McCain last week over health care. In several speeches, Obama accurately framed the central contrast between the nominees' approaches. The bedrock goal of Obama's plan is to reinforce the sharing of risk and cost between healthy and sick, young and old. By contrast, McCain, hoping to expand choice, would erode risk-sharing and accept sharper distinctions between the healthy and sick in both the availability and cost of coverage. One plan prizes solidarity; the other, autonomy.

Most Americans now receive their health insurance at work. That system promotes risk-sharing because employers don't vary the premiums based on a worker's age or health: The old and sick are subsidized by the young and healthy, who are then subsidized as they age.


McCain would upend that system. Today employers can deduct as a business expense the contributions they make to a worker's health insurance premiums. Workers, though, are not taxed on the value of their employer's contribution. That "exclusion" provides a powerful tax incentive for work-based coverage. McCain would end the exclusion so that workers pay taxes on their employer's premium contribution. Instead, he would provide a tax credit ($2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families) that workers could apply to the cost of obtaining health insurance. In an ad this week, the Obama campaign described that trade as "the largest middle-class tax increase in history."


That's flat wrong. For all but the highest earners with the most-expensive insurance plans, the credit would more than offset the additional taxes workers would face from ending the exclusion, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center calculates. The real problem with McCain's idea is that, without the economic incentive provided by the exclusion, more employers might stop offering coverage. And even employers who want to continue could find it difficult because younger workers would be likely to use their credit to buy stripped-down, cheaper coverage on their own. That would leave employers covering only older and sicker workers, which could quickly swell premiums to unaffordable levels. That concern prompted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable to criticize McCain's plan in an eye-opening New York Times article on Tuesday

[duckmeat]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlueWahooChambor</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vthokie22</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlueWahooChambor</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yet meanwhile he wants a universal healthcare system

how do you plan to fund that?

think about it </div></div>

by taxing the wealthiest 5%, getting out of Iraq, getting rid of programs that don't work or could work for less money, etc. </div></div>
you are clueless

</div></div>

i'm having a hard time seeing how your reply to him is anything less than absurd.

[imported_GC1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: neutral88</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Aww come on GC1, us employers wouldn't close doors because you MADE us offer insurance we couldn't afford either would we??? Leaving the 4 ladies that work full time for me, and their children, with no income??? </div></div>

That accomplishes the same thing that taxing the life out of someone does. When more money goes out of a companies pocket, something has to give. And we all know that the quickest and easiest way to reduce expenditures is to cut labor. Your materials cost and utilities to operate are beyond your control for the most part.

So just shift the burden to the employees? No one wants to take on the real problem.

[imported_GC1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuds</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So just shift the burden to the employees? No one wants to take on the real problem. </div></div>

Shift the problem to Washington and stop spending so much. We shouldn't be 10 trillion in debt and looking to add another 2 trillion from the bailout, Jubilee Act, and Global Poverty Act. We don't need to spend billions per year on illegal aliens, policing the world, and all the stupid pork like the millions that will go to ACORN that was tacked on to the bailout bill.

I've always said that, but we have too many special groups hooking things to bills. Iraq can police Iraq, I'm more worried about the USA.

Do you think Obama will blow as much on his party as Bush did on his?

[imported_GC1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuds</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you think Obama will blow as much on his party as Bush did on his? </div></div>

Don't they all? [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]

I expect the Dems to make huge pickups in the House and Senate also. So with a total control the Dems will have NO excuse. They haven't done anything with Congress the past 2 years but help make things worse. Neither party is worth hitting a dog in the arse with.