debates

[Fiveflat]

Let's get this out of the way first, I'm a dem.

Could one of you guys explain Romney's tax plan to me? Is his idea just to rationalize the tax code (cut rates, cut exemptions, no effective tax cut but make things simpler)? Or is he really saying he's going to cut taxes, not touch medicare or social security, increase military spending, and cut the deficit? If so how does that work?

I'm sure there must be some details on the plan but I'm too lazy to look.

I THINK, and I could be very wrong, but I'm assuming his 'plan' is very similar to what I always thought was called "Reaganomics". Now until recently I've learned and this is my opinion, but Reaganomics is very similar to JFK's path to prosperity.
I firmly believe in this philosophy, cut taxes, consumers will buy more goods, plants can operate closer to capacity, and will in turn create more jobs. Tax revenue on 1000's more jobs for middle class will be much greater than tax revenue on the small top 5% of the "rich".
I wish we had politicians like Kennedy and Reagan again.

[jwanck11]

The republicans were invited to participate in obamacare and refused.

Please give specific examples of how the President could have acted in a more bipartisan way.

Invite a believing Communist to work out a capitalistic system... and then wonder why s/he got up from the table - and then blame them.

Obamacare: Sit down with a committee. List a set of goals. Brainstorm and decide which will represent a likely path to approval. Hash out the details. Obamnacare is too encompassing ... and aggressive. It is arrogant and divisive. That's the point. Romney will have had this experience. Ryan plays the same card. Clinton was very good at it.

Regarding the reference to our military efforts abroad. I am confused about what you are saying? The previous administration developed the infrastructure that the current administration is using to essentially wage war. Most international policy and activity is a partnership with the UN - it really is not a 2-party dance. So, what is the right blocking here?

[jwanck11]

I THINK, and I could be very wrong, but I'm assuming his 'plan' is very similar to what I always thought was called "Reaganomics". Now until recently I've learned and this is my opinion, but Reaganomics is very similar to JFK's path to prosperity.
I firmly believe in this philosophy, cut taxes, consumers will buy more goods, plants can operate closer to capacity, and will in turn create more jobs. Tax revenue on 1000's more jobs for middle class will be much greater than tax revenue on the small top 5% of the "rich".
I wish we had politicians like Kennedy and Reagan again.

I believe Mitt is just that Politician.

Yes, that is his budget idea.

People create and consume = People earn and spend. The more actors in the equation, the better the standard of living across America ... especially in such a highly globalized system.

[Nobody]

Invite a believing Communist to work out a capitalistic system... and then wonder why s/he got up from the table - and then blame them.

Obamacare: Sit down with a committee. List a set of goals. Brainstorm and decide which will represent a likely path to approval. Hash out the details. Obamnacare is too encompassing ... and aggressive. It is arrogant and divisive. That's the point. Romney will have had this experience. Ryan plays the same card. Clinton was very good at it.

Regarding the reference to our military efforts abroad. I am confused about what you are saying? The previous administration developed the infrastructure that the current administration is using to essentially wage war. Most international policy and activity is a partnership with the UN - it really is not a 2-party dance. So, what is the right blocking here?

The correct term is not Obamacare its called "Affordable Health Care ACT". It is not socialize medicine. It simply removes Hedgemoney and Monopoly Interest from the big picture and completely removes cherry picking from medical insurance. It levels the playing field to a humane level. It forces people out of the government subsidies and medicaid programs. It keeps people insured with pre-existing conditions. It keeps our young adults through 26 under parent family plans. It eliminates 75% of hospital freebies. It stops the treatment + bankruptcy cycle. It has so many great qualities that I could go on and on and on.

Republican's would never and will never do the right thing. Their interest is only for the privileged few and big corporate profits.

The affordable health care act is one of the GREATEST bills to come across congress in 20 years.

Many of you will never see the value unless you have had loved ones needlessly suffer.

Since EVERYONE will now have to pony up (individuals, small business and big business), this country can now get back to the business of DEMOCRACY. Equal justice for ALL.

And for this, I will forever be loyal to the Democratic party.

[Nobody]

I believe Mitt is just that Politician.

Yes, that is his budget idea.

People create and consume = People earn and spend. The more actors in the equation, the better the standard of living across America ... especially in such a highly globalized system.

We no longer create, we only consume.

Hello?

[91Terminator]

The correct term is not Obamacare its called "Affordable Health Care ACT". It is not socialize medicine. It simply removes Hedgemoney and Monopoly Interest from the big picture and completely removes cherry picking from medical insurance. It levels the playing field to a humane level. It forces people (thats ok with you? I dont want the Government forcing me to do anything.) out of the government subsidies and medicaid programs. It keeps people insured with pre-existing conditions. It keeps our young adults through 26 under parent family plans. It eliminates 75% of hospital freebies. It stops the treatment + bankruptcy cycle. It has so many great qualities that I could go on and on and on.

Republican's would never and will never do the right thing. Their interest is only for the privileged few and big corporate profits.

The affordable health care act is one of the GREATEST bills to come across congress in 20 years.

Many of you will never see the value unless you have had loved ones needlessly suffer.

Since EVERYONE will now have to pony up (individuals, small business and big business), this country can now get back to the business of DEMOCRACY. Equal justice for ALL.

And for this, I will forever be loyal to the Democratic party.

We no longer create, we only consume.

Hello?

So explain to me how taxing big/small business and the rich AKA The Creator's and redistributing it to the poor (who consume off of government money) gets us back to where we were?

[Nobody]

So explain to me how taxing big/small business and the rich AKA The Creator's and redistributing it to the poor (who consume off of government money) gets us back to where we were?

Force should not be confused with REGULATION. You have the choice to buy or not buy health insurance, but you'll no longer be a burden to the system for the common good of society if you choose to not be a contributor. And this is good.

You are not forced to pay taxes, and nobody forces you to obey the speed limit. But if you don't the government will enforce penalties on you, and this is good for society.

Although regulation sometimes hinders the economic market, we can’t fully break free from partial government control in a free market.

The Fed, which is the central banking authority in the US is partially independent and partially run by the government. If it became fully independent, it would be chaos because no one in the Fed would have any one answer to. It would cause a specific moral hazard problem, also called the principal-agent problem in political science. Same with Wall Street and the banking industry, we MUST have regulation because selfishness and greed spoil it for the rest of us. (by the way, the republicans voted against Wall Street reform and bank reform. Bet you didn't know that.)

So regulations are critical to a stable functioning society and without it we'll have stock market crash after crash after crash, and a few privileged hard working folks will reap the benefits. Everybody else suffers (lazy people of course).

Medical insurance cannot be a completely free enterprise without regulations, otherwise we'd end up where we were the past 20 years.

Anywho, to answer your question about economic growth, the truth is Obama and Romney are both full of . There is NO silver bullet to a speedy recovery. Deregulation ran us in the muck and now it's going to take 2 decades to clean up.

The US has been in a currency war for the past two decades. The mighty dollars has been threaten by the Euro, Iraq threaten to sell Oil on the Euro, Iran tried to open a bourse (which somehow got sabotaged), Lybia was selling oil to China bypassing the dollar. Most everyone would like to see the US bend at the knees. Our 15 trillion economy has been threatened and the US economic policy is to expand our economic power (aka globalization) to maintain our title that we've had since 1945. And this is how decisions are made on capitol hill. Everything else comes second. I think recent headline news tells us who's winning the war btw.

Don't know if any of this helped or not, but the reason most people dislike regulations is because there tends to be a "me-myself and I" agenda behind their beliefs.

[skippabcool]

but you'll no longer be a burden to the system for the common good of society if you choose to not be a contributor. And this is good.

So those that don't want to work and want a free ride, these would be some of the non contributors (not to be confused with those that can't), if they are given free things how is this not a burden to the system? And how is that good?

[skippabcool]

Don't know if any of this helped or not, but the reason most people dislike regulations is because there tends to be a "me-myself and I" agenda behind their beliefs.

Those that can work and choose not too and burden the system, how is that not a "me-myself and I" mindset? Are they looking out for me?

[Nobody]

So those that don't want to work and want a free ride, these would be some of the non contributors (not to be confused with those that can't), if they are given free things how is this not a burden to the system? And how is that good?

Those that can work and choose not too and burden the system, how is that not a "me-myself and I" mindset? Are they looking out for me?

I love you Skippabcool!!!!

You da man!!!

[jwanck11]

We no longer create, we only consume.

Hello?

Not possible.

I think, not sure but think, your scope is a bit narrow. When someone works, they create value by definition. We are paid an amount relative to the value of what we create.

Fighting using talking points (for and against) Obamacare is a waste of time.

The statement that Republican will not do the right thing is a blind comment. You are well aware of that. Defining what is "right" is a matter or opinion. Unlimited wants against limited means - the equation will NEVER balance.

Right now, this country needs to be rid of Obama - if for nothing more than his leaky pen on our collective current and future checkbook.

[talltigeguy]

Force should not be confused with REGULATION. You have the choice to buy or not buy health insurance, but you'll no longer be a burden to the system for the common good of society if you choose to not be a contributor. And this is good.

You are not forced to pay taxes, and nobody forces you to obey the speed limit. But if you don't the government will enforce penalties on you, and this is good for society.

Although regulation sometimes hinders the economic market, we can’t fully break free from partial government control in a free market.

The Fed, which is the central banking authority in the US is partially independent and partially run by the government. If it became fully independent, it would be chaos because no one in the Fed would have any one answer to. It would cause a specific moral hazard problem, also called the principal-agent problem in political science. Same with Wall Street and the banking industry, we MUST have regulation because selfishness and greed spoil it for the rest of us. (by the way, the republicans voted against Wall Street reform and bank reform. Bet you didn't know that.)

So regulations are critical to a stable functioning society and without it we'll have stock market crash after crash after crash, and a few privileged hard working folks will reap the benefits. Everybody else suffers (lazy people of course).

Medical insurance cannot be a completely free enterprise without regulations, otherwise we'd end up where we were the past 20 years.

Anywho, to answer your question about economic growth, the truth is Obama and Romney are both full of . There is NO silver bullet to a speedy recovery. Deregulation ran us in the muck and now it's going to take 2 decades to clean up.

The US has been in a currency war for the past two decades. The mighty dollars has been threaten by the Euro, Iraq threaten to sell Oil on the Euro, Iran tried to open a bourse (which somehow got sabotaged), Lybia was selling oil to China bypassing the dollar. Most everyone would like to see the US bend at the knees. Our 15 trillion economy has been threatened and the US economic policy is to expand our economic power (aka globalization) to maintain our title that we've had since 1945. And this is how decisions are made on capitol hill. Everything else comes second. I think recent headline news tells us who's winning the war btw.

Don't know if any of this helped or not, but the reason most people dislike regulations is because there tends to be a "me-myself and I" agenda behind their beliefs.

We aren't FORCED to by health insurance? I think you haven't read the legislation, sort of like the vast majority of people that passed the bill. If you don't buy insurance, then you have to pay a fine, tax or whatever you call it.

I can choose to not drive my car and therefore get rid of my car insurance that I am forced to buy. But my only choice with the affordable care act is to die or buy it. This is a huge difference, IMO.

The bottom line is that politicians from both sides do not have the balls to come to the American people and say that something is valuable and we should pay for it, because it is good. Obama acts like the Affordable Care Act hasn't costed anything. Insurance rates have skyrocketed because of it. Did anyone really think that it would cost nothing to insure kids up to 26 years of age and start paying for preexisting conditions? Bush did the same thing when he took us to war. He (with congress's approval) just jumped in without asking us to pay for it. I am generally not a conspiracy theorist...but the end result is that more people drop insurance and depend on the government for healthcare, which is going to be the end result, and is what democrats want.

About deregulation: I know some people who are buying a home, but don't have the 20% down the bank requires. Guess what? There is a government program for that. So the bank deems it too risky to loan people too much money on something that might devalue over time, but the government steps in to help people buy stuff. And we get to pick up the tab if they fail, and bankers who do this for a career aren't willing to do it because the risk is too high. The government stepping in to the mortgage business is as much responsible for what happened as greedy lenders were.

[dom w. forte]

The correct term is not Obamacare its called "Affordable Health Care ACT". It is not socialize medicine. It simply removes Hedgemoney and Monopoly Interest from the big picture and completely removes cherry picking from medical insurance. It levels the playing field to a humane level. It forces people out of the government subsidies and medicaid programs. It keeps people insured with pre-existing conditions. It keeps our young adults through 26 under parent family plans. It eliminates 75% of hospital freebies. It stops the treatment + bankruptcy cycle. It has so many great qualities that I could go on and on and on.

Republican's would never and will never do the right thing. Their interest is only for the privileged few and big corporate profits.

The affordable health care act is one of the GREATEST bills to come across congress in 20 years.

Many of you will never see the value unless you have had loved ones needlessly suffer.

Since EVERYONE will now have to pony up (individuals, small business and big business), this country can now get back to the business of DEMOCRACY. Equal justice for ALL.

And for this, I will forever be loyal to the Democratic party.

Im registered Independent and voted in the past for which ever party had in my opinion the best platform , however I havent voted for the DEMS, since Kenndy, what turned me away back then was Johnson refused to pass the cilvil Rights bill proposed by the Republican Party until forced , up to that point I never understood why Martin Luther King was a registered Republican.

[shawndoggy]

We aren't FORCED to by health insurance? I think you haven't read the legislation, sort of like the vast majority of people that passed the bill. If you don't buy insurance, then you have to pay a fine, tax or whatever you call it.

I can choose to not drive my car and therefore get rid of my car insurance that I am forced to buy. But my only choice with the affordable care act is to die or buy it. This is a huge difference, IMO.

how's that different from a tax, given that the penalty for not having insurance goes up and down with your income?

Your car analogy is actually a really really good one. Unlike your car, which you can sell and not have one, you can't get rid of your health or need for healthcare. So if you bust your arm but you are uninsured, you go to the e-room anyway. If you are run down by an uninsured motorist while you are walking across the street, you go to the e-room anyway. And "somebody" pays for the services rendered.

There's no way to STOP consuming healthcare services, like there is with a car and auto insurance.

The bottom line is that politicians from both sides do not have the balls to come to the American people and say that something is valuable and we should pay for it, because it is good. Obama acts like the Affordable Care Act hasn't costed anything.

Yeah, I've got a rant about that too. 24/7 news cycle gives legislators no time to do the business of government with one another. Instead they demagogue on TV. So much easier to give sound bites than do hard work. This applies to pretty much all of 'em (Ds and Rs). Our two party system and our presidential primary system (where candidates have to pander to the wingnut factions) doesn't help either.

Insurance rates have skyrocketed because of it. Did anyone really think that it would cost nothing to insure kids up to 26 years of age and start paying for preexisting conditions?

Probably not nothing, but they shouldn't be too expensive either. Kids in their 20s are pretty healthy. The expense will be on childbirth, probably.

I'm a little taken aback by the disingenuousness of the argument that private, for profit insurance will pull us out of the healthcare spiral that they've presided over for the past 40 years. Remember when docs said that HMOs and PPOs would ruin healthcare? They haven't and docs and the insurance companies still make money.

What's the explanation for healthcare costs outpacing inflation year after year after year BEFORE obamacare?

Bush did the same thing when he took us to war. He (with congress's approval) just jumped in without asking us to pay for it. I am generally not a conspiracy theorist...but the end result is that more people drop insurance and depend on the government for healthcare, which is going to be the end result, and is what democrats want.

I'm a dem. I don't want more people on welfare. None of my friends who are dems do either. I do want us to have a social safetynet that works when times are bad. If the safetynet is only there when times are good, what kind of safteynet is that?

About deregulation: I know some people who are buying a home, but don't have the 20% down the bank requires. Guess what? There is a government program for that. So the bank deems it too risky to loan people too much money on something that might devalue over time, but the government steps in to help people buy stuff. And we get to pick up the tab if they fail, and bankers who do this for a career aren't willing to do it because the risk is too high. The government stepping in to the mortgage business is as much responsible for what happened as greedy lenders were.

Greed is contagious and I don't think there is a specific point source. I live in ground zero for foreclosures right now. When times were good, EVERYONE was profiting from the greed in one way or another... the boat dealer (who could sell boats to people cashing out equity), the local government (which saw surging tax revenues), the realtor, the church, the builders, the equipment companies... they all made money. A rising tide floats all boats. And nobody wanted the tide to stop rising.

IMHO, the real challenge is this: we've put the whole country, every last one of us, on the government teat. We all want medicare and social security when the time comes. And we aren't dying soon enough. Those programs weren't meant to fund 30 year retirements. But those folks vote and they aren't going to vote away their own benefits. They "paid in" (ponzi scheme!) after all.

[Nobody]

Good debate!