Yeah, does sound rather pie in the sky wishful thinking. I wish nukes didn't exist either but they do and will.

I'm just holding my breath that he doesn't cave in to the pressure to select Shrillary as his running mate. If he does, I'm not bothering to vote.

He proposes a "goal" of ending nuclear weapons, beginning with a plan to take the US/USSR off hair trigger alert. Sounds like a good idea for the future to me, and one that has already begun to be implemented with the SALT/START treaties. We've already cut nukes back a great deal, and eliminated testing. I'm sure in the heyday someone said "we can't eliminate testing!"

It's nice not to see bomb shelter alerts in the major buildings like when we were growing up. (Remember the town secret that all McDonalds had a nuclear shelter built in, and that was the place to go if possible when the air raid sirens went off?)

I'm sure he's aware that he has to sell "comfort food" to a large part of the electorate.

Nukes have been passe for a long time. The next POTUS should focus exclusively on 3rd-millennium issues. Think of what (he) could accomplish by not pandering to small hearts and minds.

I can not vote for this man. I have a real problem with someone running on a platform of inclusiveness who wants to hear and consider everyone's opinion, yet chooses to spend 20+ years of his life associating personally with hatemongering racists. And then, when they become politically inconvenient, and ONLY then, does he distance himself. I do not trust the man.

Obama's a communist. Therefore, he cannot accomplish anything. Everything he believes has been discredited by history. What is the point in electing him?

The man isn't worth a bucket of warm piss.

I was hoping any decent third party/indie candidate would run. It doesn't look like it now.

I think this State of the Union is how Obama looks at the economy. Take from the middle and upper clas and give to the poor.

My rant is that while I agree that the health care system needs fixing, state/government run health care is not necessarily the right answer.

The simple fact is, even without Iraq, we are broke. You can only drain so much out of people's pockets before there isn't a point to trying.

As humorist P.J. O'Rourke famously said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

Everything you just said is mean spirited and moronic Brian.

You can't possibly point to a single policy under Obama that is anything close to Communistic, so you release your opinion like a fart in an elevator, and then bask in your stench. Your words are meaningless except for their squalor.

Obama is a man who went from humble beginnings to become a role model for millions, a man who you may not agree with but has earned respect, and you say he is not worth a bucket of warm piss. He is a thousand times the man you could ever be.

It's curious that he thinks a world without nuclear weapons can be accomplished through global agreements. Isn't this the same kind of thinking as, 'If we ban guns and drugs, criminals will stop buying and using them?' I don't trust Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria (just to name three) any farther than I could throw them, to honor any kind of global agreements. Then they would be the ONLY countries to have nuclear weapons.

And Eric, I think Jim P. just pointed out two among many of Obama's policies that can be considered communistic - wealth redistribution and socialized healthcare. You seem to be taking Brian's comments personally for some reason.

Oh, and Donna/Jim P., what are your thoughts about Bob Barr? Voting for a 3rd party has some merit simply because it legitimizes the need for more than the current two-party offerings.

>> Isn't this the same kind of thinking as, 'If we ban guns and drugs, criminals will stop buying and using them?

No.

Obama is not pushing socialized healthcare. He is proposing limited national health care insurance, which is a way of managing the health care crisis we are currently in. People who have no health care usually end up in the emergency room, which is far more expensive than a doctors visit, and then the hospital ends up with an uncollectable bill. The costs are then passed along to those who can afford it. National health care insurance, whether you agree with the concept or not, is far from communism.

As for taxation, the two wealthiest capitalists in America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, both propose shifting a greater portion of the tax burden to the wealthy. Are you going to argue that they are communists as well? And Obama is on record for lowering the tax burden for the middle income Americans.

Eric - I'm smarter than Obama will ever be. And I'm a far better human than he will ever be.

I have never resorted to race-baiting to end an argument. I've never believed that government is a valid solution to social issues. I've never thrown my closest friends and relatives to the wolves for my own personal betterment.

And you're right - "national health care insurance" isn't communism, it's fascism. You will support the government/corporate partnership under penalty of law. Forcing me to buy something I do not want is hardly the mark of a free nation.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet want an excuse to not give their money to their children, and saying "well, the government took it all away" is easier than saying "fuck you, I'm spending this on me, you go make your own fucking billions".

And Obama has not proposed lowering the tax burden on middle income Americans, he's proposed raising the fuck out of taxes on everyone.

The truth is neither mean-spirited nor moronic. It simply is.

And the truth is that Barack Obama is a horrible example of humanity who oughtn't be a role model for anyone, much less the leader of the free world.

What's wrong with Obama's plan here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTVmY2QxNWMzN2YzNmUzZGU0MGM5MmQzOWQ4MmUyYzc=

Who's side is Obama on?

Brian - I will believe that you are smarter than Barack Obama when you get your ass admitted to Harvard and then get nominated to head the Harvard Review.

Don't give me your namby-pamby excuses as to why you haven't done it. Just fucking DO IT.

What? You haven't? Won't do it cuz, why? Things just arent' right in your corner of the world? It's not the path you chose?
Go ahead, tell us -- What IS your excuse for lack of excellence?
Shut the fuck up. You either do it, or you don't. You either are capable or you're not. Period.
Your remarks on "race-baiting" says it all.
Obama has NOT been the one to play the race card. He avoids it at all costs. The Clinton's played the 'race card.'
Barack: I will not be a pawn to lobbyists and PAC's.48 hours after nomination - The DNC will not take money from Lobbyists of PACs.

Obama has stated that he will take away tax breaks from the richest people in our nation -those who make $250,000 or more - not per couple, per person. Sounds more than reasonable to me (speaking as a person who was well into that tax bracket).

Our society is on the edge of sliding into an Aristocracy Age. If you have any education of history / economics at all, you can see this. I'm not the brightest of bulbs by any means and even I get that.

Be careful what you wish for.

Amy - I read the link you provided. Unfortunately, the article goes into all sorts of "like" Obama's plan inuendo, but doesn't say what Obama's plan is.

Had they actually sited what Obama wants, I may give them some credence.

As it stands, it seems like just another source of BS, to me. Not that all the ideas I read about were bad.

Some socialization of medical care does need to occur in our country, IMnotsoHO.

PS. Furthermore - ask the 95,000+ people in MA how they feel about the penalties they now have because they didn't/couldn't/wouldn't purchase the insurance that Hillary Clinton's plan mandated.

Oh - cuz ya know, the alcoholics on the streets, the schizophrenics really care. Ha! It would almost be funny if it weren't so tragic.

THEY are the ones costing bazillions of dollars. But the state institutions that used to take care of them no longer exist.

This medical problem can't be solved in a sound bite. It is complicated. Quite frankly, there aren't too many people around that have the attention span necessary to discuss it with any intelligence.

Inq - any asshole who talks pretty can get into Harvard. Hell, Bush went to Harvard.

What real accomplishments does Obama have in life? He latched on to a race-baiting church, hooked up with an insider in Chicago's corrupt political machine, and landed himself a job as a State Senator with no experience. His wife "works" in a hospital at a $300,000+ a year job as a "diversity coordinator".

In other words, they are accomplished leeches. they are net drains on civilization.

Whereas I have an engineering degree, have already started one successful company, am contemplating one or two more, and I am a net positive contribution to the good of society.

What have you done in YOUR short term on this Earth?

And any "problem" with the medical system (which I don't believe really exists) can be solved by eliminating the ability to hide the true costs of medical care from the end user.

There's no REAL problem with medical care. Anyone who wants it can get it. It's getting someone else to pay for it that's the trouble.

Eliminate the federal tax exemption for benefit-based health insurance. In fact, don't allow employers to provide it at all. You want it, go buy it your own damn self.

I'd much prefer a system whereby the end-user of services has to research the pricing. Of course, you'll come up with some canard as to why this won't work.

Well, I'll tell you what is guaranteed not to work - any form of socialized medicine. There is NO PLACE IN THE WORLD where it works. Period.

In Canada, hospitals routinely run out of money and close down at the end of the year. They don't have enough beds in some provinces for difficult births, so those people end up here. They have long lines for simple diagnostic procedures (for people, not for dogs - dogs get in right away).

In England, a man with a broken leg has been told that they will not set the bone until he quits smoking. Anyone who bitches about government intrusions on privacy ought to consider that before letting them have control of the medical services delivery system.

If we didn't have the best medical care in the world, people wouldn't flock here to take advantage of it.

Brian - You acting like an ass. Blow me.

Your arguments are so distorted it's difficult to decide where to begin.

First of all, while I do enjoy talking about myself, what I've accomplished in my short term life on this earth has absolutely nothing at all to do with this argument.

You trying to impose that my life IS somehow relevant is one of the big fallicies of logic. (I refer you to one of the classes I would assume you took as an Engineering major - or didn't you bother with that one?).

Second, you never answered the feching question, have you gone to Harvard or not? Your insults as to the supposed ease of such an accomplishment doen't answer the feching question.

Third, there are people who, like it or not, live in our world that do not have capacities that the majority of us do. They make up the majority of beggars on the streets of our cities. 80% of them are schizophrenic. Many are chronic alocoholics - with all of the physical and mental promblems that such a condition would indicate. THEY ARE NOT GOING AWAY. They are. They exist. That's just a fucking fact.

There is no way in hell any of these people can take care of themselves, no matter how much you or anyone else wants to insult them. So how would you propose to deal with them? Let them die? Let them continue to push innocent people of the subway tracks into the onrushing train?

It's an option.

I don't think it's the best option. I think we MUST socialize a portion of our health care to include these individuals.

And yes. Possibly others. If our humanity and our politics can't embrace that ... then what else do we have?

I can't imagine that any other alternative is what the founders of this country had in mind - considering that our constitution is written to specifically, and most deliberately, protect the minority.

First of all, to the bloggers here that are talking about comminism and its historic failure.... you clearly have no idea what you are talking about as no communistic society - in the terms defined by Marx (who coined the phrase if you didn't know that). Yeah, that's right NO communistic society has ever existed. If you are talking about the Soviet Union, that was not a true communistic system as the "party" was a class that Marx would have railed against.

As for the "taking from the rich to give to the poor" - well, America has been doing just the obvious. IN 1980 the top 1% of Americans received approximately 15% of the nation's income and the bottom 20% had about 14%. Today the top 1% receive nearly 20% of the nation's income and the bottom 20 only about 11%. That is the result of a tax structure that allows the wealthiest to retain their income and invest it while taxing the middle class, and lower classes to death. In fact, on average since 1980 real income has fallen for EVERY American except those in the top 20% and those in the top 1% are in an economic boon. (That's why McCain stated we have made economic progress... because that's the bracket he and his beer-selling wife are in.)

We are in a huge deficit thanks to BUsh and the current economic policies. Frankly, the idea of a Republican that holds up the current model as workable scares the bejeesus out of me. Before I vote for another Republican I would vote for the Rev. Wright. He could not possibly do as much damage as Bush and the "experienced" members of his administration.

Inq - going to Harvard doesn't impart any magical gift of intellect or goodness. If it did, then there couldn't possibly be so many people who hated George Bush.

No, I didn't go to Harvard. An Ivy-League education isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Unless you want to run for high elected office, that is.

And what's distorted about my argument? Obama hasn't accomplished a fucking thing on his own. Everything he has was given to him by people seeking to advance themselves through him.

And if you're going to use the crazy people as an argument for socialization of healthcare, you're confused. Either that, or you consider prison to be "socialized housing". Those who cannot do for themselves ought to be institutionalized, but they were all turned out into the streets following abuses in the very socialized system that government created to care for them in the first place.

History did not begin with your birth, fella.

Steve - don't try that stupid argument on me. Communism (as written by Marx) has "never been implemented" for one simple reason: it can't be. The true vision of Marx hinged on the idea of the perfectability of man. Since man is not perfectable, communism can never work.

As far as income redistribution, the IRS says the nobody in the bottom 50% of earners paid a total of 3% of all federal income taxes. The top 25% paid 86% of those taxes.

Obama and Hillary's idea of taxing the living shit out of everyone will give us the same kind of economic prosperity that's powering Mexico.

So I suppose to satisfy the pedantics, I ought to say that "anyone who wishes to attempt to implement communist ideas ought not be allowed near the levers of power" to be as clear as possible.

What absolutely cracks me up about Steveda's comment is that he says people "receive" their income. Income is "received" in his world, not earned. Thanks for pointing out the disparity in income tax payments, Brian - you beat me to it.

Y'know Flynne, I completely missed that little detail. I don't know what steve does for a living, but I had to EARN every penny I made last year.

Of course, he could be in A/R. In which case all he does is receive income. Someone else did all the hard work.

Frankly Pirate Jo, when you are talking about the top 1% of income receipients, I use the word receive intentionally because the vast majority of their income is not "earned", it is from long and short term capital gains, interest income, dividends, and other unearned income. And by the way, I spent 30 years in senior management for a few large brokerage companies. i am back in college working on my Masters degree in History now. So I have been in the upper echelons of income and know of what I speak. By the way, both Warren Buffett and Bill Gates happen to agree that the tax rates for the wealthy are way too low.

And Brian, first of all, let me make this clear, i am not pro-communist but I think Marx had some fascinating ideas and made some excellent points. Marx's theory was not based on the perfectability of man... I don't know where you got that from. Marx based his theories on the fact that class conflict is what has driven societal change throughout human history. He also based his concepts on the flaws he saw in capitalism. I don't have the time to teach you about Marx, I suggest you actually read his books.

Oh, and one last thing about tax rates .. the concept that excess profits and earnings should be taxed away and used by society for the overall good was not Marx's although you seem to believe so. That idea is from Adam Smith's "The wealth of nations" the most famous treatise about capitalism and free market economies. Most people think of Smith as a genius economist. He was not, he was a professor of ethical philosophy. marx's degreee was also in Philosophy. thats why they both speak to the good of society, and fairness in their treatises. Again, maybe you should read some of the literature before offering your "expertise".

brian: yes, the Ivy League, for the most part, makes you cream of the crop. Particularly getting into an Ivy League law school. particularly getting onto law review of said group of schools. particularly becoming editor of said publication.

Plus, you know...being a law professor....a constitutional law professor, at a prestigious conservative school (U.Chi).

I think radley balko has hit the nail on the head: the presidency should not be an important position, but the media has created it to be as such. The more prestige we give to the presidency, the more power it has.

Of course, I'm conservative, and i'm voting for Obama (or Ron Paul, depending on what happens over the next few months....i'll never vote for a left-wing psycho like McCain).

In my postings I have not addressed the issue of national health insurance, I got tied up in the economic discussion. One of the issues that everyone here is missing is that when a corporation provides medical and dental insurance to their employees it represents a major expene (40% of total employee costs). This is a cost of labor, and becomes a cost of production that gets factored in to the cost of the goods produced. When we compete globally, companies in countries that have nationalized medicine have a significant advantage in price because medical coverage is provided by the government, essentially subsidizing the manufacturing process.

Aside from all the societal good that national health coverage provides, it will make our corporations a bit more competitive in the global arena and may help in the retention and even creation of jobs here in the USA.

First off, I am relatively new to this forum and was sooo excited when I found it. I thought hey! Smart people debating things, how cool! But so much of this thread isn't debate, it's name-calling and attacks. Someone having a different opinion than you does not make them stupid. Can we not name-call?? I like hearing others passionately state why they believe X and Y.

Now: "brian: yes, the Ivy League, for the most part, makes you cream of the crop. Particularly getting into an Ivy League law school. particularly getting onto law review of said group of schools. particularly becoming editor of said publication.

Plus, you know...being a law professor....a constitutional law professor, at a prestigious conservative school". Wow. My brother could be President!!!!!! . All of the above describes him perfectly, as well as any number of other people. Doesn't qualify you to run a country. And I got accepted to Harvard, so I'm well on my way to fulfilling the requirements too! Didn't go though. It's dumb to spend that much on college. I am not democratic or republican. I am probably libertarian really. But I have never voted republican for President. And I would never, never, never vore for Obama. He's not said once a true plan for anything concrete issue. I am all for redistribution of wealth though. We are heading for a french revolution in the next few generations here, if things continue as is. There are sooooooo many really poor people who actually do work hard, in this country, and so many really rich people who do nothing.

steveda - First, I think you're mistaken about Smith. Although there's so much to On the Wealth of Nations (and places where he went back and changed his mind) that it's possible he said it's both good and bad.

But Marx and Engels were the ones who put forth the idea that "excess profits" ought to be seized. Of course, they also thought that everyone would be perfectly fine with a system where they only got what they "needed". Which is a serious problem with humans, since they have infinite (perceived) need.

When we compete globally, companies in countries that have nationalized medicine have a significant advantage in price because medical coverage is provided by the government, essentially subsidizing the manufacturing process.

Uh. yeah. If you took any classes on economics, you might want to get a refund. Where, precisely, do you suspect the money to pay for socialized medicine comes from? That's right - taxes. So either you're paying more for a product because the employer is subsidizing the health insurance, or your paying more in taxes because the employer's taxes (and the taxes of his employees) went up.

Nationalized health care is NOT FREE. It's just a hidden cost.

Aside from all the societal good that national health coverage provides, it will make our corporations a bit more competitive in the global arena and may help in the retention and even creation of jobs here in the USA.

What societal good is provided by a system that amounts to de-facto rationing and a complete lack of research into new methods, practices, and medications?

Not to mention the fact that has already been outlined - nationalized healthcare will do precisely dick to improve "competetiveness" in industry.

You want to improve our competetiveness? Lower the minimum wage to 15 cents an hour, and put a cap of $200 a week on it. Then our labor costs will be comparable with China.

This is the problem with people who've gotten to much education. They don't know how to do simple comparative analysis.

Oh, another thing on the healthcare and competitiveness thing. Labor rates in France and England exceed labor rates in the United States.

How exactly did that national healthcare thing make them more competitive again?

momof3:

There are sooooooo many really poor people who actually do work hard, in this country, and so many really rich people who do nothing.

Yes, those groups are, in order, illegals, and the congresscritters who enable them.

brian, you seem to be confusing socialized medicine with national health insurance. They are very different. I have not done the research on socialized medicine, but off the top of my head I dislike the notion.

As for the taxes paying for the health coverage, well yeah, thats the idea. The math is simple... You pay John $140 (100 in salary and 40 in benefits) you charge $200 for the product he produces, and you pay taxes on the $60 profit - if you get the bid.

OR ... you pay John $100 in salary and 10 in benefits (retirement, vacation, etc.) and charge 160 for the product (keeping the same 42% profit spread). If you get the bid - which is now more competitive therefore more likely, you pay taxes on the $50 profit.

Or ... you dont get the bid at $200, you lay John off, and shut the factory. At least you pay no taxes in this scenario.

I have bad news for you Brian. because of the ridiculously low taxes Bush has advocated for the rich, we are in a huge deficit. Taxes will have to be increased - significantly. if you are in that top 20% you better move to another country cause you are gonna pay big time.

oh and by the way, the stats on tax distribution is that the bottom 40% of earners paid less than 3% of the taxes in 2005 according to the Brookings Institute. That is to be expected because the lower end of that group are living in poverty and don't pay taxes. The top 1% of earners paid 25% of the total taxes collected. The top 40% paid about 89%. the problem is that the top 1% represent 21% of total income. Their disposable income is huge, and it shows in the sales of luxury cars, yachts, and even thoses nice little luxury boxes at the baseball stadiums (because the rich don't wanna sit near you ...) that are built with.... TAX DOLLARS.

The fact is that trickle down economics, or any other name you want to give it, doesn't work. Period. Didn't work in the 8 years Reagan practiced it, and it hasn't worked in the 8 years Bush has done it. After 16 years of financial havoc, the empirical data is irrefutable. We need to reinstate the old tax codes that taxed that top 1% with the old tax rate of 50%. After all when you measure your income in hundreds of millions, and reap all the benefits of society, you can pay that rate and you should still be able to squeak by on the remaining hundred million.

Damn ... I hate putting so many posts into a single thread but i am enjoying the discussion!

Marx did not say excess profits should be seized, he said the factors of production should be seized and owned by the proletariat as a whole. But again, I have to say i am not a communist supporter, I just think Marx had some incredible ideas.

As for the labor rates being higher in France and England. I have to admit I have not looked at that, and am unfamiliar with their wage rates. However, despite this fact (giving you the benefit of the doubt) France did just win a major contract from our defense department for a new bomber based on ... PRICE. So something in your argument doesn't add up.

I do resent your remarks about "the problem with people who've gotten to [sic] much education. They don't know how to do simple comparative analysis." As a former member of senior management in the financial industry for nearly 30 years I am very adept at comparative analysis, and cost-benefit analysis, and any other kind of analysis you would care to mention. I did it for a living, and quite a lucrative one at that.

Actually, Boeing lost the contract because they offered an inferior product.

Germany is moving more production for domestic-market cars to the US. Most of the Japanese badged autos you purchase in the US are made here. A big part of that is the cost of shipping. A smaller part of that is the cost of labor. Of course, Toyota can build a car here for less than GM, since they don't have the UAW tax added on.

I have bad news for you Brian. because of the ridiculously low taxes Bush has advocated for the rich, we are in a huge deficit. Taxes will have to be increased - significantly. if you are in that top 20% you better move to another country cause you are gonna pay big time.

Has it occured to you that there is an alternative solution to stealing even more of my money (at present, income taxes alone account for 42% of my income, and I'm not even cracking 6 figures.)

Is it possible that, perhaps, government could do with less? Like fewer buildings named after senators? Elimination of corporate subsidies? Maybe a pay cut for Congress?

There is absolutely no justification for our government to consume so much of our GDP. Every dollar spent by government is a dollar that isn't doing something else productive. The government should stick to its Constitutionally-mandated duties.

steveda: (this really deserved its own post)

As for the taxes paying for the health coverage, well yeah, thats the idea. The math is simple... You pay John $140 (100 in salary and 40 in benefits) you charge $200 for the product he produces, and you pay taxes on the $60 profit - if you get the bid.

OR ... you pay John $100 in salary and 10 in benefits (retirement, vacation, etc.) and charge 160 for the product (keeping the same 42% profit spread). If you get the bid - which is now more competitive therefore more likely, you pay taxes on the $50 profit.

Or ... you dont get the bid at $200, you lay John off, and shut the factory. At least you pay no taxes in this scenario.

See, this is what I'm on about. Sure, you spent 30 years doing high-end financial analysis. And you claim to like Marx' dedication to social justice.

But how in the hell is this fair? By completely discounting John's tax burden, you've got him taking it in the shorts!

In case 1, John's healthcare is a part of his overall compensation package. He's really paying for healthcare in (pre-tax) cash that he's not taking home in salary.

In case 2, If John's buying his own insurance (as Obama would have it) he's just taken a $60 pay cut, since he has to pay for his insurance out of his own pocket - with after tax wages at that! And if he's getting "socialized medicine" as Hillary proposes, then he's still getting some of the shaft, because his taxes are going up, even as his compensation has dropped. And in this case, a lot of other people are getting shafted too. In fact, the harder someone works, the more harshly they are penalized in taxation to cover John's medical insurance.

And so, in order to prevent case 3 from coming to pass, you are essentially proposing a de facto subsidy to all American businesses, using the argument that "everyone else does it". This is basically what GM is waiting for - the opportunity to dump all their pensioners' health insurance costs off onto the backs of the taxpayers instead of their customers.

How in the name of God is this even CLOSE to freedom?

Good evening all!

Brian said "Is it possible that, perhaps, government could do with less? Like fewer buildings named after senators? Elimination of corporate subsidies? Maybe a pay cut for Congress?"

Nice thought!! I could win the lottery tomorrow too ... The Iranian president could embrace Israel tomorrow! Al Qaeda could declare themselves misguided and disband. All of these have about the same probability of occurring - none.

The fact is GM and all the other car manufacturers want to sell you a car a year. And Exxon and Sunoco love to sell you gasoline. Now, how many roads do these corporations build? After all, without roads, their products are useless. That is the role of government and why we pay taxes - the provision of the infrastructure society needs to exist and grow.

Brian, I understand your anger at the prospect of more taxes. You should be angry, even bitter (gasp)!!! Your taxes are seriously hampering your disposable income and barring you from investments or purchases you want. Ideally, you should not be affected by further tax increases. Ideally tax increases will be targetted to those in that top 1 - 2% of income. they have gotten a nearly free ride for the last 8 years and that is visible in their accumulation of wealth and the purchase of luxury goods. This is why I rail at the Bush tax cuts and the comments by Mccain that look to make them permanent.

Again, this is not communism or socialism or redistribution of wealth. This is pure conservative economics. Those that benefit from the economic prosperity of any society have the responsibility to sholder their fair burden of maintaining that society.

Frankly, I don't know a single capitalist that would forego $1 of profit because they had to pay $0.50 in taxes.

I did not discount John's tax burden. I was simply looking at the situation from a management/ownership perspective.

The way I see it, John signs on to his company's medical insureance and pays x dollars amount in costs as well as copays and deductibles as he uses the benefit. Typically there is a lifetime maximum as well which leaves him without coverage in the event of a catastrophic illness, or with no coverage at all if he loses his job.

In Obama's scenario, he would pay the amount to the government. I am unsure about the deductability of the payment, but supposedly the coverage is more complete and not linked to his employment.

Either way John earns 100 - x (the cost of medical coverage), and I am taking that as a push. the loss of tax deductability being offset by the more complete coverage, and the portability of the insurance.

As far as GM walking away from their pensioners need for medical coverage - most corporations have been doing that for the last 10 years. Now GM and other union shops may not have that option because of the union contracts, but in financial services that road was taken by Citicorp in the 90's and just about every major corporation that I know has followed suit.

How is this freedom? It's not. Look at the Bill of Rights... does it say anything about limiting government's ability to tax? The only thing it guards against is the taking of your property without due process. Tax laws count as due process. So either way we are screwed, it's just a question of how much it hurts - and who feels it most.

While I see very valid points in the discussion of Steveda vs. Brian, and think both are intelligent people, I have just one question for you both: How did you get so far off the actual topic of conversation?

Obama on Defense. That was the topic. You know, the nukes and whatnot. You boys seemed to have forgotten that in your little cat fight.

So in answer to the actual topic: I agree with the statement that he sounds like a Miss America contestant. Yes, it would be nice to live in a world without nuclear bombs and missles. Yes, we should all just get along. But what would happen to our own military structure if that happens? Do you honestly think other countries will stop? No. The thirst for power is far to great. If we stop building nukes (assuming all other countries have stopped as well) than we have no need for our military troops. Because without threat there is no need for protection. So we no longer have the Army, Navy, Coast Gaurd, Marines and Air Force. Than what? I'll tell you what. Than some stupid country blows us up with the nukes that they secretively continued to build and we're all screwed.

Why would any country, good or bad, want to give up the best weapons they have and leave themselves defenseless? And what the would he do with the nukes that he took? Would he fly over the Atlantic and drop them? Oh, no, let me guess, the U.S. would take them all and keep them safe right? So all the other countries are gonna say "yeah, sure, please take these icky things and keep them in your country. We don't want them." So we have all the nukes and they have nothing. Yeah cause that'll work out well.

Here's a question: What would he do with them once they're confiscated?

Ahahaha!

Excellent points, Jessie.

And here I was just going to continue the fracus that Brian doesn't even get that he is one of the people that new tax codes would help.

The tax codes adjusting to ... "the wealthiest" ... do NOT include individuals like Brian, even tho he is enormously proud of his accomplishments in life. As well he should be.

The tax increases proposed by Obama affect those WAY, way, far away. Not the Brian's of the world, not me, not you, not the VAST majority of us.

The proposed new tax proposals WOULD affect the Warren Buffets of the world. And the Bill Gates - and the heads of major corporations and their immediate minions.

It would affect those who make MILLIONS. And yeah - most of their incomes are "recieved" vs "earned" - in the terms that we like to percieve as "earned" = some sort of labor.

Inq - how fast do you think that Gates and Buffet would move their holdings offshore to get away from a tax increase? Every company in America looks at it, and many do it every time the rates go up.

And as a little aside on taxes, in CT they wanted a "millionaire surtax" a few years back. Well, they figured out they weren't going to make enough off of it, so they kept adjusting it downward. By the time they got done, I was a millionaire at $30,050 per year, because my income taxes went up by one percentage point.

There's no such thing as a "tax on the wealthy" or a "tax on corporations". You raise Exxon's taxes, they raise their prices, consumers take it in the ass. You raise Bill's taxes, he raises his prices, consumers take it in the ass.

No, the ONLY acceptable answer is to discontinue ALL government spending not expressly stated in the Constitution.

Which means no more federally funded schools, no more medicare, no more social security.

Steve, you are talking explicitly about wealth redistribution. You are taking by force the fruits of one man's labor to give it to another man. And when tax rates go up, there's a lot less incentive to work the extra hours to accomplish great things. Why the hell should I work more when I'm going to lose 50 cents on the dollar?

Jessie - Obama's foreign policy is based upon the idea that once he's in office everyone will simply recognize his greatness and disarm unilaterally.

And we'll all ride unicorns.

Obama's worldview is that of the child - where everyone is nice, everyone is rational, and everyone can be reasoned with.

He just cannot fathom a nation like Iran where the government simply does not give a fuck about the well-being of its population.

Which is just one of many reasons that the man is simply not suited for the Big Chair. And that's how this conversation drifted off topic.

Brian - I will ride Obama's unicorn any day, given the alternative - same old McBush.

Wow - that sounds pretty sexual doesn't it? LOL.

Brian, please, just give it up. The Ivy League wins.

As a poor person (at least I used to be), I kinda hate to admit that. But that's just the way it is. Dear lord, man, give it up! And I'm saying that as an aethist!

People who work their asses off in order to get into Ivy League schools should get the credits for hard work that they have done.

You haven't dont that. Live with it.

You seem so full of your own ego that you don't even understand that the tax credits discussed by politians are WAY behond the likes of you.

And that is, ironically, why you are important - you are a peon, in the grand scheme of things. As many, the majority, of us are.

You just don't get it. Obama didn't get into Harvard because he worked his ass off. He got into Harvard because of affirmative action. Just like both Bushes and Kerry got into Yale on legacies.

Obama's never earned a fucking thing in his life. It's all been handed to him. And since Reagan, we've had nothing but Ivys in the White House. And what did that get us? Deficits, Enron, the Dot Bomb, blue dresses, 9/11, Black Hawk Down. What did the last non Ivy-league president give us? The fall of the Berlin Wall.

By that metric, Ivy League loses. Big. It's time for a change (snicker). No more Ivys in the Oval Office!

Oh, and my brother got into Yale by busting his ass. You'll note he's not running for President.

M-kay, Brian - you win.

Yep YOU WIN!!!

Yay, you!!!

So - tell us all, cuz we're enchanted with your couth. WHAT IS YOUR PLAN????

Fix it. NOW. Assbite.

Don't make me call you names I'll regret that when I'm sober.

President Brian: What is your plan for the war in Iraq?

Pesident Brian: What are you going to do about health care, and how are you going to pay for it?

President Brian: what were you thinking when you let that woman give you a blow-job? Was she an ileagle immigrent? How does ths affect your policy on immigrents?

President Brian, How is it that you repudiate the major forces of education in this country? Do you think that all Ivy League graduates are nothing less that "a bucket of warm piss"?

Please defend your remarks with the approved APB submission. Note: your hypothesis will need to be defended in front of a committee of your peers.

Try not to be afraid.

PS And as a final note, Asswipe - Yeah, I called you another name, (sorry Momof3, I know nane calling offends you)....

BLOW ME...

I'm NOT a "fella" that you thought you were talking down to. I'm a woman that just kicked your ass in logic. Ha! Deal with that.

Inq - your gender is completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

War in Iraq? Tell Iran and Syria to cut the shit of face the consequences. Complete the removal of foreign terrorists. Disband Mahdi army. Kill Moqtada al-Sadr.

Health care? Eliminate the employer tax credit for health insurance. Streamline or eliminate any laws that unnecessarily complicate insurance provision. And although I'm usually against welfare, have some form of federally subsidized care for those who are uninsurable for whatever reason. And make it actual insurance, and not a cost-spreading scheme. As it stands now, if I had insurance, I'd be paying premiums to subsidize OTHER people's lifestyles.

Immigrants? Simple. Deport anyone who is here illegally. Stiff penalties for companies that knowingly hire illegals (like asset forfeiture and imprisonment of principals). Enforce the border.

I repudiate the "major forces of education" when they turn out mush-heads like Obama. Those who actually, y'know, WORK for their education instead of having the whole thing handed to them with a little bow wrapped around it? They get my respect.

Why would I be afraid of you? You can't harm me. You can't defeat me. Hell, you can't even keep up.