Paul Ryan

[Rich]

You spout that the unemployment rate is lower. Actually it is exactly the same as when Obama took office. It was 7.8% then and it is 7.8% now.

True, from the moment he took office, the actual number is the same. What you fail to see is the trajectory. It was rising rapidly during the final months of the Bush administration and continued to rise rapidly during the first ten months of the Obama administration. Contrary to republican mythology, it does actually take a little time to implement policies and experience their effects. That is one reason economists refer to Unemployment as a lagging indicator. The facts show that the Unemployment began to fall after Obama's policies, such as the stimulus, had time to take effect, and they have been falling ever since. Since they are at 7.8% now, and still falling, it is a foregone conclusion that they will be lower by the end of his first term than they were when he took office. Would we like to have seen more improvement? Sure. But given the cliff we fell off of right before he took office and the trajectory that took unemployment over 10%, combined with republican intransigence in the house and their refusal to pass any kind of jobs bill (HELLO?), we are lucky to be where we are. Yes, I am saying Obama has brought down high unemployment created by Bush's policies, despite efforts by republican Congressmen to keep it high. It is sickening that they would intentionally sabotage our country simply to try to win an election.

Also, he has raised taxes on the middle class. It is called Obamacare. Do you research and then come back.

Obama has not raised taxes on the middle class. Do some research somewhere besides Fox News and then come back. Perhaps Forbes. Or the Washington Post:

"The health law, if it works as the nonpartisan government analysts expect, will provide more tax relief than tax burden for middle-income Americans."

 

[timm]

Could someone please define the middle class? That term is thrown around a lot... and it seems like everyone is thrown into it... Then when someone says 'I'm gonna raise taxes on the rich' - then everyone says 'Oh good - not me!!' ... I guess if the idea that anyone that makes under 250K is middle class - I am suspicious. The gov needs revenue so they can spend our money -- Is there data out there that supports who taxes will be raised on - and how much revenue that will generate?....

Secondly, what is the purpose for this increased tax revenue? Is it to pay down the existing debt.... is it to pay for Health Care....is it to pay for new programs?

Personally, I think these are the important questions.

If anyone can shed some light... I'd like to hear.... Thanks ----tim.

 

[Rich]

Great question, Timm. Middle class is defined not just by income levels, but by other social factors as well. But purely looking at income, you are talking roughly those making between $30,000 and $100,000 per year. Funny thing is Romney stated that "middle income" includes those making up to $250,000 a year, despite the fact that those making over $200,000 a year account for less than 4% of the US population!

I think the purpose for increased tax revenue is "supposed" to be to help pay down the deficit, which has ballooned out of control with the Bush tax cuts, lower revenues to due the economic collapse, and the costs of two unfunded wars. Whether it will actually be spent on that is anybody's guess. Remember, prior to the Bush tax cuts, which were aimed primarily at the wealthy, we had a balanced yearly budget and were in a position to pay down the deficit. The disastrous policies under Bush of cutting taxes, engaging in multiple wars, and trashing the economy has led us to the place we are at. It will take a long time to make back the revenues and cut spending enough to be in a position to pay down the deficit again.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Amen to that, Rich.

 

[Gordon Gray]

timm,

Point of clarification regarding our universal health care bill and future costs thereof.

The law requires that all States set up their own "health exchange program" to provide insurance to those who currently don't have health insurance. If States decline to set up the exchange, the Federal government will do so on their behalf. Those who choose to not become insured will have to pay a fine.

The concept is to create a large "pool" of folks that will ultimately lower overall health insurance costs due to the companies who provide the pool insurance policy, to offset large losses that are currently being born by the American public (and insurance companies) for those who don't have insurance (and don't pay for the services) but still need medical care.

GG

PS: For whatever reason, the Republicans fail to mention this part of the Health Care Act when they talk about Obamacare. And yes, the long term savings have been confirmed by an independant / non partisan government agency. I believe it's called the Office of Budget and Management.

 

[Rich]

And promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, and promised to lower unemployment to 5.4%, and promised not to raise the cost of health care, etc, etc. All those promises he did not keep. Keep drinking the Kool-aid.

By the way, I just wanted to point out that every one of your claims has been proven false by the independant fact checking organization Politifact:

Obama promised not to raise taxes on the middle class (implying the health care law is a tax on the middle class): False Source

Obama promised to lower the unemployment rate to 5.4%: False Source

Obama promised not to raise the cost of health care (implying that he did raise the cost of health care): False Source

I thought you said you did your research? Perhaps you should try researching FACTS, instead of simply swallowing the right-wing rhetoric.

 

[runnin17]

Perhaps you should also do your research instead of looking at only one source. No worries though. I understand where liberals stand. You will continue to spout nonsense, blame others for your troubles and be a perineal sheep. The only wake up call liberals will realize is when the USA is in the same state as Greece.

The socialist rhetoric of the current administration is just sickening. How most of these posters are blind to that is again utterly sad.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Perhaps you should also do your research instead of looking at only one source. No worries though. I understand where liberals stand. You will continue to spout nonsense, blame others for your troubles and be a perineal sheep. The only wake up call liberals will realize is when the USA is in the same state as Greece.

The socialist rhetoric of the current administration is just sickening. How most of these posters are blind to that is again utterly sad.

More insults? Please, take your ignorance elsewhere.

 

[timm]

Hey thanks for the responses guys. I understand the concept behind the healthcare bill. Here are some other thoughts. More people w coverage - the same or fewer doctors. I think this logically leads to longer wait times for care. I know wait time is often brought up - but if u do the math and take out the emotion I think it makes sense. How could u not have longer waits if the number of patients increases?

My thoughts on health care are this. There is so much waste in overhead and forms....why couldn't the gov get involved there? Mandate standard forms - invest in medical databases so doctors could have access to anyone's records. While most places go electronic , health care lags. I am just saying that there are huge opportunities to decrease cost with technology and creating standardizations. Since u would be trimming the fat so to speak it would give doctors more time to focus on patient care.

 

[Rich]

Hey thanks for the responses guys. I understand the concept behind the healthcare bill. Here are some other thoughts. More people w coverage - the same or fewer doctors. I think this logically leads to longer wait times for care. I know wait time is often brought up - but if u do the math and take out the emotion I think it makes sense. How could u not have longer waits if the number of patients increases?

The first answer to this question is that if there is a need, then more people will likely go into the profession to fill it. Supply and demand results in the optimum number of doctors per patient. So, in the short term, you may be right. There may be longer wait times, particularly in urban settings. But I do think the problem will correct itself over time. You should also consider this. Many indigents that don't have regular doctors go to the emergency room any time they need care. The doctors there have to provide care, even though they know they won't get paid for it. This results in long wait times currently in emergency rooms. Under the new plan, these people will have general practitioners that they can see and they won't feel they have to go the emergency room every time their kid has a high fever. This will result in much shorter wait times for true emergencies, and the doctors will actually get reimbursed for the care they give. Win-win.

My thoughts on health care are this. There is so much waste in overhead and forms....why couldn't the gov get involved there? Mandate standard forms - invest in medical databases so doctors could have access to anyone's records. While most places go electronic , health care lags. I am just saying that there are huge opportunities to decrease cost with technology and creating standardizations. Since u would be trimming the fat so to speak it would give doctors more time to focus on patient care.

This is a good point, but I think these sorts of things are already being implemented in the private sector. It just takes time, as with all things of such a complicated nature. I am not convinced that government could do it any more efficiently than the private sector can.

 

[Rich]

Perhaps you should also do your research instead of looking at only one source. No worries though. I understand where liberals stand. You will continue to spout nonsense, blame others for your troubles and be a perineal sheep. The only wake up call liberals will realize is when the USA is in the same state as Greece.

The socialist rhetoric of the current administration is just sickening. How most of these posters are blind to that is again utterly sad.

I do my research and I have multiple sources to back up my statements. I just don't bother to take the time to post all of them, since you don't even seem interested in reading and commenting on the ones that I do post. Which, by the way, are from a nonpartisan fact-checking group. They call Obama on his misstatements too. Contrast this with yourself, who never provides a citation to back up your "facts" and who, instead of providing a rational rebuttal, just prefers to spout off insults. Providing an independent source to back up your statements is not "spouting nonsense"; it is just the opposite. It is providing factual support for your position, which lends credibility to your statements. You seem incapable of doing that. Which doesn't surprise me, as most of your comments are indefensible.

I am not sure what "socialist rhetoric" you are referring to. Perhaps you could provide a source to back up that statement. That is if you can find one other than Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Gordon Gray]

So runnin,

Let me make sure I understand.

Because I prefer my candidate over yours, I am blind, a sheep, support nonsense, blame others for my problems, am a socialist, and a retard AKA libtard.

Did I get it right?

GG

 

[Len44]

Hey thanks for the responses guys. I understand the concept behind the healthcare bill. Here are some other thoughts. More people w coverage - the same or fewer doctors. I think this logically leads to longer wait times for care. I know wait time is often brought up - but if u do the math and take out the emotion I think it makes sense. How could u not have longer waits if the number of patients increases?

In addition to the comments Rich provided, I would emphasize that quite a few folks are currently taking advantage of emergency rooms to obtain free care (since they can't be turned away), often for somewhat trivial concerns. i recently had the unfortunate of needing emergency care in rural Virginia -- received excellent care, BTW. However, my wife and I were appalled by the number of folks seeking ER treatment for: "my finger hurts," "I think I'm getting a headache," "My back hurts." Our favorite comment was from one of the folks seeking treatment, who went up to the desk to advise, "In case you call me, I'll be out in the parking lot having a cigarette." Fortunately, the staff seemed all too familiar with these situations, so (surprise), I went right to the head of the line and received immediate treatment.

All this to say, folks are getting treatment one way or the other, only with the Affordable Care Act the system may become at least slightly more efficient.

And fortunately, for Mitt Romney, who can't seem to remember what position he has taken from one day to the next (officially diagnosed as "Romnesia), preexisting conditions are covered...:ROFL:

My thoughts on health care are this. There is so much waste in overhead and forms....why couldn't the gov get involved there? Mandate standard forms - invest in medical databases so doctors could have access to anyone's records. While most places go electronic , health care lags. I am just saying that there are huge opportunities to decrease cost with technology and creating standardizations. Since u would be trimming the fat so to speak it would give doctors more time to focus on patient care.

Good points here. My favorite: eliminate (make illegal) health insurance companies, which contribute absolutely nothing to one's health. Instead, all they do is suck $$$$$$$$ out of the health care system. BTW, if those hidebound obstructionist republicans hadn't blocked it, we could have had a single payer system, which would have been even more efficient and saved millions of dollars.

 

[Gordon Gray]

So we are four days away. Predictions anyone?

Here's mine.

Status quo.

BO wins the the presidency. Dems hold on to the Senate. Reps hold the House.

GG

 

[Rich]

So we are four days away. Predictions anyone?

Here's mine.

Status quo.

BO wins the the presidency. Dems hold on to the Senate. Reps hold the House.

GG

Ditto.

10char

 

[jmschnur]

I go with 538 and its predictions. However all this is dependent on believing Gallup's method of weighting repsonses was/is wrong.




J

 

[Gordon Gray]

J.

538?

Gg

 

[jmschnur]

Google 538. It is a blog written by Nate Silver . He has done rigorous analysis of the election. In 2008 he was correct on 49 states.

He also has a very good record on baseball predictions.

Currently he has an over 80% chance of an Obama win and over 90% chance a dem senate.


He has a nice column on how what he calls statistical bias in the majority of polls might invalidate his predictions. While quite possible , he hoes not consider this is likely due to a comprehensive historical analysis.


Lots of statistics and geo spatial informatics go into his calculations, not just an average of polls.


J

 

[Rich]

"Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a man devoid of any principles other than getting himself elected. As much as the American public does not like Barack Obama, they loath a man so fueled with ambition that he will say or do anything to get himself elected. Mitt Romney is that man.

I’ve been reading the 200 pages of single spaced opposition research from the John McCain campaign on Mitt Romney. There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled. The man has no core beliefs other than in himself. "

What more is there to say? Oh, and by the way, that was written by a staunch conservative: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/...inee-conservatism-dies-and-barack-obama-wins/

 

[timm]

So - the day is here.... I'm getting ready for a late night... Go out and vote!!

I see that Hurricane Sandy gave Obama a 'bump'..... Just wonder if his voters in the east will be able to make it to the polls!! And you all (or as Joe Biden says y'all) thought Florida was bad?

I just wish I could find a candidate that I really believed in...

I believe in an open market... I believe in low taxes.... I believe in letting business create jobs - not government.... I believe health care is better suited for the private sector- yet they have not shown that they can handle it efficiently...I believe the government has shown that it handles things of this nature - even worse.... I believe people should have choices when it comes to abortion - it is a personal choice that I can agree or disagree with - but none the less - a personal choice that I don't think the government should be involved in... I believe the government should spend based on the money they receive - not to raise taxes to meet the spending.....I believe that if someone is successful - he shouldn't be punished for it....I believe I am better off today than I was 4 years ago....in fact I am sure of it.

I believe in a lot - and yet no candidate I am about to vote for believes in all of these things.

Good luck guys..... tim