Obama-Biden

[FFPCogs 863]

As stated NO party affiliation or lack thereof is an indication of ones patriotism. How patriotic someone is is up to them.

On the surface Republicans may seem more patriotic because they traditionally support a strong military, and the use of it when necessary.

Democrats generally seek to cut military spending in favor of social programs ect, and rely much more on diplomacy.

An argument can be made either way to show which is "more" patriotic, but both are to some degree.

Many people hold the belief that the Republicans are "in bed" with military contractors more so than Democrats. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The proof of that is in the profits of the big defense contractors. Amazingly they don't go down under Democratic leadership even with all the cuts. All the Washington fat cats have a piece of the defense pie, and profit either directly or indirectly from their position...at least the Republicans make no secret of it.

Obama's emasculation plan for the military will end up costing us far more than simply dollars if it should ever come to pass. I hope all those who plan to vote for him at least look carefully at what he proposes and the record of the Democrats in the last 1/4 century before pulling that lever. Yes there are many domestic problems, but they will pale in comparison to the costs of fighting a war caused by our potential weakness derived from his plans.

Cogs

[Jared1979 19]

McCain policies are somewhat indentical to George Bush policies. He needs to distance himself from those policies which have hurt us. The war in Iraq was a big mistake, I support our troops 100%, I dont want anyone on here to think of me as being unpatriotic. I am consertvative I am not in step with the liberal policies of the Democratic party, they support things which I will never support. If McCain wants my support he better start fighting for middle class families, they are the ones who need the tax breaks not the rich. Barack Obama will never get my vote because he is too liberal. Not all republicans are bad people we need to get our priorities in gear. We need fix America first before we start helping other countries.

[Guest]

i'd love to see a national healthcare system - those f*ckers are taking so much money from me. if i didn't pay for healthcare, i wouldn't really b*itch about a little extra tax here or there...well i would b*itch, but not as much!

You need to really think about what you're saying there. You're EMS? Do you want to:

1) Wait with a patient at the ER literally hours because there is no room for the patient? From the Ottawa Citizen, Aug. 18, 2008--"With the acute-care beds full, emergency rooms have nowhere to put people who need to be admitted to the hospital. As a result, when paramedics arrive, the emergency rooms are full and their patients can't be admitted. So ambulance crews have to wait with patients in their vehicles, often for hours during peak periods." Ottawa Citizen

2) Having waited to deposit the patient, would you like that patient to experience this: "Lying in one of Cwinn's beds is a retired man with a broken hip who has waited in the emergency room with extraordinary patience for two days for a surgeon, surgery time and a hospital bed. The first day he spent parked in an equipment closet. Now, he is gracious but concerned: 'I have had great care from the doctors and nurses but I am awfully sore.' Then a touch of anger breaks through: 'This is not the system I paid for.'" Toronto Star

3) Would you like to go to the doctor when you need to? Good Luck. Canada is suffering a severe shortage of physicians, especially surgeons. "In Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, health officials launched a “doctor lottery” last January, inviting 8,000 orphan patients to enter their name in a raffle—for only 1,500 vacancies. Outrage ensued, best summarized by a local woman who had been doctorless for six years: 'The luck of the draw,' she told media. 'Have we come to that point now? It’s just terrible.'" Macleans

4) Why is there a doctor shortage in Canada? One in 9 doctors who graduated medical school in Canada is now practicing medicine in the US. Canada severely limits the number of medical students, and hence, the number of physicians--all in the name of controlling costs. The average income of a neurosurgeon in Quebec is $131,489. Canadian Government Statistics Where is the incentive to go to medical school and practice medicine when you're limited in what you can accomplish?

5) Not a doctor and don't care how they do? How about Joe Six-Pack--The marginal tax rate in Canada for someone making $30,000/year is 80 percent. For some people making $14,000/year, the marginal tax rate EXCEEDS 100 percent--it is literally worth your while to be on welfare.

Now, don't get me started on the threat from Russia--I have been there and it is a horrible and dangerous place and nothing has changed since the fall of the USSR.

And, I live in Cook County Illinois and we know much more about Obama than the rest of the country. Be careful what you "hope" for...

(Stepping down from soapbox...)

[gamewell45 258]

You need to really think about what you're saying there. You're EMS? Do you want to:

1) Wait with a patient at the ER literally hours because there is no room for the patient? From the Ottawa Citizen, Aug. 18, 2008--"With the acute-care beds full, emergency rooms have nowhere to put people who need to be admitted to the hospital. As a result, when paramedics arrive, the emergency rooms are full and their patients can't be admitted. So ambulance crews have to wait with patients in their vehicles, often for hours during peak periods." Ottawa Citizen

2) Having waited to deposit the patient, would you like that patient to experience this: "Lying in one of Cwinn's beds is a retired man with a broken hip who has waited in the emergency room with extraordinary patience for two days for a surgeon, surgery time and a hospital bed. The first day he spent parked in an equipment closet. Now, he is gracious but concerned: 'I have had great care from the doctors and nurses but I am awfully sore.' Then a touch of anger breaks through: 'This is not the system I paid for.'" Toronto Star

3) Would you like to go to the doctor when you need to? Good Luck. Canada is suffering a severe shortage of physicians, especially surgeons. "In Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, health officials launched a "doctor lottery" last January, inviting 8,000 orphan patients to enter their name in a raffle—for only 1,500 vacancies. Outrage ensued, best summarized by a local woman who had been doctorless for six years: 'The luck of the draw,' she told media. 'Have we come to that point now? It's just terrible.'" Macleans

4) Why is there a doctor shortage in Canada? One in 9 doctors who graduated medical school in Canada is now practicing medicine in the US. Canada severely limits the number of medical students, and hence, the number of physicians--all in the name of controlling costs. The average income of a neurosurgeon in Quebec is $131,489. Canadian Government Statistics Where is the incentive to go to medical school and practice medicine when you're limited in what you can accomplish?

5) Not a doctor and don't care how they do? How about Joe Six-Pack--The marginal tax rate in Canada for someone making $30,000/year is 80 percent. For some people making $14,000/year, the marginal tax rate EXCEEDS 100 percent--it is literally worth your while to be on welfare.

Now, don't get me started on the threat from Russia--I have been there and it is a horrible and dangerous place and nothing has changed since the fall of the USSR.

And, I live in Cook County Illinois and we know much more about Obama than the rest of the country. Be careful what you "hope" for...

(Stepping down from soapbox...)

I'll bet that the average American who can't afford medical benefits whatsoever would gladly accept the Canadian system. For them, somethings better then nothing.

As with any system, whether its in Canada or USA there are flaws in the system; the goal is to work to fix the flaws so everything runs better

Edited September 7, 2008 by gamewell45

[RWC130 594]

NObama

[Guest]

I'll bet that the average American who can't afford medical benefits whatsoever would gladly accept the Canadian system. For them, somethings better then nothing.

No one who goes to the emergency room in this country has to wait two days for a surgeon to attend to a broken hip. The problem in Canada is that very often there is no "something"--only nothing. The Macleans article describes how doctors in Canada are retiring earlier than they used to--and the patients cannot find a new doctor. You can't just tweak your way to nationalized health care.

Nationalized health care is not "free"--it is paid for by steep taxes.

[FFPCogs 863]

In all honesty I am in favor of the IDEA of socialized medicine. I would have abosloutely no problem paying higher taxes to guarantee the best health care for my family, or for that matter socialized education as well. My sister in law is from Sweden where taxes are extremely high by our standards, but for all that taxation Sweden's citizens are covered literally from cradle to grave. All their needs are covered regardless of income, profession ect. Sweden is also viewd by many as a modern, model system, and in alot of ways it is. But this is due to the attitude of the average Swede. They have chosen a socialist system, which works well for them.

America is by tradition and choice a capitalst system whereby everything is done for profit. Until such time as a viable system of socialized medicine can be enacted, I prefer to keep things as they are. When the Government can ensure that the same level of care and choice will be provided to all, care that only the best insured get now, then I will jump on the universal healthcare bandwagon. The current Democratic plans for universal health care leave alot to be desired as far as I am concerned, because they are rooted in, and will be driven by the capitalist philosophy of profit. Socialized medicine (or universal healthcare) only works when all are commited to it and are willing to make the sacrifices necessary for impartial coverage..and at present we Americans are not there yet.

For all my right-wing beliefs I would like to see many changes to our system, which some might consider communist or fascist. Maybe I'll start another post outlining them for some good old fashioned debate. Stay tuned......

Cogs

Edited September 7, 2008 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Here I am this morning reading my usual newspapers and watching the usual news networks, when the latests from Pakistan comes on. For those unaware an airstrike in a small village near Afgahnaistan has kiilled 13 including children. This on the heels of an airstrike in Kandahar Afgahnaistan which killed many more "civilians" and has led to an increase in anti-American/Western sentiment.

So what's the point? Well due to our downsized military, airstrkes offer the only practical and relatively safe option to eliminate threats. It is true that our ability to limit "collateral" damage is better now than ever before. And yes this option puts our servicemen at less risk overall, but the potential negative reactions to this airborne "overkill" are and have been tremendous. I for once find myself in agreement with the critics who call for a revision of this policy, but not for the same liberal, pacifist, anti Republican reasons.

Mr. Obama's plans to further hamper our military's ability to put troops in action as safely as possible will only lead to an increase in these types of "accidents" in the future. His calls for the reduction or elimination of the funding for Future Combat Systems will lead directly to the death of more "civilans" and children, not to mention most importantly, more U.S. service members. FCS programs are the ones that develop the precision munitions and weapons that allow our shrunken military to effectively do their job, reduce "collateral" damage, and complete the necessary missions as safely as possible. FCS programs are also actively developing new technologies for the average grunt on the ground. Technologies that will allow them to go in, destroy an enemy up close and relatively safely on the ground, and reduce the potential for civilian casualties when necessary. FCS will help to some degree to decrease potential future enemies...people who develope anti- American sentiment after their families have been mistakenly killed by our bombs.

I am not a warmonger, nor do I take the deaths of American soldiers, sailors and airmen lightly. I do not want to see them thrown into battle needlessly. I am though definitely a "hawk" when it comes to matters of national defense/security based on what history has taught us, my previous service to my country, and my recent experiences in these warzones serving our troops. Mr. Obama's plans are dangerous to our national security, but more importantly to the men and women in uniform now and in the future. Our military has suffered enough from having their hands tied, and necessary weapons systems dropped.

Remember too that we ARE at war, no matter how much we may not want to be. Our enemies declared war on us, our enemies attacked and killed us at home and abroad, our enemies are bent on our destruction at all costs. We can run, but we can no longer hide. Our enemies do not play by our rules and are just waiting for us to walk away. We can cut our military, tie their hands, and take away systems designed to help them win all we want, but in the end it is WE who will pay the price in blood. Instead of looking for ways out, we should be doing and giving all we can to help our forces WIN.

Cogs

[gamewell45 258]

No one who goes to the emergency room in this country has to wait two days for a surgeon to attend to a broken hip. The problem in Canada is that very often there is no "something"--only nothing. The Macleans article describes how doctors in Canada are retiring earlier than they used to--and the patients cannot find a new doctor. You can't just tweak your way to nationalized health care.

Nationalized health care is not "free"--it is paid for by steep taxes.

Everyone in Canada is guaranteed medical coverage; obviously as you cited there are isolated cases of in an emergency, one may have to wait for some type of non-threatening treatment; just like there are problems in the American healthcare system such as the recent case in Brooklyn, New York where a woman lay dead on the floor for hours before anyone came to check on her. While in an emergency situtation in our country, no one is turned away, preventative healthcare is likewise important, so if any medical issues are present they can be dealt with before they excerbate to a critical stage. Unfortunatley, those who have no insurance, are left to fend for themselves until they have a life threatening situation and are forced to the emergency room. Either way your going to pay; better to nip it in the bud and keep people as healthy as can be reasonably expected and keep costs down.

We've already got socialized medicine in this country; in the form of medicare and medicade. Supported by tax dollars, so this is nothing new for the American people.

I don't know anything about the publisher of the article you describe, But last year I attended a convention in Toronto and Socialized medicine was the topic of discussion and everyone there heard from many people who are Canadian citizens there dealings with socialized medicine and felt it was much better then the American medical system; sure they said there are problems with it, but they continue to work to improve it each year.

[ny10570 745]

I am firmly against socialized healthcare. I have housed friends from Canada seeking threatment from the best and I am currently watching my friend take his mother from England to Sri Lanka for cancer treatment. The Canadian didn't want to wait to have the next doc in line fix his knee. He was willing to pay to have the best doc available do. My English firend's mother was diagnosed with cancer that the govt has deemed too far advanced to be worth treating. Its not untreatable, just not worth treating. In England if you pay for any treatments not approved for out of pocket the figure you have enough to pay for everything and you lose your coverage. Since they have family in Sri Lanka she is now living there to get the same standard chemo and sub standard radiation therapy as compared to this country. Our system works for our capitalist society except for one glaring gap in coverage. Those with too much money to qualify for medicaid and not enough to afford private insurance. Massachusetts is currently running a system that addresses this problem and it will either break the state or show a way to fix this problem. One estimate believes the waste and fraud of the NY medicaid system could fund the expanded coverage to make healthcare available to all.

Right now healthcare is available to anyone through American emergency rooms at zero cost even if you don't qualify for medicaid or medicare. You just have to be willing to sacrifice any hope of ever having credit. The people faced with this choice are the ones who need help right now.

Since we're addressing military spending, healthcare, even energy policies in this thread, can someone explain to my why a flat tax rate doesn't work? I understand the richest of the rich take a bath with a flat tax, but I don't see how at 37k a year I should be paying a 26% tax burden.

[FFPCogs 863]

Here's more good news about the state of affairs in the world..and Obama thinks military cutbacks are the answer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_on_...enezuela_russia

Cogs

[ny10570 745]

Can we just accidentally fire a few cruise missiles their way. Just some concrete warheads and splash 'em down alongside the Russian ships. A friendly hello.

[Stepjam 118]

i still have faith in the country, but i don't think either loser running for pres is good enough but generically i'm for ANY candidate that ISN'T for big business. i know there are more issues than just big business, but if the right things are done to properly control big businesses a beneficial trickle down effect will take place.

What you're talking about is Socialism, plain and simple.

I believe in a Government of the people for the people and by the people. Somebody elected Bush, and Clinton, and Reagan, and Carter........and it was not Big Business. Would you agree that Hollywood, and the vapid morons who represent it, can be considered as Big Business? Millions of Americans hang on every utterance from seasoned political pundits like Alec Baldwin, George Clooney, and (gasp) Britney Spears. Need I say more? They are collectively Big Business, and they know a shitload less about real issues than the CEO's at most Fortune 500 companies. That's just a fact, and it's pretty frigging sad. We might not like greedy or seemingly incompetent buggers like Dennis Koslowski or Bob Lutz, but it's people like them, and Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who are the innovators and investors who make our economy move, because they make a PROFIT. People like Obaba will just send good money after bad.

Just as an afterthought, most Americans earn our livings and take care of our families from the salaries and benefits that Big Business provides to us. Those of us in Civil Service also indirectly draw a living from the taxes that Big Business pays. Most of us also pay taxes from those salaries that would go to pay the bill for "The Entitled And Underpriveleged" under an all-inclusive Socialist regime. Who is going to pay those taxes in a Welfare State, or when our cities revert to clusters of impoverished housing projects? Would anyone disagree with the notion that investment from Big Business in those impovershed areas might do a lot more good than opening another Welfare office? Of course, we would have to have a Big Business friendly Government for that to happen. What kind of "change" is Obama talking about? I don't see a need for any of MY lifetstyle to change, so leave me an mine the hell alone. Does he mean take away from the "haves" to give to the "have-nots?" I give plenty already, voluntarily and through my 35%+ in taxes, thank you very much.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Stepjam

[gamewell45 258]

What you're talking about is Socialism, plain and simple.

I believe in a Government of the people for the people and by the people. Somebody elected Bush, and Clinton, and Reagan, and Carter........and it was not Big Business. Would you agree that Hollywood, and the vapid morons who represent it, can be considered as Big Business? Millions of Americans hang on every utterance from seasoned political pundits like Alec Baldwin, George Clooney, and (gasp) Britney Spears. Need I say more? They are collectively Big Business, and they know a shitload less about real issues than the CEO's at most Fortune 500 companies. That's just a fact, and it's pretty frigging sad. We might not like greedy or seemingly incompetent buggers like Dennis Koslowski or Bob Lutz, but it's people like them, and Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who are the innovators and investors who make our economy move, because they make a PROFIT. People like Obaba will just send good money after bad.

Just as an afterthought, most Americans earn our livings and take care of our families from the salaries and benefits that Big Business provides to us. Those of us in Civil Service also indirectly draw a living from the taxes that Big Business pays. Most of us also pay taxes from those salaries that would go to pay the bill for "The Entitled And Underpriveleged" under an all-inclusive Socialist regime. Who is going to pay those taxes in a Welfare State, or when our cities revert to clusters of impoverished housing projects? Would anyone disagree with the notion that investment from Big Business in those impovershed areas might do a lot more good than opening another Welfare office? Of course, we would have to have a Big Business friendly Government for that to happen. What kind of "change" is Obama talking about? I don't see a need for any of MY lifetstyle to change, so leave me an mine the hell alone. Does he mean take away from the "haves" to give to the "have-nots?" I give plenty already, voluntarily and through my 35%+ in taxes, thank you very much.

Say what you will about Obama, and i'm not saying i support him, but those of you who are union members and that includes the public sector (Fire,Police & EMS) should know that McCain has publicly stated that unions are no longer needed and have outlived there usefullness. And with the economy in the toilet, taxpayers are already crying the blues, look for laws to be crafted prohitibing collective bargaining in the public sector.

Here's what I have found out regarding John McCain; he's blocked the "Employee free choice act"; he voted against voting rights for federal employees; he supported a national law to make it harder to gain a voice on the job and opposes the "fair pay act". He furthermore has stated that government union contracts have "crippled" government workers. Additionally McCain voted to deny firefigthers and police the right to discuss workplace issues with there employer in 2001 and skipped a vote on the issue in 2008. (H.R. 3061, vote 323, 11/6/01; S. 2123, , 10/1/07; H.R. 980, Vote 126, 5/13/08).

He has a 17% lifetime AFL-CIO Rating. This is according to the AFL-CIO McCain Congressional Scorecard.

Not too impressive.

O'Bama on the other hand; co-sponsored the "employee free choice act" and has pledged that he'll sign it into law; he voted to for the right of public employees to collectively bargain; voted in favor of the "fair Pay Act"; he is a known supporter of union workers and striking workers.

He has a 98 % lifetime AFL-CIO rating and this is according to the AFL-CIO Obama Congressional Scorecard.

It Speaks for itself.

Those of you who are public sector employees and those in the private sector might want to look at the overall picture when you make your decision; its your livelihood at stake. Obviously i realize for some of you, there are more important issues that will determine your vote; but it never hurts to know how your candidate of choice stands regarding working people and there ability to form unions and collectively bargain. Just imagine a non-union world where the state or city can cut your pay back 20% or change or even eliminate your benefits without your voice? Or layoff whom they want irreguardless of how much "seniority" you have. Food for thought.

[FFPCogs 863]

Gamewell,

It's obvious that you've do your homework regarding the candidates, and you put forward some very important FACTS. Thank you.

That John McCain thinks that unions have outlived their usefulness is unfortunate, and I totally disagree with that thinking. But (oh yes the inevitable but) there is some truth to other negative points about unions. PART of the reason Americans have in general such a high cost of living is that the demands of unions must be met. Unions are also a factor in American jobs being shipped overseas. In true American capitalist fashion "Big Business" is thinking of their profit margins. It is easy to point the finger at these "Big Businesses" as the villian, but they are only doing what their shareholders want..getting everything they can for their own. (BTW NAFTA was passed by a Democrat controlled Congrees and signed into law by a Democratic President). In essence Unions do the very same thing under the guise of workers rights and fair pay. There is nothing wrong with either one..it is the American way. Unions have their place, and are still a necessity for those workers who are members of them, just as there is a need for anti-union thinking. Why you ask? Because of that other uniquely American institution..the system of checks and balances. Each is necessary to keep the other in check. Big business would force us all to work for next to nothing, and for every union want to be met would put us all in the poorhouse.

Yes labor issues and workers rights are important, no argument there. In truth though no matter who wins in November neither will significanly change the way business is done. John McCain can not do away with unions, any more than Barak Obama can guarantee better working conditions and pay for the average American worker. Those decisions and laws relating to them are made by Congress not unilaterally by any President.

For me this election comes down to who I believe is the "better" man for the job and who will better serve the country overall. While I don't agree with every position taken by the Republicans..far from it, in regards to honesty, integrity and experience McCain the man towers far above Obama.

Thanks again for your well educated and well presented posts.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

This morning my wife had on that blabfest show where the women sit around the table yakking it up. They were talking politics, and the one Joy said something I found to be important..although I don't think it was her intention to make this point.

She said GWB and by extension the Republicans have done nothing for her in the last eight years except "keep her safe", as if that were a bad thing. I mean c'mon, keeping us safe IS and damn well better be a priority. All the other issues, problems and rhetoric don't matter if we're not safe when you come right down to it, now do they? If people think the ecomomy sucks now, how bad do they think it will get if or God forbid when we're hit again. I really hope voters take into account the razor's edge on which we now live and the potential disasters that can stem from mismanagement of Foriegn policy and National Defense/Security. Remember that, (as screwed up as it may be), Homeland Security and the military under Republican leadership and support have been and are what has kept this Country and it's citizens safe since 9/11.

While I'm at it,

I've been reading and hearing on the news alot lately about American covert actions against terrorists. I find this reporting to be harmful, dangerous (probably politcally motivated) and a detriment to our overall safety. I mean I'm all for freedom of the press, but reporting on actions meant to be secret (even without specific details), during a time of war puts those operatives and their missions in jeapordy by acknowledging their existence. Yes Americans have a right to know what's going on and where the money's being spent, but that's why these agencies have Congressional and DOD oversight. Americans don't have to and shoudn't know about any COVERT actions while they are being engaged in..that defeats the COVERT aspect of them. As for those who argue that we shoudn't be going into Pakistan, or hunting down these terror leaders like the dogs they are, I say WAKE UP !!! These are the actions necessary to keep us safe at home, protect our service men and women at war overseas, and are the steps that have prevented another attack.

As originally pointed out in this thread, Obama's plans WILL weaken the U.S. and put Americans citizens at risk plain and simple.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

You know what's funny?

The Democrats..the party of the "People" have raised more money than ANY other party or campaign in history to get Obama to the White House. And where do you think that money comes from? Those very same corporate giants and wealthy Americans they say their going to go after and make pay to relieve the middle class....yeah right! (BTW Obama is going to attend a fundraiser tonite in Hollywood that is estimated will raise 9 million dollars for his campaign. Guess what...other than the workers, there won't be ONE middle class person there).

Another interesting point...try as they might the Democrats have tried to pin our couintry's economic ills on the Republicans alone. "Our economy is in trouble and the middle class is suffering and it's all GWBs fault" they say. The truth is the law MAKING body...the part of government that can directly impact those ills..has been under Democrat control for most of GWs tenure. "We have the largest deficit ever" say the Dems..they neglect to mention that as the MAJORITY in Congress they control that spending.

Say what you want but at least the Republicans make no secret of their bias towards the wealthy. Like it or not..if the rich don't spend ..we don't work, that's capitalism.

Cogs

[ny10570 745]

For the majority of Bush's tenure the Republicans have had control of the Senate. In 2007 thanks to Joe Lieberman becoming an Independent Democrat the Democrats took over the Senate. 2001 to 2007 were Republican controlled except for a 12 to 14 month period beginning in June '01 when Republican Jim Jeffords of Vermont became an independent. As for the House of Representatives, it was Republican led from 1995 till 2007. That is one unique feature of Bush's tenure, he went the majority of his 8 years with his party in control of both the House and Senate.