Obama's Plan for America? Really!

[jreeves]

IMO, when jobs are leaving the country for any reason (ie. cost of business abroad, strong dollar, name it) do you blame administration that caused it or one that happen to be in the office? Try to imagine what our economy and (un)employment would look like today if dollar is as strong as it was 5 years ago.

Imagine if 9/11 hadn't happened, 9/11 had huge effects on the economy. Both in the public sector and the private sector...

 

[Chris]

Imagine if 9/11 hadn't happened, 9/11 had huge effects on the economy. Both in the public sector and the private sector...

Imagine if George Bush had never happened.

Our economy would be $700 billion dollars richer, and we would be well on our way to universal healthcare and clean energy. No torture, no spying, no loss of America's leadership position in the world, no embarassing incidents like massaging the German chancellor, or "Children's do learn," or "My Pet Goat," or "Goodbye from the world's greatest polluter," or "Bring it on".....

 

[Chris]

plz try to be civil, i have never attacked anyone on this board.
i'm not a Rep. i vote for the people i like. i think my question is vaild
should we not take into account the number of people we have in this country?


@navy- thanks for the info

We are the richest nation in the world. We already have universal healthcare, but a terrible version of it. We will treat everyone, if they go to the emergency room. So rather than preventative medicine which is more cost effective, we wait until people have chronic illnesses and treat them in the most expensive place of all, the emergency room. So why not install a more cost effective and humane version of universal healthcare, the single payer system. Doctors still own their own practices. Patients still chose their own doctors and have a small co-pay to prevent abuse. It is a much better system, that is why every other Western democracy uses it.

 

[jreeves]

Imagine if George Bush had never happened.

Our economy would be $700 billion dollars richer, and we would be well on our way to universal healthcare and clean energy. No torture, no spying, no loss of America's leadership position in the world, no embarassing incidents like massaging the German chancellor, or "Children's do learn," or "My Pet Goat," or "Goodbye from the world's greatest polluter," or "Bring it on".....

I could do this with all of your posts in entirety, but I no longer find the need to. I will only point out the first of your lies, there is no way our country would be completely energy independent of other nations, regardless of who was voted in. Afterall if that was true, why didn't any democratic adminstrations the previous 100 years make us completely energy independent.

Spam as usual

 

[Chris]

I could do this with all of your posts in entirety, but I no longer find the need to. I will only point out the first of your lies, there is no way our country would be completely energy independent of other nations, regardless of who was voted in. Afterall if that was true, why didn't any democratic adminstrations the previous 100 years make us completely energy independent.

Spam as usual

But remember Al Gore would have been president, not Bush. Al Gore would have pushed us toward clean energy.

 

[jreeves]

I could do this with all of your posts in entirety, but I no longer find the need to. I will only point out the first of your lies, there is no way our country would be completely energy independent of other nations, regardless of who was voted in. Afterall if that was true, why didn't any democratic adminstrations the previous 100 years make us completely energy independent.

Spam as usual

He posts spam then neg reps me when I point it out. It seems like the spambot is fighting back....

 

[Navy1960]

In a free market society, as you proclaim, shouldn't a huge successful corporation give back something to the community it employs? If you are the largest employer in a small community, don't you have an obligation to give back? As for GM, it was mismanagement at the top levels, throughout the years that caused GM's downfall. They should have been on the research and development of alternative fuel cars since the late 70's. It was not the union that caused GM's demise. Businesses like to blame unions for all of their wasteful spending and bad management decisions. If GM would have been ahead of the curve, with innovation, they might still be competitive in the market. And as for corporations, a lot of major corporations pay no taxes. Again I will repeat it, most corporations pay little or no taxes!!! It all comes down to the CEO's and board, giving their execs huge pay raises, taking several exotic vacations, and driving Bently's, while the company suffers. Talk about ass backwards way of management! You seem to have read the corporate raiders bible, at least I think you did? And why do you assume I support Obama or Clinton? Not much has changed between Clinton, and Bush II. Except Clinton signed the throw Sadam out legislation. And Bush went through with the Coup.

I will try and breakdown your concerns, I am in complete agreement that companies have an obligation to be good corporate citizens and in many many
cases they are. For example, take General Mills donating 2.5 million dollars to help a local neighborhood rebuild itself. Or Fed-X flying organs for transplantation, or the literally thouands of companies that gave materials and donated time in the Katrina rebuilding effort? Another example, would be this, many drug companies, provide their drugs free of charge to people who cannot afford them through company sposored programs. I will cite you an example, the maker of Zonegran a very expensive anti-epilepsy drug is provided free of charge by the company elan' of one cannot afford it.

BW Online | December 1, 2003 | The Corporate Donors

As for the GM thing, I would NOT place the blame for their issues totally on the shoulders of the unions, however, I would say that union is one of many factors that has caused GM's current issues as well as Ford's and Chryslers.

On the tax thing, you may be interested to know that that pretty much ALL the taxes in this country are paid by people making over 50,000.00 dollars a year. 39% of those taxes are paid by people that make more than 300,000 dollars a year. 70% of the taxes are paid by people making more than a 100,000.00 a year. 42% of US corporations paid taxes. The others deductions included donations, et al. so they did not pay taxes. Starting to get the picture, corporations and people that are "rich" by democrat standards do most of the tax paying, and donating in this country so to label them as somehow irresponsible or criminal is simply not true.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Don't think I made that assumption, if I did please forgive me, your name indicates your a "green party" person. I would appreciate it if you would not assume when it comes to me as well, I just think that , in order to be strong in this country we have to get real here. and stop trying to spoon feed people recycled "feed the masses transfer of wealth junk". In order to keep jobs here provide the companies the incentives to do business here, less regulation, not more, less corporate taxes, not more, and less taxes on the people who actually employ people here. In other words make it easy for people to do business here , not punish them for doing so.

 

[greenpartyaz]

I will try and breakdown your concerns, I am in complete agreement that companies have an obligation to be good corporate citizens and in many many
cases they are. For example, take General Mills donating 2.5 million dollars to help a local neighborhood rebuild itself. Or Fed-X flying organs for transplantation, or the literally thouands of companies that gave materials and donated time in the Katrina rebuilding effort? Another example, would be this, many drug companies, provide their drugs free of charge to people who cannot afford them through company sposored programs. I will cite you an example, the maker of Zonegran a very expensive anti-epilepsy drug is provided free of charge by the company elan' of one cannot afford it.

BW Online | December 1, 2003 | The Corporate Donors

As for the GM thing, I would NOT place the blame for their issues totally on the shoulders of the unions, however, I would say that union is one of many factors that has caused GM's current issues as well as Ford's and Chryslers.

On the tax thing, you may be interested to know that that pretty much ALL the taxes in this country are paid by people making over 50,000.00 dollars a year. 39% of those taxes are paid by people that make more than 300,000 dollars a year. 70% of the taxes are paid by people making more than a 100,000.00 a year. 42% of US corporations paid taxes. The others deductions included donations, et al. so they did not pay taxes. Starting to get the picture, corporations and people that are "rich" by democrat standards do most of the tax paying, and donating in this country so to label them as somehow irresponsible or criminal is simply not true.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Don't think I made that assumption, if I did please forgive me, your name indicates your a "green party" person. I would appreciate it if you would not assume when it comes to me as well, I just think that , in order to be strong in this country we have to get real here. and stop trying to spoon feed people recycled "feed the masses transfer of wealth junk". In order to keep jobs here provide the companies the incentives to do business here, less regulation, not more, less corporate taxes, not more, and less taxes on the people who actually employ people here. In other words make it easy for people to do business here , not punish them for doing so.

In theory the wealthiest Americans should pay the highest tax bracket. Most people probably do. It is the corporations, that move off shore so they can avoid paying taxes, or the corporations that use loopholes in the system, which pay no taxes at all. That is the issue. In theory, what you say is correct. Corporations will do anything to make a profit, including breaking the law to achieve it. When we de-regulate corporations, they run a muck with too much power. If we get rid of the Walmart's and send them over to China, where they really want to be. Then we can prop up small business owners, and diversify competition. Walmart crushes the little guy, and then moves in and raises prices on consumers once they dominate the local market. Driving wages down. I have never assumed anything, I am one of the few greens that post here and I have been since Nader's first run. And as we learned from the 80's; wealth doesn't trickle down, it only drives up!

 

[Ame®icano]

It is working. The Canadians like their system and it works better than ours. The polls in Canada show it.

OK, Kirk... how about some common sense.

When you were trying to prove me (us) wrong about canadian healthcare, you posted link to Campaign for American Future, that represent opinion of the one person, one who wrote it. There are no facts nor data on what her opinion is based, therefore opinion of the writer is as much valid as anyone else. You chose to accept that opinion because it suits you better.

Then you mentioned polls, without posting link to any. If you want me or anyone else to take you seriously, it would be nice that you act that way, cause spare words can't do it for you.

Now, lets talk some facts.

Canada, with 35 million people spend close to $4500 per capita on universal healthcare (UHC), or $148B (CAD) a year. Pres candidate Obama said that universal healthcare would cost us 700B (correct me if I am wrong) over the next 5 years, which means we would spend for UHC as much as Canada with nine times less people.

For healthcare, Canada spend 10% of their GDP, UK spend 13%, Germany 10.6%, France 9.5%. United States 15%. Considering quality of service, access to the doctors, waiting time, IMO our healtcare is much better then any other listed.

Earlier I meantioned "hole without bottom". Canadian healthcare in 1980 cost Canadians only $783 per year, in 1990 cost was $1737, in 2000 was $2998, and data for the last year is $4548.

More than 9 in 10 Canadians go to the hospital emergency ward if they need medical help outside regular doctors office hours, despite the fact that most Canadians say they have a regular doctor.

Unlike your link wich contain personal opinion of the writer and no data, pieces of data I wrote above is official and based on annual reports from Canadian Institute for Health Information (PDF's).

I am still waiting for your appology for calling me a lier.

 

[editec]

All one need to to determine how effective any nation's health care sytem is is to compare the percentage of GDP spend on health care to the modbidity and motality statistics.

Given that formula, the USA actually has the worst health care delivery STSTEM in the world, bar NONE.

How to fix that is a more difficult question and one for which I have no solution.

 

[Navy1960]

In theory the wealthiest Americans should pay the highest tax bracket. Most people probably do. It is the corporations, that move off shore so they can avoid paying taxes, or the corporations that use loopholes in the system, which pay no taxes at all. That is the issue. In theory, what you say is correct. Corporations will do anything to make a profit, including breaking the law to achieve it. When we de-regulate corporations, they run a muck with too much power. If we get rid of the Walmart's and send them over to China, where they really want to be. Then we can prop up small business owners, and diversify competition. Walmart crushes the little guy, and then moves in and raises prices on consumers once they dominate the local market. Driving wages down. I have never assumed anything, I am one of the few greens that post here and I have been since Nader's first run. And as we learned from the 80's; wealth doesn't trickle down, it only drives up!

green, I'm not against any company seeking a profit and acting responsibly. I am not for complete de-regulation of course, my point is that in a lot of cases , regulation hinders many companies, especially small business from being able to compete with the Wal-Marts and the Targets. It is the slime busnisses that for the most part have given American corporations in the views of some a bad image and I can understand that. However, given the incentives to make a profit "HERE in the US" I completely believe that the more money a company makes the more people it employs, and therefor, the better off the community in which it resides.