The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database McCain has a plan...just like Obama has one....
read about it on his website. And if you didn't turn off the TV every time he spoke, you would know he has a plan. LOL. What I don't want is the last TWO years, when the Democrats sat on their hands and did nothing while Freddie/Fannie ruined the economy. What I DON'T want is a socialist President and a democratic majority, and I will have NO part in bringing that about. For the first time in my LIFE I am voting a straight republican ticket.
Bush/McCain/Obama
I already hid my money. Might be if Obama is elected I can bring it out of hiding. Keep it hid if McCain is elected...........more of G.W. Bush.
Here is the Obama vs McCain/Bush tax calculator sm
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
They seem very similar to me...big difference is Obama wants the government to control it and McCain wants individuals to control their own health care. I don't see a problem with that.
He keeps saying he knows how to find BinLaden and will do that after he is elected. Why isn't he sharing his secret fool-proof plan to capture him with the current administration? He is dangling that promise over our heads. If he actually does have a fantastic plan, he is allowing the whole country to be vulnerable UNTIL he gets what he wants - the presidency. Thumbs down on you, grandpa.
McCain's mortgage plan
Did anybody understand when McCain brought up plan to buy bad mortgages and renegotiate, etc. Would that be with the $700 billion we are already shelling out or would this be an additional $300 Billion the taxpayers have to pay. If I can get my mortgage renegotiated with the government, maybe I'll just stop paying my mortgage and get something out of this after all!
Mccain did say that he had a plan to use 300 billion...
of the 700 billion to buy back bad mortgages and renegotiate them to a fixed rate so that people could stay in their homes. Obama said this morning that was a bad idea and it rewarded bad lenders. But it WOULD protect the homeowners. He can't have it both ways, and neither can you.
Obama has not said how he will fix the economic crisis either. He talks in generalities. He said that yes, maybe some programs should be cut, but won't given even ONE example. He says he still plans to raise taxes on the rich (which are the businesses, the corporations, most of the jobmakers in this country). Now you tell ME how THAT is going to HELP the economy.
McCain has said he would FREEZE spending except for the most necessary programs. THAT is what will HELP the economy. If Obama said freeze spending his base woudl go apoplectic.
McCain has said more specific things than Obama has said about getting us out of his crisis. You just aren't listening to anyone but Obama and the Obama campaign. I am listening to BOTH of them.
John McCain has given a plan. John McCain believes our schools can and should compete to be the most innovative, flexible and student-centered - not safe havens for the uninspired and unaccountable. He believes we should let them compete for the most effective, character-building teachers, hire them, and reward them.
If a school will not change, the students should be able to change schools. John McCain believes parents should be empowered with school choice to send their children to the school that can best educate them just as many members of Congress do with their own children. He finds it beyond hypocritical that many of those who would refuse to allow public school parents to choose their child's school would never agree to force their own children into a school that did not work or was unsafe. They can make another choice. John McCain believes that is a fundamental and essential right we should honor for all parents.
As president, John McCain will pursue reforms that address the underlying cultural problems in our education system - a system that still seeks to avoid genuine accountability and responsibility for producing well-educated children.
John McCain will place parents and children at the center of the education process, empowering parents by greatly expanding the ability of parents to choose among schools for their children. He believes all federal financial support must be predicated on providing parents the ability to move their children, and the dollars associated with them, from failing school. McCain Resurgence Plan windfall for lenders.
Initially, when McCain announced his "new" mortgage buyout plan, it was simply a restatement of the existing provisions already authorizing the Treasury Department and Federal Housing Administration to purchase, restructure and guarantee mortgages.In fact, these provisions had been promoted and supported by Obama during the legislative process when they were included in the original legislation.
At first, the buyout would have purchased mortgages at their current devalued amount, meaning that the lenders would have to "recognize the loss" they had already suffered.Lenders were required to back only 90% of the original value and homeowners would have been required to share any increase in value with the government, reflecting shared responsibility.
Under McCain's "revised" plan, the treasury would pay FULL face value of mortgages, even though they are no longer worth that amount. He deleted the shared responsibility phrase, thus creating what amounts to a windfall for the banking industry, rewarding the most irresponsible lenders.Under this revision, banks receive full payment, even on artificially inflated values for the homes and assume no loss while tax payers take all the loss of the mortgage value and perhaps even end up losing more in the event that the housing values do not recover.Taxpayers would also not get any benefit should the houses increase in value.
Some lenders, voluntarily or as part of settlements, are working on solutions to the mortgage meltdown that modifying mortgages to help homeowners stay in their homes –WITHOUT costing taxpayers a dime. But if the McCain plan were in place, this process would stop because lenders would know they could always sell their mortgages at full face value to taxpayers.
So, contrary to sam's claims, O is simply promoting protection for the homeowners AND the taxpayer.This is not "punishment" of the lenders.This is an effort to hold the guilty parties responsible for their longstanding shady lending practices and ensure that THEY too shoulder the burden of the costs.
I am left wondering what the bum's rush is on this McCain plan. A mortgage bail-out should not be conceived, defined, proposed, debated or passed as part of another halting, frenetic political stunt designed to make McCain look like he knows what he is doing when it comes to addressing the economic woes of the nation. It requires careful, thourhgtful, informed consideration...the kind that can only take place AFTER the election and in the absence of underlying agendas aimed at rescuing a failing presidential campaign.
it handled *Plan A* (Iraq War). Manipulate the evidence until it fits your own agenda and then impose it on America. One doctor's personal religious views now control the FDA and every woman in America.
The Debate Over Plan B
Nov. 27, 2005 (CBS) When the “morning after pill,” also known as “Plan B,” was put on the market in 1999, it was described as an emergency contraceptive that prevents a pregnancy in cases of rape or accidents like condom breaks.
It is only available by prescription. But because women need to take it within 72 hours, the drug's manufacturer applied to the Food and Drug Administration two years ago for permission to sell Plan B over the counter.
The drug is considered totally safe, so the request was seen as a slam dunk. But then Plan B became the target of anti-abortion rights groups, and part of the wider controversy over whether religious beliefs are encroaching on scientific decision-making. 60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports.
Until last August, Dr. Susan Wood headed the FDA’s Office of Women’s Health and was one of the scientists inside the agency arguing that Plan B should be available without a prescription. “If it's safe, and it is, and effective, it's more effective the quicker you have it. This is why it needs to be over-the-counter,” she says.
“If you need it on Saturday morning, Monday morning is too late. Getting to a physician to get a prescription, getting that prescription to a pharmacy and getting it filled takes time, as we all know. Then what are you going to do?” says Wood.
That’s a question that a woman named Evelyn faced last year, when she was raped at a New York nightclub.
Evelyn, age 22 at the time, was rushed to St. Vincent’s hospital, the nearest emergency room.
She says the hospital did not offer her an emergency contraceptive.
“It was something that they were supposed to offer,” says Evelyn’s mother, Sandi. “In the situation as my daughter’s, as Evelyn’s situation, they were supposed to offer, you know, and let the person make the decision as to whether or not they wanted it. I didn’t know that it was optional.”
Sandi says she knew about a New York law that says all hospitals must offer rape victims emergency contraception like Plan B.
Sandi called the nurse who had treated Evelyn at St. Vincent’s. “I said, ‘Why did you not give it to her?’ And she very rudely said to me, ‘Well, we're a Catholic hospital. We don't do birth control.’ At which point, I told them what they could do with being a Catholic hospital and their views on birth control — I'd rather not say that on the air,” she recalls. “I was absolutely livid.”
Because of Evelyn's case, St. Vincent’s is under investigation by the state of New York. The hospital told 60 Minutes it is now complying with the law.
Evelyn finally got a prescription for Plan B, and took it 10 hours after the rape. Had she not gotten Plan B and had gotten pregnant, Evelyn says she would have had an abortion. “I'm glad that that didn't have to happen, I never had to experience that, she says.
The Catholic Church opposes Plan B not just because it’s birth control, but because it considers use of Plan B to be, in Cardinal Egan of New York’s words, “a chemical abortion.”
But Wood says this is not an abortion pill. “There is an abortion pill called RU-486, and this is not it,” she says. “An abortion pill interrupts an established pregnancy. This product is contraception. It does not interrupt an established pregnancy.”
She says even if you took it and were already pregnant, it would not end the pregnancy. “The only connection this product has with abortion is that it can prevent them by preventing an unintended pregnancy,” says Wood.
There is some debate about that interpretation. Most of the time, Plan B works by stopping ovulation so that a pregnancy cannot occur. In a small percentage of cases, when a woman is ovulating on the day she has unprotected sex, a fertilized egg could form. In that case, Plan B might prevent the egg from implanting in her uterus.
While most doctors do not consider that an abortion, anti-abortion-rights doctors do, such as David Hager, a gynecologist from Lexington, Ky., who won’t prescribe Plan B for his own patients.
“One of the mechanisms of action can be to inhibit implantation, which means that it may act as an abortifacient,” says Dr. Hager. He says abortifacient means it causes an abortion and that this medication may act to inhibit implantation.
In 2002, Dr. Hager got a call from the Bush White House asking him to serve on the FDA advisory committee charged with reviewing Plan B’s over-the-counter application along with two other anti-abortion-rights physicians. But when Hager argued against Plan B at committee meetings, he didn’t talk about abortion.
“I was concerned about 10, 11, 12-year-old girls buying this product,” says Hager.
He raised moral questions. “I’m not in favor of promotion of a product that would increase sexual activity among teenagers,” he says.
Hager speculated about an increase in sexually-transmitted diseases. “I’m saying that it is possible that with the use of Plan B the individual may put herself at greater risk,” he says.
But the advisory panel reviewed 40 studies that refuted his objections and showed that Plan B does not lead to more cases of sexually transmitted disease, or more risky sexual behavior.
Even Dr. Hager admits Plan B is totally safe. The FDA says there have been no deaths, no heart attacks, no strokes and no evidence of misuse or abuse.
But, he says, one of his major concerns is that young women wouldn’t go to their doctors if such a drug were readily available.
“If we approve this for over-the-counter sale, then what is that going to do as far as what I call access to medical care for younger adolescent women?” Hager asks.
Wood disputes that view. “Is this cutting the doctor out? Would it cut out their relationship? Well, in fact, I think there’s strong argument that the physicians themselves want this product to be over the counter.”
Wood says the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Medical Association have all endorsed making this product available over the counter. That includes pediatrics, meaning younger girls.
If Plan B is sold over the counter anyone — any age — could buy it easily in a drugstore, like cough syrup or bubble bath. A big part of this issue is whether pharmacies will stock it. What if they refuse to carry Plan B?
In a survey of drugstores in Kentucky, Dr. Hager’s home state, the American Civil Liberties Union found that most pharmacies didn’t carry Plan B; 83 of them said they would even refuse to order it for women with prescriptions. These include Wal-Mart, which has a nationwide policy against dispensing Plan B.
The American Civil Liberties Union got a prescription for a woman named Fran, and sent her to five pharmacies undercover. 60 Minutes went along with a hidden camera to see what would happen.
Only one pharmacy, Kmart, had Plan B in stock; another drug store offered to order it, but the pharmacist told Fran it would take several days before they could possibly get it.
Remember, it has to be taken within 72 hours.
At another store, Fran was turned down by a pharmacist who explained that she believes it’s an abortion pill. “The morning after pill is after you have that fertilized egg, and that is a baby. You are not allowing it to implant. So it is considered abortive,” the pharmacist said.
The next day, Fran and 60 Minutes went back to that pharmacy together and found the same pharmacist.
“Anyone can walk in off the street and we can refuse to fill a prescription,” the pharmacists said. Asked whether a prescription could be refused on religious grounds, the pharmacists said, “On any grounds. Personal preference. Any reason, we can refuse to fill a prescription.”
But the Kentucky state pharmacy board told 60 Minutes that pharmacists must have a professional medical reason, not simply a personal preference, to turn away a prescription for Plan B or anything else.
The pharmacy did offer birth control but the pharmacist did not consider Plan B birth control.
So, with Plan B mired in the abortion debate, the FDA advisory committee took its vote on recommending whether it should be sold over the counter.
Dr. Hager voted “no.” But his colleagues on the committee rejected his arguments, voting 23 to four in favor of offering the drug over the counter.
Such a lop-sided vote should have meant the application would sail through. But then the saga of Plan B took a strange turn.
Dr. Hager says someone at the FDA — he won’t say who — asked him to write a “minority report” in which he asked for more studies and more data on the use of Plan B by young girls.
A few months later something totally unexpected happened: The FDA ignored the committee’s overwhelming vote and rejected the proposal to sell Plan B over the counter, citing the very concerns in Hager’s report.
Some people believe Hager raised these objections because of his religious beliefs, but that’s something he denies. “The religious aspect did not enter into that decision for me,” he says.
But in to a speech he gave to a Christian college, he seemed to admit his role was all about religion. “God has used me to stand in the breach for the cause of the kingdom,” Hager said at the time.
He was talking about Plan B.
“I argued it from a scientific perspective. And God took that information and He used it through this minority report to influence a decision. You don't have to wave your bible to have an effect as a Christian in the public arena,” says Hager.
Hager says he did not mean to suggest that God wanted Plan B to fail, and that he was His instrument. “I thought that God used me, He'd used my individual gifts of, whatever, in an individual way to be able to express my opinion.”
But with the speech, Hager may have fueled the fire of those who say that all he did was try to cloak religious beliefs in scientific language.
“If the idea in the population of this country is that a person can’t be a person of faith and also be a person of science, I strongly disagree with that,” says Hager.
Should agencies like the FDA be completely divorced from the debates that go on in society?
“Again, the question the agency has to deal with is, is it safe? And is it safe for teens? Yes, it is,” says Wood. “Have we asked that question about other contraceptive methods? Are we going to label, take condoms behind the counter? Make them prescription? I don't think we should.
“I think most Americans would like to leave those decisions as private decisions, and decisions within the family.”
Plan B’s manufacturer, Barr Pharmaceuticals, submitted a new application to the FDA with an age cut-off, so that girls 16 and younger would still need a prescription to get the drug. This seemed to address Hager’s objections and those of the anti-abortion rights lobby.
But last August, then-FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford surprised just about everyone when he announced that the agency had postponed a decision on the new application for what could be months or years. He took the unprecedented step of overruling his own scientific staff.
“I think the Plan B decision to cut the scientists out is sort of a poster child of this concern about science and politics,” says Wood.
She’s talking about fears that religious forces are hijacking government decision-making. Wood was so outraged by the FDA postponement that she promptly resigned as director of the Office of Women’s Health in protest.
“What I saw was the science being ignored. That the scientific and medical staff (was) being cut out of decision making,” says Wood.
In fact, according to a government investigation, top FDA officials had decided to reject Plan B’s over the counter application months before the scientific staff completed its review.
Was there pressure from the White House? The investigators said they couldn’t find out because e-mails and documents relating to the matter were destroyed.
As for Plan B as an over-the-counter drug, nobody knows when a decision on that will be made.
The White House on Friday threw its support behind a plan to speed release of $25 billion in existing loans to the Big Three automakers but rejected a Democratic proposal to use money from a financial bailout to help the troubled industry.
The $700 billion financial rescue package was never intended to help automakers and shouldn't be now, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told The Associated Press. But since Democratic leaders in Congress are pressing forward with a proposal to carve out a piece of its for the auto industry, she said the White House has decided to pursue a different approach: accelerating the availability of federal loans Congress first approved in September.
Those loans were approved to help automakers build more fuel-efficient vehicles and become more competitive companies in the global marketplace. The administration now supports allowing the loans to be released more quickly than the original legislation prescribed and to be used for more urgent purposes as the companies struggle to stay afloat.
"Democrats are choosing a path that would only lead to partisan gridlock," she said. "We are now actively calling on Congress to amend the loan program."
You take yourself wayyy too seriously.....
and yep, you get very angry when your need to feel superior is thwarted. Such a piece of hateful, condescending, elitist piece of tripe I have never read, each word laid out there to try to hurt, demean, and belittle. If your opinion meant anything to me, I might feel some of those things. However, what I am left with is feeling a little puzzled and profoundly sad...for you. You gotta be an unhappy camper to unleash all this vitriol on a stranger on a posting board...geeezzzz GT.
As far as intelligence goes, along with that should come some good old common sense. Obviously you stood in the "intelligence" line too long and missed the good old common sense one.
Unlike you, GT, I don't require that everyone agree with me and do not feel the need to verbally lacerate them if they do. You might want to consider why you feel the need to do that.
Sooo....so long from the breathtakingly ignorant person who deludes herself into thinking "that" (whatever that is) can pass for intelligence. And y'know...if YOU are an example of superior intellect and how superior intellect deals with people...NO THANKS.
That is going to be wayyy at the end of the list...sm
for either candidate elected. You may like it to be their first, but it is just not so. National security, jobs, the economy, the war in Iraq, education, supporting the injured troops, and many other things will come first. During peace time and times of economic prosperity Roe vs Wade and related subjects might be at the top of the list but, in these times, there are much more urgent matters for us to be considering for our ultimate survival as a country.
I noticed that Druge and AOL had wayyy different numbers
so there
Obama's plan
I assume you watched both conventions????? I watched the Dems and now I'm watching the Pubs. I am an INDEPENDENT. I would support Obama were it not for my research of the church he has been associated with for 20 years. This church, in my humble opinion, belongs to an extreme, radical, racist group. We don't need that in the White House. With the exception of illegal immigration, he pretty much addressed all the things that I feel are important to the future of my children and grandchildren and were it not for his affiliation with his chosen church, I would probably vote for him. . At least he had the good sense to select a person as his running mate who actually might be "ready on day one" to lead this country.
Secondly, again in my humble opinion, McCain has a few screws loose rattling around upstairs. He answers every question, even about how many houses he owns, with something like, "well, the longest time I spent anywhere was when I was a POW." Other than that it has been all about bashing Obama and his not having "experience." Then look what he did. Picked a little-known female who has been abroad exactly once and tries to pass her off as "experienced." Truth: She is a female and her state is the second largest producer of oil. Bush governed the biggest oil producing state. Enjoying those prices at the pumps? To this point all the pub speakers have pushed McCain's war record. What????? Do we need more war? I think a peacemaker would be better.
Now, before anyone pounces on me, I support NEITHER of these candidates and NEITHER will receive my vote. Either way, the middle class Americans, to which I expect most MTs belong, lose. Our government will change when and if the majority of Americans quit using their heads as a hatrack for the Democrat and Republican parties, kick them out and bring back government "of the people, by the people and for the people." Won't happen this time but maybe next time won't be too late.
First of all, let me say I was undecided on this election until yesterday. Obama's tax plan scares me to death. I heard him on an interview yesterday, and he said that the top 5% of the country could *afford to help out those less fortunate to us*, meaning those that make above $200,000. He also said that someone making under $45,000 would *probably* not have to pay income taxes, because all the tax revenue would be generated from the top 5% of the country, again, who could *afford* to help out his fellow man.
So, here's my question. If I work my BUTT off making a great living for my family, who the heck is he to say I have to share it? My husband and I put ourselves through school to get a good education for ourselves, searched for good jobs, worked more than one sometimes, and enjoy or standard of living, because we worked hard for it and EARNED it. How dare he suggest that I have to share that with ANYONE, just because they dont' have as much. We give to quite a few neighborhood organizations and national charities, we do not keep every penny for ourselves.
If he does get elected and puts this new plan in place, why would people work hard to make a good living if quite a bit chunk of it is going to be taken away? Why not just sit back, work as little as you want, stay under that $40,000 radar, not pay income taxes, and have the government give you some other *rich* guy's money because you don't have as much?
This really made my mind up for me. It's time this county taught some personal responsibility and accountability, and I do not think he is the one for the job!
I haven't been here for a while, and if this has already been posted below somewhere, I apologize for duplicating it.
The following link will take you to a site that will show you how much money Barack Obama will save you on taxes, compared to John McCain. (Remember, McCain will be taxing your health insurance benefits for the first time in American history.) Depending on your income, there is quite a difference between the two plans.
Mrs. Palin proudly boasted that she had put her state's "checkbook" on line so the fine Alaskan citizens could actually see where their money was being spent. Bless her heart. She said under the Palin/McCain (yep, in that order) administration, she would do the same with the federal "checkbook."
Come to find out that Obama had already done that 2 to 3 years ago. He should be ashamed of stealing her idea.
What he hasn't bothered to tell all his lame followers is if he allows the Bush tax cuts to expire in a few years, this is equal to a tax increase on the middle class. Obama knows most of his followers don't even know what the real Bush tax cuts mean nor what it will mean for them when and if they are allowed to expire.
He hopes no one looks too closely at this. Not only does he want that to expire, which he has already said he will not vote to continue, back in March he actually tried to shorten that so taxes could begin for those making 31k-63K. He knows most of you don't understand any of this for obvious reasons but for those of us who do pay attention, wake up! You will not be getting off the hook paying taxes no matter how much that sounds wonderful. If it sounds too good to be true, it will be.
Obama's plan very clearly states that taxes will be raised on those making over 250,000 and tax cuts for those under that. Meanwhile I've seen post after post complaining about him rasing taxes in general, which is in direct conflict with what he has said.
So, if he's planning on raising taxes on the higher tax brackets what's the problem? Aren't these the same people you guys have been bashing? For example, the auto CEOs who went to Washington in a private jet?
Obama's plan is not based on
The government will not be "in charge" of anything excep ACCESS to a healthcare coverage plan. It will still be private companies and if you don't want the national plan, you do not have to join it....keep your own if you like. Read the plan. All he is proposing is to open up the current plan that now covers Congress, Senate and federal employees to citizens. That plan is like any other. It has several different deductible schemes, choices of levels of coverage (PPO/HMO) and a range of premium amounts. All O is trying to do is make health care available to all Americans at affordable prices.
Obama's economic plan
Number one, thanks for a thoughtful, relevant topic.
Number two, Obama's plan starts with rolling back the tax breaks for the wealthy that the Bush administration enacted to pre-Bush status and not make them permanent. A big step in the right direction would also be to tax the stratospheric earnings of equity-fund managers as income at 35% rather than as capital gains at 15% (they can surely afford it) and penalize them for moving their funds offshore.
Number three, all bets are off the table in light of the current GLOBAL economic crisis. The Obama administration will be so busy putting out fires they didn't start that it'll be difficult to enact any long-term or short-term economic plan. I know healthcare is a sore subject, but it's a potentially huge stimulus for middle-class folks, and huge stimuli are needed in times of severe GLOBAL recession.
Obama did not plan the mission.
He only signed off on it after it had been planned and then vouched for by a whole lot of other people. The CEO of a car company does not design a car or put together a sales campaign. He only gives the go-ahead after others have figured out what to do, then takes credit for it.
The only thing this guy has ever made in his life is reservations.
Obama's tax cut plan for middle class
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief
Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief
Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.
• Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
• Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000: Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This proposal will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide these seniors with an average savings of $1,400 each year. Under the Obama plan, 27 million American seniors will also not need to file an income tax return.
• Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees. Obama is saying the same thing and he has no grand plan...
either than he has shared. He said it in the O'Reilly interview. O'Reilly asked him if he would invade Pakistan to get him and he would not say yay or nay.
So, following your logic...thumbs down on you, O?
Obama's plan will KILL our economy. You think
nm
I suggest YOU study up on Obama's plan...sm
and see if his plan remotely resembles national healthcare in other countries. All plans are not created equal.
Does Obama's healthcare plan require
everyone to participate. My husband is a state employee with family coverage for $17.00 per pay. We have excellent medical, dental, vision and prescription coverage. I am not interested in changing that. Does Obama want to provide the same coverage for everyone or just provide coverage for those without?
Those prices are OUTRAGEOUS! Bad plan, Obama!
According to the table on the website you linked, in my state their insurance would cost nearly $800 a month! Holy KRAP, Batman! I pay a little over a quarter of that.
So Obama thinks some welfare family should get an $800/mo policy for free and I, because I can afford my own inrance, have to pay for lesser coverage.
So Obama believes we should spread the wealth around. Here are his charitable contributions:
Too bad he wasn't spreading his wealth around these past years. Oh well he did give 800,000.00 to ACORN. You know them don't you? Do you suppose this is his idea of spreading the wealth?
That's okay if you think it is garbage. It really is of no concern to me. However, it would seem to me that an Obamabot has finally grown a spine and come clean, knowing what Obama's victory would do to our country.
Anyway, found this story again this morning on Fox, and very hard to find the "whole story" elsewhere on the web, as some of it has "been scrubbed clean"
Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'
Barack Obama tells a plumber in Ohio he wants to "spread the wealth around," eliciting criticism that his economic recovery plan is socialist in nature.
FOXNews.com
Monday, October 13, 2008
Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.
Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.
"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Obama's remarks drew fresh criticism on the blogosphere that the Illinois senator favors a breed of wealth redistribution -- as well as a rebuke from the McCain campaign.
"If Barack Obama's goal as President is to 'spread the wealth around,' perhaps his unconditional meetings with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Kim Jong-Il aren't so crazy -- if nothing else they can advise an Obama administration on economic policy," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a written statement to FOXNews.com. "In contrast, John McCain's goal as president will be to let the American people prosper unburdened by government and ever higher taxes."
Obama frequently rails against what he calls a Republican concept that tax breaks for the wealthy will somehow "trickle down" to middle-class Americans.
Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
However, McCain's aides and supporters argue that Obama wrongly wants to raise taxes on businesses in a time of economic distress.
Both candidates spent Monday discussing how they would resurrect the ailing economy. McCain again pointed to his plan to buy up cumbersome mortgages from homeowners and renegotiate them. Obama unveiled what he called an economic rescue plan for the middle class, which included a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures.
marks the location of current message within thread
