Every generation doomed to repeat the failed Socialism experiment..

[Moonbeam]

The boogerman is a socialist.

ONLY THE FASCIST PIG MONSTERS WHO HAVE DESTROYED OUR COUNTRY CAN SAVE YOU!

Oh please please stay brain dead. The war of the rich on the poor abhors socialism.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Be sure to let us know when Obama proposes state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distriubtion of goods!

I'll let you know when it happens. However, can you let me know when people start yelling, "Obama!! you promised us jobs!!! I believed in you!! Where are the jobs!!!"

You mean like those manufacturing jobs that Bush sent over seas along with his gracious tax cuts for the rich that were supposed to trickle down too?

Lets compare unemployment rates once Obama becomes president and implements his "share the wealth "ideology to Bush's. I have a feeling, Obama's is going to be worse.

It would be funny if Bush had a better unemployment rate through out his presidency than Obama.

Pitchforks -- my friend... That's what the people who once supported Obama will be reaching for..

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Be sure to let us know when Obama proposes state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distriubtion of goods!

I'll let you know when it happens. However, can you let me know when people start yelling, "Obama!! you promised us jobs!!! I believed in you!! Where are the jobs!!!"

You mean like those manufacturing jobs that Bush sent over seas along with his gracious tax cuts for the rich that were supposed to trickle down too?

Lets compare unemployment rates once Obama becomes president and implements his "share the wealth "ideology to Bush's. I have a feeling, Obama's is going to be worse.

It would be funny if Bush had a better unemployment rate through out his presidency than Obama.

Pitchforks -- my friend... That's what the people who once supported Obama will be reaching for..

That feeling might be worms.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Xavier434
The idea is to prevent catastrophes before they occur and for two reasons. First, medical catastrophes are terrible and can have great negative impacts on your life should you endure one. Second, consistently practicing and paying for reasonable preventative care as well as maintaining a decent level of health in general will tremendously reduce one's overall medical costs. Most medical costs occur amongst the elderly. Most elderly that incur the largest medical costs are those that did not practice a healthy lifestyle while they were younger and did not utilize preventative care.

Beyond that, preventative health care is still something which costs a decent amount of money and most are not able to pay for it even though it will cost them much less in the long run. You can also look at it as costing you a lot less in the long run depending on who floats the bill.

If everybody makes use of preventive healthcare, then everybody's health insurance will be too expensive.

I disagree. Perhaps you can provide some proof as to why? I believe they will be reduced because many more people out there would be considered lower risk. Check ups are not what sinks these insurance companies. It is the expenses that their clients claim as a result of not getting check ups that really cost them some serious cash.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eleison

Like clockwork, another person tried to convince me last night that "true socialism has never been tried", therefore, it will work this time. Every generation is doomed to repeat the failed Socialism experiment.

Socialism fails for one single reason - it is not a meritocracy, therefore, the only remaining "quality" that one has to advance themselves is ruthlessness. This "quality" leads to the displacement of the grassroots leaders of the socialist movements with sociopathic individuals willing to go one step further than their predecessor - just ask Lenin if he saw Stalin coming.

All meritless systems fail to create real wealth, which should be the only measure of an enterprise's success. As wealth leaves the economy, these meritless systems fail to continue paying their supporters, so the support wanes. When the support wanes, then fascist movements, within or without, displace them. War follows, along with famine.

I am so glad that I do not have a wife and family in these times.

Personal commentary: Just saw this posted in another forum. I thought it was interesting. I believe this is happening right now. Socialism seems to always go in a circle (remember Jimmy Carter). Its like when I broke my smart phone's screen today. I've broken my pda screen before, and for the past 8 years, I've been careful to not break the smart phone's screen. But alas, history repeats itself.

Can you find a weaker analogy?

Great, cannot wait until Obama is president. If history has any bearing, its going to be bad -- high unemployment, inflation, etc. It would be funny if the Bush years, in the future, were seen as the "good years'...

You use the phrase 'If history has any bearing', but then say something that's the opposite of what history shows, showing you like the flowery phrase, but not the effort to learn facts.

Obama *will* have hard economic times, but that's not his fault he's inheriting this mess caused by corporatist policies, any more than FDR was to blame for his early years, as he built up 'socialistic' programs that helped with unemployment, and provided the government with tools to reduce the harmful effects of renegade capitalism which every expert I've seen today say are helpful now for the government to be able to respond to this crisis.

It appears pretty clear you are a relatively uninformed voter who has done little more than drink the koolaid of 'anything called socialist is bad'.

Yea, the odds are people will get a tax cut with Obama -- that is if they still have a job once Obama gets done fubaring it with the "share the wealth" ideology. Remember, in a bad economy the poor gets hurt the most (lost jobs, no employment, etc)... To the rich, its just one less "golden covered back scratcher" ..just my opinion

Can't wait for the Republican analysts to try to use the reduced tax revenues from the economic problems to try to prove it's Obama's tax policies causing the declining revenues.

It's like when an epidemic breaks out and funds are spent to combat it, later arguing that the numbers prove increase government spending on healthcare actually causes problems.

'See, Obama took these measures, and tax revenues were bad. So, his actions were the reason the revenue was bad'.

Of course a bad economy tends to hurt the poor the most, because a dollar from them is a dollar from food and rent, not a dollar less in the lake of wealth they have.

That's not anything wrong with Obama.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Democratic Socialism as implemented in Canada and England are widely considered to be successful.

Ask a Canadian if he'd want to trade his UHC for the private system we have here.

Plenty of Canadians come to the US for medical care.

Nonetheless, I GUARANTEE that if you ask Canada and America which holds a favorable view of their health system you'll find higher values in the Canadian respondents.

My believe of that, though, is that they are collectively under some spell. Canadian healthcare to Canadians is like July 4th to Americans. Don't question it, don't debate it. It just is.

yep. Their system works great for general check-up, which is probably the most important thing. problem is, to get anything serious done, major surgery, for example, people come to the US b/c of the quality of care. Hospitals in Canada just can't compete for the more talented physicians b/c they can't compete with American salaries. And b/c of endless lines, doctors in Canada work 2x as long.

Americans don't get regular check-ups due to complacency, possibly spurred on by lack of coverage. This leads to increasing incidents of health problems and higher rates of serious issues. So, it could be that the system invariably creates the demand for more serious procedures.

Both systems have problems. I have no idea how to fix it.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Ryan711

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: winnar111
We spent ~$400 billion on Dept of HHS in 2000, and that's ~$700 billion in 2008. What we are doing isn't working; we cannot offer Dick Cheney's healthcare to 300 billion people.

We've had socialized programs in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and other states that have all failed. Why should I believe Obama's healthcare program will cost what it says?

I cannot provide you with anything that will make you believe that Obama's UHC program will cost what it says. The bottom line is that you lack confidence in trust in government and that is why you do not believe Obama on his word which is essentially all we have to work with since the real vigorous details that would allow us to conclude otherwise are not available just like McCain's details are not around either.

Speaking of which, might I ask a similar confidence question? Why should I believe that the $5000 that McCain wants to send to insurance companies for each American insured will do anything to reduce insurance costs and result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance in America? Why shouldn't I believe that the insurance companies will use a great deal of the tax payers money for stuff that does not trickle down to the tax paying consumer?

They were state run which doesn't have the money of the federal government... why Medicare/medicaid have NOT failed.

You do realize that medicare/medicaid take up 21% of the national budget and only ~10 million people are enrolled in it. I can't imagine 300+ million.

10 million of the oldest and unhealthy of the country... they make up a supermajority of the nation's risk. Brain?

 

[Xavier434]

I agree with Craig. I think that the vast majority of negative figures that McCain supporters will be digging up throughout Obama's presidency when he gets elected will most be a result of Bush.

Likewise, much of the following president's success might be a result of Obama. It is not like we have not seen this pattern before.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Democratic Socialism as implemented in Canada and England are widely considered to be successful.

Ask a Canadian if he'd want to trade his UHC for the private system we have here.

Plenty of Canadians come to the US for medical care.

Plenty of Americans get their drugs from Canada, and plenty of Americans would love to get their healthcare in Canada if they could.

Do you have any facts from credible comparisons of the results and costs of Canada's and the US healthcare systems or are you just blowing smoke?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Although I believe in the collective's habitual ignorance of history and preferences to repeat its worst happenings, perhaps I put my own prospective ignorance on the line when I ask when the last time the US truly had a bout with socialism is. My teachings go back to the late 18th century. Did it happen before that?

The US has never done so. It's always had a slight bit of 'socialism', which by the way works well enough that people who hate to call it socialism deny those program are socialist.

'I *hate* anything socialist. Why, I was just reading this book by Rush Limbaugh from our wonderful public library about how bad it is.'

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's Ironic to be hearing cries about failed "Socialism" in these days of the biggest failure of "Capitalism" in 8+ decades.

Capitalism always bounces back....when was the last time you say a failed socialist attempt come back and have ANY success?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's Ironic to be hearing cries about failed "Socialism" in these days of the biggest failure of "Capitalism" in 8+ decades.

Capitalism always bounces back....when was the last time you say a failed socialist attempt come back and have ANY success?

Denmark is doing just fine but that isn't even the point.

The point is that you are referencing countries which tried an overwhelming dose of socialism and failed. That is nothing even remotely close to what Obama wants to do here. What Obama wants isn't even strange and foreign in the US. We have been doing progressive taxation in this country for ages now. Why is it that all of the sudden we are walking the path of the evil socialist empire?

Stop allowing yourself to be subjected to fear mongering.

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Although I believe in the collective's habitual ignorance of history and preferences to repeat its worst happenings, perhaps I put my own prospective ignorance on the line when I ask when the last time the US truly had a bout with socialism is. My teachings go back to the late 18th century. Did it happen before that?

The US has never done so. It's always had a slight bit of 'socialism', which by the way works well enough that people who hate to call it socialism deny those program are socialist.

'I *hate* anything socialist. Why, I was just reading this book by Rush Limbaugh from our wonderful public library about how bad it is.'

This

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: winnar111
We spent ~$400 billion on Dept of HHS in 2000, and that's ~$700 billion in 2008. What we are doing isn't working; we cannot offer Dick Cheney's healthcare to 300 billion people.

We've had socialized programs in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and other states that have all failed. Why should I believe Obama's healthcare program will cost what it says?

I cannot provide you with anything that will make you believe that Obama's UHC program will cost what it says. The bottom line is that you lack confidence in trust in government and that is why you do not believe Obama on his word which is essentially all we have to work with since the real vigorous details that would allow us to conclude otherwise are not available just like McCain's details are not around either.

Speaking of which, might I ask a similar confidence question? Why should I believe that the $5000 that McCain wants to send to insurance companies for each American insured will do anything to reduce insurance costs and result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance in America? Why shouldn't I believe that the insurance companies will use a great deal of the tax payers money for stuff that does not trickle down to the tax paying consumer?

It has nothing to do with trust; it has to do with history:

In the 1960s Medicare spent about $.1 billion a year (1% of the $10+b at the peak of the Vietnam War). It was $220 billion 8 years ago. Today its about $420 billion.

I don't think McCain's proposal will result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance. These gold plated expensive insurance programs are part of the problem.

All McCain's proposal will do is its face value result: It'll lower the cost of insurance by......$5000. For a family that's about $12k to $7k, minus the $3360 in taxes paid on that $12k for most families in the 28% bracket. You save a bit over $1500.

We spend far too much time worrying about a small fraction of the population that is 'uninsured'.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I agree with Craig. I think that the vast majority of negative figures that McCain supporters will be digging up throughout Obama's presidency when he gets elected will most be a result of Bush.

Likewise, much of the following president's success might be a result of Obama. It is not like we have not seen this pattern before.

Because its not like Reagan and Bush Jr didn't inherit bad economies......

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Xavier434
The idea is to prevent catastrophes before they occur and for two reasons. First, medical catastrophes are terrible and can have great negative impacts on your life should you endure one. Second, consistently practicing and paying for reasonable preventative care as well as maintaining a decent level of health in general will tremendously reduce one's overall medical costs. Most medical costs occur amongst the elderly. Most elderly that incur the largest medical costs are those that did not practice a healthy lifestyle while they were younger and did not utilize preventative care.

Beyond that, preventative health care is still something which costs a decent amount of money and most are not able to pay for it even though it will cost them much less in the long run. You can also look at it as costing you a lot less in the long run depending on who floats the bill.

If everybody makes use of preventive healthcare, then everybody's health insurance will be too expensive.

I disagree. Perhaps you can provide some proof as to why? I believe they will be reduced because many more people out there would be considered lower risk. Check ups are not what sinks these insurance companies. It is the expenses that their clients claim as a result of not getting check ups that really cost them some serious cash.

Why would a low risk person want to buy high risk insurance?

 

[Deeko]

I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Deeko
I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

He plans to roll back many tax rates to higher than they were under Clinton.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Ryan711

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: winnar111
We spent ~$400 billion on Dept of HHS in 2000, and that's ~$700 billion in 2008. What we are doing isn't working; we cannot offer Dick Cheney's healthcare to 300 billion people.

We've had socialized programs in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and other states that have all failed. Why should I believe Obama's healthcare program will cost what it says?

I cannot provide you with anything that will make you believe that Obama's UHC program will cost what it says. The bottom line is that you lack confidence in trust in government and that is why you do not believe Obama on his word which is essentially all we have to work with since the real vigorous details that would allow us to conclude otherwise are not available just like McCain's details are not around either.

Speaking of which, might I ask a similar confidence question? Why should I believe that the $5000 that McCain wants to send to insurance companies for each American insured will do anything to reduce insurance costs and result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance in America? Why shouldn't I believe that the insurance companies will use a great deal of the tax payers money for stuff that does not trickle down to the tax paying consumer?

They were state run which doesn't have the money of the federal government... why Medicare/medicaid have NOT failed.

You do realize that medicare/medicaid take up 21% of the national budget and only ~10 million people are enrolled in it. I can't imagine 300+ million.

10 million of the oldest and unhealthy of the country... they make up a supermajority of the nation's risk. Brain?

Medicare covers 41 million people. There are more than 10 million over 65 obviously. Medicare/Medicaid ARE FAILING. It is a known fact. They have not failed yet, but we all know entitlement programs like this and SS are a scam. Our priority now is the current economic state, but when things are good, then we focus on SS/Medicare. Look at the 2000 election and 1996. Much was talked about SS and impending doom. However, we got more short term things to work out now, but it doesn't change the fact that entitlement programs are about to screw us up the butt really soon.

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: winnar111
We spent ~$400 billion on Dept of HHS in 2000, and that's ~$700 billion in 2008. What we are doing isn't working; we cannot offer Dick Cheney's healthcare to 300 billion people.

We've had socialized programs in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and other states that have all failed. Why should I believe Obama's healthcare program will cost what it says?

I cannot provide you with anything that will make you believe that Obama's UHC program will cost what it says. The bottom line is that you lack confidence in trust in government and that is why you do not believe Obama on his word which is essentially all we have to work with since the real vigorous details that would allow us to conclude otherwise are not available just like McCain's details are not around either.

Speaking of which, might I ask a similar confidence question? Why should I believe that the $5000 that McCain wants to send to insurance companies for each American insured will do anything to reduce insurance costs and result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance in America? Why shouldn't I believe that the insurance companies will use a great deal of the tax payers money for stuff that does not trickle down to the tax paying consumer?

It has nothing to do with trust; it has to do with history:

In the 1960s Medicare spent about $.1 billion a year (1% of the $10+b at the peak of the Vietnam War). It was $220 billion 8 years ago. Today its about $420 billion.

I don't think McCain's proposal will result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance. These gold plated expensive insurance programs are part of the problem.

All McCain's proposal will do is its face value result: It'll lower the cost of insurance by......$5000. For a family that's about $12k to $7k, minus the $3360 in taxes paid on that $12k for most families in the 28% bracket. You save a bit over $1500.

We spend far too much time worrying about a small fraction of the population that is 'uninsured'.

Well what the system really needs is a reduction in cost. McCain's solution of choice is great but at the same time the government is throwing out money. The end goal of this is to get people into the market and competition to drive prices lower. I think more reform is needed in this system before the costs really get driven down. When the costs are driven down, insurance will be more accessible for people.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Deeko
I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

Well clinton had newt to keep him in check. Obama will have no one to keep him in check with the democrats on the verge of 60 seats in the senate. Lets not forget the first few years of clinton was a disaster. It was not till newt and the republicans took back congress to balance government did things go well.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

He plans to roll back many tax rates to higher than they were under Clinton.

Last time I checked, his income tax rates are no higher than Clinton's were - 39% on the top tier. They're nowhere even close to the Carter levels. And everyone that screams about socialist health care, uh, his plans are much less socialist than his competitors in the primaries were.

It's just the Republicans last ditch effort to attach a negative buzzword to a candidate. McCain lost, trying to paint Obama as a commie is both a lie and destined to fail.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Ryan711

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: winnar111
We spent ~$400 billion on Dept of HHS in 2000, and that's ~$700 billion in 2008. What we are doing isn't working; we cannot offer Dick Cheney's healthcare to 300 billion people.

We've had socialized programs in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and other states that have all failed. Why should I believe Obama's healthcare program will cost what it says?

I cannot provide you with anything that will make you believe that Obama's UHC program will cost what it says. The bottom line is that you lack confidence in trust in government and that is why you do not believe Obama on his word which is essentially all we have to work with since the real vigorous details that would allow us to conclude otherwise are not available just like McCain's details are not around either.

Speaking of which, might I ask a similar confidence question? Why should I believe that the $5000 that McCain wants to send to insurance companies for each American insured will do anything to reduce insurance costs and result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance in America? Why shouldn't I believe that the insurance companies will use a great deal of the tax payers money for stuff that does not trickle down to the tax paying consumer?

They were state run which doesn't have the money of the federal government... why Medicare/medicaid have NOT failed.

You do realize that medicare/medicaid take up 21% of the national budget and only ~10 million people are enrolled in it. I can't imagine 300+ million.

10 million of the oldest and unhealthy of the country... they make up a supermajority of the nation's risk. Brain?

Medicare covers 41 million people. There are more than 10 million over 65 obviously. Medicare/Medicaid ARE FAILING. It is a known fact. They have not failed yet, but we all know entitlement programs like this and SS are a scam. Our priority now is the current economic state, but when things are good, then we focus on SS/Medicare. Look at the 2000 election and 1996. Much was talked about SS and impending doom. However, we got more short term things to work out now, but it doesn't change the fact that entitlement programs are about to screw us up the butt really soon.

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: winnar111
We spent ~$400 billion on Dept of HHS in 2000, and that's ~$700 billion in 2008. What we are doing isn't working; we cannot offer Dick Cheney's healthcare to 300 billion people.

We've had socialized programs in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and other states that have all failed. Why should I believe Obama's healthcare program will cost what it says?

I cannot provide you with anything that will make you believe that Obama's UHC program will cost what it says. The bottom line is that you lack confidence in trust in government and that is why you do not believe Obama on his word which is essentially all we have to work with since the real vigorous details that would allow us to conclude otherwise are not available just like McCain's details are not around either.

Speaking of which, might I ask a similar confidence question? Why should I believe that the $5000 that McCain wants to send to insurance companies for each American insured will do anything to reduce insurance costs and result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance in America? Why shouldn't I believe that the insurance companies will use a great deal of the tax payers money for stuff that does not trickle down to the tax paying consumer?

It has nothing to do with trust; it has to do with history:

In the 1960s Medicare spent about $.1 billion a year (1% of the $10+b at the peak of the Vietnam War). It was $220 billion 8 years ago. Today its about $420 billion.

I don't think McCain's proposal will result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance. These gold plated expensive insurance programs are part of the problem.

All McCain's proposal will do is its face value result: It'll lower the cost of insurance by......$5000. For a family that's about $12k to $7k, minus the $3360 in taxes paid on that $12k for most families in the 28% bracket. You save a bit over $1500.

We spend far too much time worrying about a small fraction of the population that is 'uninsured'.

Well what the system really needs is a reduction in cost. McCain's solution of choice is great but at the same time the government is throwing out money. The end goal of this is to get people into the market and competition to drive prices lower. I think more reform is needed in this system before the costs really get driven down. When the costs are driven down, insurance will be more accessible for people.

Medicare covers the most Unhealthy. Private Insurers want little to do with them and so far "Competition" hasn't done squat.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I agree with Craig. I think that the vast majority of negative figures that McCain supporters will be digging up throughout Obama's presidency when he gets elected will most be a result of Bush.

Likewise, much of the following president's success might be a result of Obama. It is not like we have not seen this pattern before.

Because its not like Reagan and Bush Jr didn't inherit bad economies......

Reagan inherited an economy on track for recovery, with Paul Volcker, who is widely credited with winning the battle on inflation, already in place from his appointment by Carter.

Reagan took the politically expedient and fiscally irresponsible course of shooting the borrowing up for short-term benefit, at the expense of the debt.

Bush, Jr., inherited a recession, but a hell of a lot better economy than he created. He did all kinds of terrible policies that worsened the economy and again skyrocketed the debt.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Democratic Socialism as implemented in Canada and England are widely considered to be successful.

Ask a Canadian if he'd want to trade his UHC for the private system we have here.

Plenty of Canadians come to the US for medical care.

Yes, the very wealthy minority.

At 25, my wife and I were denied insurance by every carrier in the state.. what are choices? $5k for catastrophic only insurance...

Yeah, our system isd the best!

Stop getting syndromes

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

He plans to roll back many tax rates to higher than they were under Clinton.

Last time I checked, his income tax rates are no higher than Clinton's were - 39% on the top tier. They're nowhere even close to the Carter levels. And everyone that screams about socialist health care, uh, his plans are much less socialist than his competitors in the primaries were.

It's just the Republicans last ditch effort to attach a negative buzzword to a candidate. McCain lost, trying to paint Obama as a commie is both a lie and destined to fail.

You guarantee he will veto a democratic UHC plan then? It will be the congress that will decide the direction of health care. The only thing the president can do is veto the bill or sign it. All I heard during the DNC convention was UHC UHC and more UHC. The democrats will pass a UHC and Obama will sign it because he is a socialist.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

He plans to roll back many tax rates to higher than they were under Clinton.

Last time I checked, his income tax rates are no higher than Clinton's were - 39% on the top tier. They're nowhere even close to the Carter levels. And everyone that screams about socialist health care, uh, his plans are much less socialist than his competitors in the primaries were.

It's just the Republicans last ditch effort to attach a negative buzzword to a candidate. McCain lost, trying to paint Obama as a commie is both a lie and destined to fail.

You guarantee he will veto a democratic UHC plan then? It will be the congress that will decide the direction of health care. The only thing the president can do is veto the bill or sign it. All I heard during the DNC convention was UHC UHC and more UHC. The democrats will pass a UHC and Obama will sign it because he is a socialist.

Whatever you say, kid.