Third Party & Independents Archives

Good summary. I thought both did well also. I thought Sen. McCain exceeded my highest expectations…and still came up short to Sen. Obama. BTW (big secret here) there is NO WAY either one of them would offer a SC nominee that has a public opinion on RvW different than their own no matter what they say about a litmus test.

Posted by: Tom Besly at October 15, 2008 10:46 PM

I thought the previous two debates were a tie, and most instapolls and polls in the following days showed Obama beat McCain. Obama beat him again tonight. It wasn’t so much a matter of content, although McCain will probably come to regret the ‘quote’ mark sneer about the health of a woman in late term abortions as being some sort of excuse. There are some pretty horrifying procedures that become necessary when hydroencephaly occurs; it’s a horrible situation, and let’s just leave it at that. Anyway, McCain blew it there.

Where McCain gets slaughtered by Obama is on the intangibles, and it happened again tonight. McCain blinked a lot, breathed heavily into his mike, and simply did not look good next to the steady, composed, young candidate. McCain’s answers tended to wander a bit. He did the best he could tonight, but came up short when compared to Obama. So, that’s that. McCain’s cooked. Here comes the landslide.

Posted by: phx8 at October 15, 2008 11:08 PM

David -

I couldn’t watch, but I did listen in on the AM dial. Both did indeed do well…but I was frustrated that on several occasions McCain would throw out accusations and the moderator would say “time’s up on this topic, now to the next one”.

Now maybe I missed where it was simply his turn to be the one giving the closing argument on each topic…but that was simply my admittedly biased perception.

Other than that, Obama certainly sounded presidential…and McCain (with my apologies to all radio broadcasters) sounded like a slightly more polite version of right-wing talk-show host Mark Levin.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 15, 2008 11:14 PM

I feel sorry for Joe Wurzelbacher, because McCain turned him into a punch line.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 15, 2008 11:24 PM

S.D., Wurzel Who?

Oh, yeah, the plumber. HaHa.!!! That reference got old and tired real fast, didn’t it?

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 15, 2008 11:28 PM

The exchange regarding McCain looking like Bush was pretty interesting. Obama’s response was poignant and I am sure resonated with undecided voters.

If it walks with Bush, votes with Bush, and offers Bush’s policies, it is not Bush, it is John McCain. That was the essence. Obama didn’t score many debate points, but, he clearly won that one, making McCain’s plaintive defense, “I am not Bush”, sound feeble.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 15, 2008 11:33 PM

Obama explained, as thoroughly as he could his relationship with Ayers…I’d expect posters here to drop that one once and for all…right???..right???..RIGHT?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 11:35 PM

Tom Besley said: “McCain exceeded my highest expectations…and still came up short to Sen. Obama.”

That is likely to be the most succinct summary of this debate to appear in this column.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 15, 2008 11:41 PM

McCain is really far behind. FiveThirtyEight gives Obama a 95.1% chance of winning on November 4 and 270towin gives Obama over a 99.5% chance of winning if the election were held right now. That’s a huge deficit, and this was McCain’s last chance to make a big splash.

Unfortunately for him, tonight was just not enough.

In by far the most interesting debate of the series (whether due to the format, the candidates, or the moderator, I don’t know), McCain did a lot better than he had done before. It’s possible that his attacks on Obama as another tax-and-spend liberal were likely very effective for the Republican base. However, the Republican base is not who he needs now. Since the economic meltdown, the Independents have been moving strongly to Obama, and I don’t think that the red meat for the GOP base will sway those Independents.

It didn’t help that McCain made a lot of flubs - Sarah Palin’s experience is with a child with Downs Syndrome, not autism. His laugh line about insurance was supposed to be about “hair transplants”, not just transplants (and since it flopped so badly in the second debate, I’m surprised he even tried again). There were a couple of others, but I don’t remember them right now (I’m a bit distracted).

Lots of McCain’s facial expressions were negative, and I think he’ll get knocked down on the visual of seething contempt vs. Obama’s confident smiling (apparently, CNN’s instant poll has Obama winning “likability” 70% to 22%).

I don’t have a lot to say about Obama here - this debate was simply a lot less important for him than it was for McCain. As some have noted, we’re in “dead girl, live boy territory” (a reference to an old political line that the only way the leader could lose is if he’s caught with a dead girl or a live boy), and Obama just needed to avoid a major gaffe. He did what he needed to do.

As I’m typing this, I’m seeing from the pundits that the instant polling from all the networks is that Obama won - apparently even from Fox! I’m surprised that the reaction is that consistent, but it probably means that we should be getting ready for President Barack Obama. And I think that’s great news for America.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 15, 2008 11:45 PM

McCain is really far behind. FiveThirtyEight gives Obama a 95.1% chance of winning on November 4 and 270towin gives Obama over a 99.5% chance of winning if the election were held right now. That’s a huge deficit, and this was McCain’s last chance to make a big splash.

Unfortunately for him, tonight was just not enough.

In by far the most interesting debate of the series (whether due to the format, the candidates, or the moderator, I don’t know), McCain did a lot better than he had done before. It’s possible that his attacks on Obama as another tax-and-spend liberal were likely very effective for the Republican base. However, the Republican base is not who he needs now. Since the economic meltdown, the Independents have been moving strongly to Obama, and I don’t think that the red meat for the GOP base will sway those Independents.

It didn’t help that McCain made a lot of flubs - Sarah Palin’s experience is with a child with Downs Syndrome, not autism. His laugh line about insurance was supposed to be about “hair transplants”, not just transplants (and since it flopped so badly in the second debate, I’m surprised he even tried again). There were a couple of others, but I don’t remember them right now (I’m a bit distracted).

Lots of McCain’s facial expressions were negative, and I think he’ll get knocked down on the visual of seething contempt vs. Obama’s confident smiling (apparently, CNN’s instant poll has Obama winning “likability” 70% to 22%).

I don’t have a lot to say about Obama here - this debate was simply a lot less important for him than it was for McCain. As FiveThirtyEight.com has noted, we’re in “dead girl, live boy territory” (a reference to an old political line that the only way the leader could lose is if he’s caught with a dead girl or a live boy), and Obama just needed to avoid a major gaffe. He did what he needed to do.

As I’m typing this, I’m seeing from the pundits that the instant polling from all the networks is that Obama won - apparently even from Fox! I’m surprised that the reaction is that consistent, but it probably means that we should be getting ready for President Barack Obama. And I think that’s great news for America.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 15, 2008 11:48 PM

What became clear for me was that McCain’s strategy of running as a right winger rather than a moderate is not working. Despite what he said, he sounds too much like Bush.

Posted by: Max at October 15, 2008 11:48 PM

McCain blew it again.

What happened to the man everyone said was so strong? He did not name names & tell us exactly who caused our problems.
I would not have voted for him if I actually had a choice in the primary.
If Obama can ‘speak’ to our adversaries the way he speaks to his prospective voters… he will not have months of uninterrupted political speak to change the minds of those who lead countries that want to see us destroyed.
He will not be on the televisions in Iran/Venezuela/Cuba/Russia/Pakistan/Lebanon for hours/days/weeks at a time getting the citizens to believe the U.S. is good & they should overthrow their own governments.

I hear from both of them what they will do about healthcare premiums for the poor, for those who had insurance at a job they lost, and for the UNinsured. What about those of us who have their own business and pay their own premiums? We pay the highest premiums because we are INDIVIDUAL.
We qualify financially to buy into the state insurance program BUT I cannot sign up for it because we have not taken the chance of being without insurance for six months.

We are MIDDLE CLASS. We are SELF-EMPLOYED. We are SCREWED again whichever one of these men ‘win’. If I were to vote just on healthcare I would have noone to vote for.

Obama said… ‘declining wages’. Wages have not declined. Didn’t our government just raise minimum wage?
Every time that happens… every one above minimum wage cries fowl and needs their wages raised.
As soon as everyone’s wages go up the cost of living goes up. Those who just had their minimum wage raised to make them ‘feel good’ are no better off.
He is going to raise wages? EVERYTHING we buy has gone up faster than our wages.
Based on OIL PRICES.
Something has to give.
Raising taxes is NOT the answer.
Raising wages is NOT the answer.

One of these men has to give answers to the problems. They both give ‘feel good vote for me’ statements.

Posted by: Dawn at October 15, 2008 11:52 PM

Obama…’What Lewis said was appropriate but our campaign put out a statement saying it was not appropriate.’

Did I hear that right? I heard it the same way twice.

Posted by: Dawn at October 16, 2008 12:04 AM

Dawn,

I’m pretty sure he said that what Lewis said was appropriate, but that he had carried it too far. He said that he had told Lewis that and that Lewis had retracted the Wallace reference. Actually, I think what Lewis said needed to be said, and that Lewis said it lent authenticity.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 16, 2008 12:23 AM

George Bush gives me the heeby-jeebys, but I would never in my wildest revulsion of the man talk about killing him.

Palin has incited-to-riot a crowd of fervent supporters, and encouraged them to shout for the head of a man who is running for the presidency of the United States. Not only should she be reprimanded by mccain, she should be arrested. What Lewis said was too weak.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 16, 2008 12:30 AM

I agree with David’s recap for the most part, but the political junkie side of me is somewhat annoyed by the unsatisfactory nature of this entire sequence of three debates.

For the most part in tonight’s debate, the candidates were asked and answered questions which only slightly varied from those asked in the three previous debates. McCain and Obama basically rehashed their answers from other debates, and that was the fault of the moderator.. with just a few exceptions. We finally got to talk about judges and education, but there are tons of issues that were just not covered in any of the debates.

It’s understandable, considering the economic crisis, that we’d spend such a large amount of time on it—but come on. The first 45 minutes of the supposedly “national security” debate was spent on this stuff, and it was discussed extensively last week as well. Revisiting the same issue was a waste of time since both candidates pretty much gave the same canned responses that they’d given twice already.

Unless I missed it, while we were revisiting for yet a third time their healthcare and bailout plans and hearing the same answers, we never heard a blessed thing about gun-control, public land-use, affirmative action, law enforcement and crime, the Patriot Act, and a whole host of issues that frankly we need to hear about from our next president in a public forum.

This whole model of debating, where candidates give their canned answers in two minutes, just seems absurd to me. What I’d like to see is both candidates sit down together—perhaps on a comfy sofa with steaming cups of tea—and talk together for four or five hours with no moderator present. Do that every Sunday afternoon after the conventions and air it on C-Span, and we’d have a lot better system than we do now.

Posted by: Loyal Oppostion at October 16, 2008 12:43 AM

I just realized that Sarah Louise Heath Palin’s energy plan is increadible!

Ever since she has been making an impact in the election, oil prices have been going down. McCane just won my vote.

(She also saved energy by letting her kids name themselves.)

Posted by: angrymob at October 16, 2008 12:55 AM

Congrats, Lawnboy!!!

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 16, 2008 01:17 AM

Do that every Sunday afternoon after the conventions and air it on C-Span, and we’d have a lot better system than we do now.

Inviting all of the candidates with mathematical possibilities of winning the election would be even better. You know, giving the voters real choices instead of ‘At least I don’t suck as much as my opponent, look how sucky THEY are’ that we see every two years now. :(

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 16, 2008 01:22 AM

Ditto on the congrats Lawnboy !

Posted by: janedoe at October 16, 2008 01:25 AM

I was surprised McCain got such positive scoring from the CNN panel. It often seemed McCain didn’t even listen to Obama but rolled out pre-pre-prepared attacks.

Example - his outrage over Obama dissing his campaign rally attendees when Obama said no such thing. Also, his big line that he wasn’t President Bush came after Obama hit him for supporting Bush’s policies - not directly attacking Bush.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 16, 2008 07:28 AM

This was assuredly the most assertive debate for McCain. I think Obama did just as much as needed to avoid any poor character assessments. McCain on the other hand did himself no favors with what appeared to me to be a few somewhat vindictive emotional displays. Probably his best retort of the night was his “I am not George Bush” reply. But even that was weak as his voting record indicates he may as well be GW. Also the Ayers and Acorn thing is getting old real fast. McCain is attempting to make a mountain out of a mole hill by stretching the truth on these issues. I agree with phx8, he is toast.

Posted by: RickIL at October 16, 2008 07:38 AM

Lawnboy

Atta boy!! Congrats!

Posted by: RickIL at October 16, 2008 07:39 AM

I agree that McCain had probably his best, most substantive performance of the three but his game was still not good enough to beat Obama. McCain’s snarky remark belittling the “health of a woman” was highly counterproductive to winning over undecided voters. He is running so hard right that it is baffling. Does he think that he is appealing to undecided and independent voters that way? It doesn’t seem to be working. He actually reminded me a lot of George Bush in this sense - he lost the first debate and what did he change? Nothing. He lost the second debate and what did he change? Nothing. So he lost the third debate too. He stubbornly refused to do anything different and the grumpy, old man thing isn’t playing very well. Just like our current disaster living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., he keeps trying the same strategy expecting a different outcome. I think I see a fat lady getting ready to sing.

Obama cut him off at the knees on ACORN and Ayers and did an excellent job of diffusing those weak accusations. I also liked the way he handled the John Lewis issue. Though I thought that Lewis’ analogy was most appropriate. When people are shouting “Kill Him!” and “Bomb Obama” at rallies and you do nothing you are setting up an atmosphere to accept violence. Fostering anger like that is dangerous and McCain/Palin have to own their part of it. Palin has been much worse but McCain, other than last Friday has said nothing. McCain looked to be close to tears when talking about Lewis and how he had written about this guy and admired him but then doesn’t see his own responsibility for whipping up this garbage.

McCain did nothing to help his cause. I agree with LawnBoy - Obama is in dead girl/live boy territory. Unless McCain has something up his sleeve his is toast.

Posted by: tcsned at October 16, 2008 08:02 AM

Thanks, everyone!

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 16, 2008 08:56 AM

Where is all the MSM bias? Most of what I’m reading is highlighting McCain’s digs and this Joe guy who apparently knows more about socialism than any other plumber - while most individuals watching thought Obama did better.

The answer is the MSM is bias for McCain - or maybe just bias for a close race.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 16, 2008 10:55 AM

I think the MSM wants the race to tighten so they will have something to talk about. Though, the first two debates I thought were a draw, the polls said Obama had a solid win - so I guess I am in league with the MSM. I think more than anything with the public polls is that people aren’t buying what McCain/Palin are selling. I don’t think that there was anything McCain could have said or done to change the public perception.

As I have always said, this notion that the MSM has a liberal bias is a myth. They want ratings and playing up a story that will achieve maximum ratings is what they do. If it means slamming the left or the right or ignoring facts they do it to get market share. Even the MSNBC guys (except Olbermnan and Maddow) gave this one to McCain and the polling suggested a lopsided win for Obama.

If Obama holds on to his lead for the next three weeks and get 350+ electoral votes the MSM won’t have anything to report on till election night. So they need the race to tighten or they need a scandal. Though at this point the scandals seem to be coming from Sarah Palin not the Obama camp. Nice vetting job there McCain.

Posted by: tcsned at October 16, 2008 11:43 AM

It was just another fake debate about change presented by the corrupt overlords of America for the benefit of their constituent enablers. By all accounts, it has enthralled the Republocrats.

Posted by: jlw at October 16, 2008 12:04 PM

I have to say that I believe our two party system is fundamentally broken. Because of the enormous amounts of money required to run for public office, any candidate who does not sign on with one of the major parties has very little chance of mounting a successful campaign. And once signed on has a very difficult time getting elected unless they tout the party line. Case in point there are only two independents in Congress and one of them used to be a Democrat and was re-elected to his seat. An alternative way of affecting government would be these forums encouraging all outraged citizens to vote for ANYONE BUT MCCAIN OR OBAMA. There are over 200 registered candidates for President with approximately 10 or so in each state (check out votesmart.org for the list of candidates for your state). If we mount a grass roots campaign here in the waning days of the election cycle to get a majority in every state for ANY CANDIDATE EXCEPT MCCAIN OR OBAMA, while voting OUT any incumbant in either local, state or national office, that would make a very Loud and Clear statement to our governement officials that we are sick and tired of their BS government by the few and for the few. Personally I will be voting for a third party candidate on election day….I’m not sure yet whether it will be Cynthia McKinley of the Green party (way left of left) or Charles Jay of the Boston Tea Party (way right of right), I would prefer a centrist, moderate candidate, but there don’t seem to be any of those running in Florida. Unfortunately, the powers that be (the media) elected not to invite any of the third party candidates to the presidential debates (because you see they are some of the few who shape public policy now instead of journalists who unbiasedly report the news).

Posted by: Deborah at October 16, 2008 12:06 PM

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama promises to “cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers.” That’s not possible. McCain offers refundable tax credits for health care, as well as other credits, but he doesn’t insult the intelligence of the American people by calling them “tax cuts.”

Read the entire story here; http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2008/10/16/the_case_against_barack_obama,_part_1

I always enjoy the armchair analysis provided after the debates but I must admit I never learn anything from them. What I do enjoy most is the effort by some to appear fair and balanced in their assessment.

Posted by: Jim M at October 16, 2008 12:41 PM

Of course it wouldn’t be nearly as fun to take a look at the new factcheck site for their newly released assessment of the proposals, would it Jim M ?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_3.html

Posted by: janedoe at October 16, 2008 01:00 PM

Marysdude posted the following…

“George Bush gives me the heeby-jeebys, but I would never in my wildest revulsion of the man talk about killing him.

Palin has incited-to-riot a crowd of fervent supporters, and encouraged them to shout for the head of a man who is running for the presidency of the United States. Not only should she be reprimanded by mccain, she should be arrested. What Lewis said was too weak.”

I invite you to read about the Secret Service’s investigation of the aforementioned “Kill Him” statement.

Secret Service says “Kill him” allegation unfounded

Posted by: Jim T at October 16, 2008 01:05 PM

Nice summary, David.

Tom Besley

BTW (big secret here) there is NO WAY either one of them would offer a SC nominee that has a public opinion on RvW different than their own no matter what they say about a litmus test.

heh, you got that one right. There are plenty of qualified judges on both sides of the RvW question, so there’s no reason either would nominate one that would so anger their own party’s base. They have to make the “no litmus test” claim, but if you listen to their conclusions after making that claim, it becomes pretty clear neither will buck their party.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at October 16, 2008 01:05 PM

It all comes down to who you trust to be President of the United States. I submit that with Barack Obama, you know what you’re getting. I would not have said this before the campaign, but who knew that McCain would pick Sarah Palin? Who knew that McCain would support the bailout package? Who knew that McCain would propose renegotiating mortage agreements? Who knew that the real McCain would show up with a little over 3 weeks left in the final debate?

McCain was willing to do anything to win, and that disturbs me greatly. When he is President, do you think he will support “across the board spending freezes” or “balancing the federal budget” like he says? Or do you think he will do anything to please interests (let’s not call them special interests; some of them are legitimate for all like the military) depending on what his advisors say is necessary to remain aloft in the polls?

Obama may stretch the truth a little, but I can guess what he will do despite his background. Can you guess the next McCain move? I can’t, and that is dangerous.

Even if you dislike Obama, you can’t help but agree with his assessment of erratic leadership on the part of McCain. “Maverick” is just an euphemism for “unpredictable.”

I take the evil I know over the evil I don’t. Sorry John, you should’ve picked Lieberman, opposed the bailout like a true fiscal conservative, and acted like debate 3 from day 1.

Posted by: Brian at October 16, 2008 01:14 PM

Oops Tom Besly - sorry about the misspell; I had intended to go back and check the spelling of your name and then forgot.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at October 16, 2008 01:15 PM

I thought Obama won last nights debate easily.
It wasn’t just the way he discussed the issues, which he obviously has a clear command on, but he won it with his usual calm, cool and collected demeanor. McCain came off unfocused and sometimes confused-sounding on the issues, the Joe Plumber thing was silly and totally canned sounding, and when it came to his demeanor he came off nervous, agitated, grumpy and well, sort of creepy.
But then, I realize I’m unable to be truly objective at this point, because I’m really surprised that the official consensus is to suggest that last night was a really close match-up.

Lawnboy, nice work, and what a beautiful family you’ve got there! Congratulations.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 16, 2008 01:27 PM

Millions of Americans have watched the video of that rally and the words were shouted out clear enough to discern in the video. Sounds like the Secret Service is following orders from their Republican boss.

The Kill Him comment was recorded at the rally.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2008 01:33 PM

Deborah, you may be interested in this perspective of what is unfolding that would likely please your sensibilities about what should and is likely to take place going forward. It’s not as dark as it appears, though your assessment of the current situation is dead on right. But, there is sound basis for hope that fundamental changes are going to occur for the better.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2008 01:38 PM

Sorry John, you should’ve picked Lieberman, opposed the bailout like a true fiscal conservative, and acted like debate 3 from day 1.

If he had opposed the bailout, it wouldn’t have happened and every bit of this economic collapse would be pinned on him. He would probably have had to just go ahead and withdraw from the election.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 16, 2008 02:15 PM

From another site I read the “Kill Him” definitely occurred at the Clearwater, FL rally. I believe this is where the video was taken. Either the comment was also uttered at the Scranton rally, or they actually meant the Clearwater, FL rally.

Posted by: JJ at October 16, 2008 02:38 PM

JJ, thanks for the added details.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2008 02:45 PM

This is kind of funny: Plumber Joe doesn’t have a plumbing licence, nor does that company he wants to buy.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 16, 2008 03:00 PM

Here’s some points I would have liked to hear from McCain in this last debate, which he didn’t do, and hasn’t done so far.

1.He keeps reiterating that he knows how to catch Bin Laden, if he knows how to catch him why dosen’t he say so, and why isn’t he pulling out of the race to spearhead the capture/kill instead of talking about it.

2.He’s been in Washington for what, 30 some odd years? He surely knows names of the people he says are corrupt, cronies, etc. , as all the people in or near power in Washington do, so just name them. We the citizens will do our thing and get pissed at them, and they, under our watch will get sent to prison. Simple.

3.This got touched on a bit last night, but finally I liked at least they talked about Washington, not the “government” Washington, that we all know and love/hate/ignore, but the city, and from that point…

Washington, anyone who’s been there will know this, but to those that haven’t here’s some facts.
It’s a LARGELY African-American populated city, by far (50%+), and most of that population is either lower middle-class or on the poverty level, especially once you leave the tourist areas that encompasses the center and northwest and go east. Up until recently, there’s been little to no improvement in terms on neighborhood’s, it’s gotten better the last 3 years or so, but not nearly as good as any suburb.

Why do I mention this? Because all president’s since JFK have been sitting in that city, while the city itself has been declining in safety, and the state of neighborhoods and residential areas, and it’s reflective of a lot of urban areas at the moment. So for a head of state to mention now the problems in their own backyard (literally) speaks of their concern not for rhetoric or constituency but the people they are supposed to help and work for.

Posted by: Jon at October 16, 2008 03:08 PM

McCain could have won the election if it were not for 6 major mistakes:

• (1) illegal immigration; McCain also voted for 1st shamnesty of 1986;


• (2) taxes; McCain wants to make taxes more regressive, and makes one wonder if he really understands what the means;


• (3) fiscal policy; both McCain and Obama voted for the bail-out BILLs, which ultimately also had billions of pork-barrel attached to it.


• (4) monetary policy and economic; both McCain and Obama appeared surprised at the economic melt-down, despite being warned about it for years by David Walker (former head of the GAO). Both revealed incompetence and ignorance in economics, because it doesn’t require a rocket scientist to see the inevitable consequences of so much debt, money-printing, borrowing, spending, pork-barrel, and waste.


• (5) Iraq; McCain still doesn’t get it about Iraq, and challenges the partiotism of anyone who disagrees with his stubborn determination to stay in Iraq, when there probably are better ways to make both Iraq and the U.S. safer.


• (6) Healthcare; Unfortunately, Obama gets more votes on this issue. With so much debt, it’s doubtful Obama’s plan will work, but too many voters are too easily fooled into thinking we ca all live at the expense of everyone else.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 16, 2008 04:43 PM

d.a.n., would you not go beyond your own debt limits to save the life of your child with health care you can’t afford?

Why would the American people view this differently for themselves and their loved ones. Obama has the right direction, health care should be a right. What he hasn’t got is a detailed and comprehensive plan on how we are going to be able to lower the cost of health care. He has not suggested moving to non-profit health care delivery. He has not suggested capping Rx drug prices at the level being sold overseas at. We may see these come forward, but, Obama has not put the numbers together yet that make sense.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2008 05:09 PM

VV…this poor guy, should be looking McCain up to square a few things for him. Now it has also come out that he has liens against him for UNPAID TAXES…….
Who wants to make a wager…right here and right now, that mysteriously, and very soon, that tax debt will disappear????…..thankyouverymuchJMcCAIN !!!

Posted by: janedoe at October 16, 2008 05:44 PM

VV,

It’s funnier than that Joe is related to…Charles Keating!!!!

http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/2008/10/15/joe-the-plumber-wurzelbacher-related-to-charles-keating-oops/

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 16, 2008 05:47 PM

Jim T -

You’re concentrating on ONE ‘kill him’ allegation…but you’re not looking at the big picture. If you think we’re blowing the anti-Obama thing way out of proportion, how about these:

“The blacks are gonna take over under Obama!” (Yes, it’s by an al-Jazeera reporter…but their reporting is no more unbalanced than Fox’s)

Obama was part of a Kenyan takeover strategy

“Obama supporters stay off the commercial parking lot”

“Obama worked with an Arab terrorist!”

“Obama’s not even a citizen!” (Obama was born in the state of Hawaii. McCain wasn’t even born in a state (Panama))

And do I need to post links about how many times he’s been called ‘terrorist’ at a McCain/Palin rally, how Palin says he ‘pals around with terrorist’? And you well know what a lot of rednecks would like to do with somebody they think is a terrorist….

Bro, there’s SO many false rumors out there about Obama - and I know you’ve heard a lot of things too. Maybe a guy said ‘kill him”, maybe not…but in ANY case it was not until just a few days ago that McCain even tried to tone things down…and got booed for it! Palin hasn’t tried at all.

How should a president act? As a rabble rouser, or someone who doesn’t take action to stop high emotions in their audience before it goes into the direction of violence?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 16, 2008 06:14 PM

>How should a president act? As a rabble rouser, or someone who doesn’t take action to stop high emotions in their audience before it goes into the direction of violence?
Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 16, 2008 06:14 PM

Glenn,

I think he should act like mccain…look puzzled that anyone would even bring up something so insignificant as threatening a presidential candidate, and then whine about a fellow congressman who points out the base actions of his own campaign…

mccain…the half man…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 16, 2008 07:41 PM

David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n., would you not go beyond your own debt limits to save the life of your child with health care you can’t afford?

Sure. If the lenders are dumb enough to go along.

HMMMMmmmmmmmmm … but that didn’t happen with healthcare.
It happened with houses.

Still, I do not see healthcare as a right, because healthcare costs.
Since it costs, we have to ask who it costs?
Now, I am a supporter and believer in welfare to those that are truly needy.
However, everything has limits.

Anyway, I think healthcare would be more affordable if it weren’t for massive government interventions and interference (e.g. Medicaid, Medicare, etc.).
These are also unfunded systems being funded by massive borrowing and money-printing.

David R. Remer wrote: Why would the American people view this differently for themselves and their loved ones. Obama has the right direction, health care should be a right.

I disagree for the reasons above. The sort of universal healthcare you describe can not be accomplished by the corrupt system of government that we have now.

David R. Remer wrote: What he hasn’t got is a detailed and comprehensive plan on how we are going to be able to lower the cost of health care. He has not suggested moving to non-profit health care delivery. He has not suggested capping Rx drug prices at the level being sold overseas at. We may see these come forward, but, Obama has not put the numbers together yet that make sense.

Not likely. After all, in case anyone hasn’t noticed, the federal government isn’t only fiscally bankrupt, but morally bankrupt too.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 17, 2008 12:01 AM

I should note it appears that Joe the plumber is actually NOT a relative of Keating….just a similar family name.

But it does appear he was complete phoney, propagating Republican elitism.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 17, 2008 01:16 AM

Joe’s about to get the Palin treatment. Maybe his son is actually not his at all.

I saw a poll where McCain was viewed the winner 52-41 among voters not affiliated with a party.

Since they are running against Bush I wonder why McCain doesn’t run ads linking Senator Government with the nuts in the house. Bush’s numbers are low but nothing compared to Pelosi’s congress.

Posted by: andy at October 17, 2008 02:22 AM

>Still, I do not see healthcare as a right, because healthcare costs.
Since it costs, we have to ask who it costs?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 17, 2008 12:01 AM

d.a.n.,

I guess a good question here might be…’what is more likely to cost more in the long run, health care that only the wealthy has access to, or health-care that is a ‘right’ because without it we will likely end up like Zimbabwe? Plagues and catastrophic diseases such as Cholera, diphtheria, malaria, follows in the footsteps of a shallow health-care program. One of the things mentioned in our Constitution is defense. If we don’t defend against our people dying unnecessarily, or carrying raging diseases, and chronic illnesses, how can we suggest we’ve been nationally defensive?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 17, 2008 02:51 AM

d.a.n -

If I can show you that Universal Health Care actually leads to a longer national life expectancy (because of better overall care of the population instead of health care of the rich, by the rich, for the rich), AND show you that UHC can and often DOES cost less than the Charlie-Fox (mil-speak for ‘fustercluck’) of a health care system that we presently have, would it change your mind?

Or would you prefer to continue to have the LESS effective and MORE expensive system that we have now?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 17, 2008 02:57 AM

Marysdude wrote: d.a.n., I guess a good question here might be…’what is more likely to cost more in the long run, health care that only the wealthy has access to, or health-care that is a ‘right’ because without it we will likely end up like Zimbabwe? Plagues and catastrophic diseases such as Cholera, diphtheria, malaria, follows in the footsteps of a shallow health-care program.

Healthcare is not a right, but that does not mean a nation can’t provide better healthcare.

But the point is, it requires more responsible government and voters than we currently have today.

Like the Article V issue, responsible government is required FIRST.
Things must be done in the correct order FIRST.
Otherwise, a new, huge, vast, government-run universal healthcare system will be run as badly as Social Security, Medicare, border security, etc., etc., etc.
Until enough voters learn to vote responsibly to make government responsible and accountable FIRST, a new, huge, vast, government-run universal healthcare system will be so corrupt, dysfunctional, and deadly, it may be the last straw for America, which is already swimming in massive debt of truly ridiculous and nightmare proportions.

That is, the federal government is so ridiculously broke, corrupt, dysfunctional, incompetent, and bankrupt (both fiscally and morally), that expecting to run any universal healthcare system better than it is running Social Security (now pay-as-you go, after Congress borrowed and spent $12.8 Trillion from it, with a 77 Million baby boomer bubble approaching) and Medicare (fraught with massive fraud) is most likely to be a miserable and costly failure.

There are many things that can be done to provide better healthcare to its citizens, but it requires responsible government and enough responsible voters to make it happen, and we currently have neither. Instead, we have too many voters that simply want to be taken care of from cradle-to-grave, who believe we can all live at the expense of everyone else, and try to disguise their jealousies, resentments, and gimme-gimme-gimme motives as claims of equality.

First of, there are many things that can be done to make healthcare more affordable, such as:

• (01) How much healthcare could have been purchased with the trillions spent to bail-out greedy, irresponsible, corrupt, usurious, predatory banks and corporations?


• (02) Stopping these 10 abuses.


• (03) Enforce existing laws and FDA policies to stop killing 195,000 Americans every year. Healthcare is not only increasingly unaffordable, but dangerous too! HealthGrades.com reported (27-July-2004) that “An average of 195,000 people in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records”. Since 1999, that is over 1.5 million people killed by preventable medical mistakes. That is more than all the American soldiers killed in the American Revolution (4,435), the War of 1812 (2,260), the Indian Wars (1,000), the Mexican War (1,733), the Civil War (462,000), the Spanish American War (385), WWI (53,402), WWII (291,557), Vietnam War (58,209), Korean War (36,574), the Iraq Gulf War (529), and the current Iraq war Mar-2003-present (3,963), combined! Once again, part of the problem is government meddling, the growing corpocrisy, corporatism, and other manifestations of unchecked greed. Health Care Solutions are needed, and while government is not necessarily responsible for providing universal health care, it is responsible for protecting consumers from some greedy corporations that will do anything for a buck. Also, illegal immigration is placing huge burdens on the healthcare system. Illegal aliens are over-running our ERs, hospitals, Medicaid, and welfare. If the 10 major abuses ere adequately addressed, it would reduce the pressures on the healthcare system.


• (04) Get rid of the unnecessary middlemen.


• (05) Stop illegal immigration, which isn’t only costing Americans $70-to-$327 Billion annually, but killing thousands of Americans each year. More Americans have been murdered in the last 3 years than all U.S. Troops killed in Iraq in the last 5 years (one-simple-idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Crime)


• (06) Make the current regressive tax system fair so that more Americans can afford healthcare.


• (07) Stop eroding Americans wealth with rampant inflation (One-Simple-Idea.com/Recession2008.htm) caused by a dishonest, usurious, inflationary, pyramid-scheme monetary system, and rampant borrowing, spending, money-printing, pork-barrel, welfare and subsidies for the wealthy, and shameful waste.


• (08) Leave Iraq. There are better ways to make the U.S. safer.


• (09) Stop repeatedly rewarding corrupt politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, despite 9% approval ratings for Congress.

Marysdude wrote: One of the things mentioned in our Constitution is defense. If we don’t defend against our people dying unnecessarily, or carrying raging diseases, and chronic illnesses, how can we suggest we’ve been nationally defensive?

Good question.

Yet neither presidential candidate, nor Congress will stop one of the most major and costly problems impacting our healthcare systems and numerous other systems …

(01) Our borders are wide-open, and more Americans were murdered by illegal aliens in the past 3 years than all U.S. troops killed in Iraq in the past 5 years (one-simple-idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Homicide)!

(02) Crime (VictimsOfIllegalAliens.com) by illegal aliens is a serious issue, but only part of the many issues costing U.S. tax payers net losses of $70 billion to $326.7 billion per year; some estimates place losses much higher;

(03) Illegal aliens place many costly and deadly burdens on the U.S., its hospital systems (84 hospitals closed/closing in California; 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas,TX in only the first 3 months of year 2006 were illegal aliens (www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp); same thing for this Florida hospital (www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI); border states are hit hardest, but it’s happening in all 50 states in the U.S.!), welfare systems, law enoforcement systems (one-simple-idea.com/PoliceVictimsOfIllegalAliens1.htm), prisons, schools (One-Simple-Idea.com/USAFlagTurnedUpsideDown.gif), insurance systems, etc., etc., etc. (One-Simple-Idea.com/Costs1.htm)

HMMMMmmmmmmm … seems to me that defending our borders and the U.S. against invasion would be a very good start to saving thousands of American lives per year, and $70-to-$327 Billion per year ? ! ?

Perhaps ALL Americans could afford healthcare if it were not for tens of millions of illegal aliens stealing healthcare, welfare, education, etc, etc., etc., from the U.S. ?

• Annaul Medical Expenditures (year 2005):
• H = Hospitals
• D = Doctors
• P = Prescription drugs
• A = Illegal Aliens (health care, Medicaid, Medi-Cal)
• I = Insurance (private)
• $667B |——————————————————-
• $633B |——————————————————H
• $600B |—————————————————-H-
• $567B |—————————————————H—
• $533B |————————————————-H—-
• $500B |————————————————H——
• $467B |———————————————-H——-
• $433B |———————————————H——-D
• $400B |——————————————-H——-D-
• $367B |——————————————H——-D—
• $333B |—————————————-H——-D—A
• $300B |—————————————H——-D—A-
• $267B |————————————H———D—A—
• $233B |———————————H———-D—A—-
• $200B |——————————H———-D—-A—-P
• $167B |—————————H———-D——A—-P-
• $133B |———————-H———-D——-A—-P—I
• $100B |——————H———-D——-A—-P—I—-
• $067B |————-H———D——A——-P—I———
• $033B |H————D——————P-I——————
• __ $0 |D-A-P-I———————————————
• _____ (1970)__________(1987)__________(2005)YEAR

Get rid of the unnecessary middle-men (insurance companies), illegal aliens, and stop 195,000 preventable deaths per year (100,000 caused by adverse drug reactions), and that would save Americans hundreds of Billions per year!

Keep letting tens of millions of illegal aliens have free healthcare, and it’s only a matter of time before all hospitals close.
Hundreds of over-run hospitals have alrady closed in many border states.
84 hospitals are closed or closing in California.
At one hospital in Dallas, Tx., 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas,TX in only the first 3 months of year 2006 were illegal aliens (www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp).
Same thing in many states, and getting worse.
Watch this video about only one hospital in Florida: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI

Glenn Contrarian wrote: d.a.n - If I can show you that Universal Health Care actually leads to a longer national life expectancy (because of better overall care of the population instead of health care of the rich, by the rich, for the rich), AND show you that UHC can and often DOES cost less than the Charlie-Fox (mil-speak for ‘fustercluck’) of a health care system that we presently have, would it change your mind?

Yes.

Good luck.
How are you going to prove it will save money?
The way Obama and McCain are going about it isn’t going to work, because neither have eliminated the unnecessary middlemen.
And what some other nations with Universal HealthCare have is not convincing, and often results in worse healthcare in many respects.
Many people in Canada come to the U.S. for many of their healthcare needs, because their Universal HealthCare system can’t.
And with 20 Million illegal aliens, that alone could destroy a Universal HealthCare system in the U.S.
Do those other nations give free healthcare to non-citizens?
Do those other nations have $10.3 Trillion National Debt?
Do those other nations have a government as corrupt, plutocratic, kleptocratic, and dysfuncational as the U.S.?

I’m not against a single-payor healthcare insurance system (such as this: One-Simple-Idea.com/HealthCareSolutions.htm) if operated responsibly, with sufficient Transparency and Accountability.

However, that ain’t gonna happen with the current corrupt, incompetent, fiscally and morally bankrupt government we have today, which is a result of too many voters that not only allow it, but empower the corruption by repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election. Too many voters that love THEIR political party more than their country. Until that changes, all systems will continue to deteriorate as they have been for the last 30 years (One-Simple-Idea.com/NeverWorse.htm).

Until voters learn to vote more responsibly, a new, huge, vast, government-run universal healthcare system will be mismanages as badly as (or worse than) Social Security, Medicare, border security, the FDA, etc., etc., etc., are mismanaged today (the examples of massive and excessive dysfunction and corruption (One-Simple-Idea.com/Links1.htm) are so numerous, it’s truly ridiculous).

Something else must happen FIRST before we create a Universal HealthCare system, just as something else must happen before we can ever hope for the U.S. Constitution to be obeyed, such as getting Article V Convention, and bringing an end to other numerous constitutional violations.

Marysdude wrote: Or would you prefer to continue to have the LESS effective and MORE expensive system that we have now?

No, which is why I’m stressing priorities FIRST.

Therefore, it is very unlikely any new, huge, vast, government-run universal healthcare system will be run any better than current federal systems (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, border security, the FDA, etc., etc., etc.).

For one thing, neither Obama’s or McCain’s plans eliminate the unnecessary middlemen.
Neither Obama or McCain will stop the huge drain and costs (not to mention the thousands murdered annually) by illegal aliens.
Neither Obama or McCain will enforce existing immigration laws (and uphold Article 4, Section 4).
Neither Obama or McCain will stop the violation of Article V (and Obama taught Constitutional law).
Neither Obama or McCain will stop the 10 major abuses hammering most Americans (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm).
Neither Obama or McCain will stop the bail-outs of greedy banks and corporations.
Neither Obama or McCain will stop the rampant spending, borrowing, money-printing, pork-barrel, subsidies and welfare for the wealthy, waste, and erosion of the currency.
Neither Obama or McCain will stop the unfair trade.
Neither Obama or McCain will stop the voter fraud, election problems, and pandering to the illegal aliens (who may make up an estimated 3% of the voters).
Neither Obama or McCain can fix squat (even if they really wanted to) if still saddled and sabotaged by the same corrupt Congress.
McCain won’t end the occupation of Iraq.
And Obama wants to “spread the wealth around”.

There are many other things that must come FIRST, before a new, huge, vast, government-run universal healthcare system that will most likely be run as badly (or worse) than many current federal systems (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, border security, the FDA, etc., etc., etc.).

Do you think Social Security is saving Americans money?
After all, $12.8 Trillion was borrowed and spent from they Social Security system, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby-boomer bubble approaching.
Whose saving money now, with the number workers per entitlement recipients falling fast?
Whose saving money now with the current Medicare system, which is essentially being funded with massive borrowing and money printing?

Where will the money come from, when the U.S. already is unable to merely pay the INTEREST on $54-to-$67 Trillion of nation-wide debt, nor able to reduce the current PRINCIPAL debt $10.3 Trillion National Debt and $54-to-$67 Trillion of nation-wide debt?

Where will the money come from when that money does not already exist?
Especially when now, 80% of the U.S. population owns only 16% (or less) of all wealth, and 1% owns 40% of all wealth (up by 20% from 20% in year 1976); a wealth disparity gap that has never been worse since the Great Depression?

Too many people want what they want, want to be taken care of from cradle-to-grave, and believe the myth that they can live at the expense of everyone else, despite the fact that the U.S. is so deep in debt, that it can not even keep up with the interest payments, and is currently borrowing and printing the money to merely pay the interest which grows large by many billions each year.

There are better ways to get more healthcare to more Americans, but none of those solutions are being pursued.
In fact, the many abuses that are deteriorating many of our systems are getting worse.

Until enough voters get some priorities, stop blindly pulling the party-lever, stop asking corrupt government to do everything for them, and stop voting for politicians who make the biggest promises and more entitlements, things will continue to deteriorate, because what too few voters understand is that the wealthy plutocrats are simply using these massive, corrupt systems to extract wealth from the middle-class every year via these massive entitlement systems and a severely bloated federal government continue to grow and grow to nightmare proportions.

For example, Social Security taxes are regressive:

• The top federal income tax bracket on $60K (in year 2006) was about 20% (or 18.33% after standard deductions and exemptions);


• Social Security tax is: 2 * 6.2% = 12.4% (on the first $94,200 in year 2006, $102,000 in year 2008; on the gross income, before any deductions);


• Medicare tax is: 2 * 1.45% = 2.9% (there is no cap on Medicare; on the gross income, before any deductions);


• Total Social Security and Medicare tax rate is: 2 * (6.2% + 1.45%) = 2 * 7.65% = 15.3% (the employer pays half of the Social Security and Medicare tax, but it really comes out of the employee’s income; the employee really bears this cost; also, the self-employed pay the entire 15.3% themselves);


• therefore, the maximum percentage of federal taxes on $60K of payroll could be as high as 31.0%.


• But Warren Buffet only paid 17.7% of total federal taxes on an income of $46 Million in year 2006!

Notice that only the first $102,000 is taxed 12.4% for Social Security!
Why have a cap at all?
That’s a regressive tax!
Why don’t we tax everything that way?

$12.8 Trillion was borrowed and spent from Social Security.

In year 2007, $429 Billion in interest was paid on the National Debt ($1.175 Billion per day!).

However, there may be one silver lining in a new, huge, vast, government-run universal healthcare system.
Some people say things can’t get better until they get much worse, FIRST.
Well, perhaps this new, huge, vast, government-run universal healthcare system will finally be the last straw that collapses the massive house of cards?
Then perhaps we can get back (sooner) on a more fiscally and morally sound path?

Again, there are a LOT of things that can be done to make many things better, but few (if any) are being done.
Instead, the abuses are increasing.
More lawlessness.
More illegal immigration.
More regressive taxation.
More dangerous medical and pharmacueticals (killing 195,000 per year!).
More election problems and fraud (an estimated 3% of votes coming from illegal aliens).
More theft of systems by illegal aliens.
More pork-barrel and subsidies for the wealthy.
More predatory lending practices, usury, cooking the books, and fraud by greedy banks and corporations.
More erosion of the currency to extract wealth from the middle class (via rampant spending, borrowing, and money-printing to enrich the plutocrats).
More enslaving debt (the new modern slavery).
More dependency on government.
More gouging (e.g. fuel, electricity, healthcare, insurance, etc., etc., etc.).
More unnecessary war (i.e. Iraq: One-Simple-Idea.com/Transcript1.htm).
More corruption in government.

All of the above reads like a “How to Destroy a Nation for Dummies” book.

And some of you think this country can now produce a decent Universal HealthCare System?
More likely, it will be the last straw with another massive system to steal from most Americans and finally breaks the middle-class’ back.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 17, 2008 11:06 AM

Remer writes; “Obama has the right direction, health care should be a right.”

Glad to hear Obama hasn’t yet found this “new right” in our constitution. Liberals are sure it’s in there and will be found soon. After all, if it was found to be a “right” of those who pay no taxes to receive a tax refund, anything is possible.

To be successful Obama has to equate his vision of “fair” with some constitutional “right”. I would ask some of our constitutional scholars on this blog to tell me where the word “fair” is used interchangeably with the word “right” in our founding documents.

I would also ask these same students to find just one of our founders who, in their writings, might agree with Obama’s statement, “I just want to spread the money around” or Biden’s statement that, “Paying higher taxes is patriotic”.

Posted by: Jim M at October 17, 2008 01:43 PM

Jim M, Miranda Rights weren’t in the Constitution either. The wonderful thing about our Constitution is the way it was drafted to provide flexibility for future needs unforeseen by its drafters. Their genius is apparently lost in your comment. Understandable.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 17, 2008 02:58 PM

d.a.n, health care became a right decades ago when the law established that no one can be refused health care at an Emergency Room for lack of ability to pay.

The historical incidents of horror that led to those laws requiring medical help regardless of means to pay, were valid and justified then, and multiplied by greater need by virtue of demographic changes, today.

The only issue now is not whether it should be a right, but, how do we make this right affordable to consumers and the society as a whole?

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 17, 2008 03:19 PM

Remer writes; “Jim M, Miranda Rights weren’t in the Constitution either. The wonderful thing about our Constitution is the way it was drafted to provide flexibility for future needs unforeseen by its drafters. Their genius is apparently lost in your comment. Understandable.”

It’s not surprising that Remer confuses individual rights with group rights. Liberals always seem to find “new rights” for groups while the individual rights actually guaranteed in our founding documents are subverted.

Posted by: Jim M at October 17, 2008 04:06 PM

David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, health care became a right decades ago when the law established that no one can be refused health care at an Emergency Room for lack of ability to pay.

Only emergency healthcare. NOT all healthcare.

If you’ve got a bad back, it may be painful, and you may be barely able to walk, but they won’t treat it in an emergency room.
You may even have a broken bone, and they may not treat it.
In fact, I once went to an emergency room (and I had insurance too) with a bulging displaced fracture of the fifth metatarsal in my foot.
They would not treat my foot in the emergency room.
A displaced fracture is not serious enough to be treated in an emergency room.
They told me to go to an orthopedic surgeon, who set the bone a few days later and inserted a 5 inch pin in it.
And that is as it should be.
The emergency rooms should only be for potentially life-threatening problems, and not all broken bones are life threatening.

David R. Remer wrote: The historical incidents of horror that led to those laws requiring medical help regardless of means to pay, were valid and justified then, and multiplied by greater need by virtue of demographic changes, today.

And multiplied big-time by 20+ million illegal aliens, costing U.S. tax payers an estimated $70-to-$327 Billion annually for:

• healthcare,
• education,
• welfare,
• law enforcement,
• prisons,
• murders,
• crime,
• voter fraud,
• job displacement,
• disease,
• over-run hospitals closing, etc., etc., etc.

David R. Remer wrote: The only issue now is not whether it should be a right, but, how do we make this right affordable to consumers and the society as a whole?

Only emergency healthcare is a right.

And asking government to do this for us, at this time, before addressing many other abuses first, will be a huge mistake, and will not make healthcare more affordable.
Where’s the money going to come from?

Rights are what we all agree on (and by laws).

There is nothing (yet) in the Constitution that says every citizen has a right to receive tax-payer funded healthcare (unless it is an immediate emergency).
So not all healthcare is not a right. Not .

We all agree that we have certain rights, such as freedom of speech, right to bear arms and self defense, freedom of religion.

That difference between some of these rights, and healthcare is cost.

It doesn’t cost anyone else for you to own a gun.
It doesn’t cost anyone else for you to follow a certain religion.
It doesn’t cost anyone else (not much and not often anyway) for you to vote.

We all agree somethings are necessary to continue to exist, such as National Defense.
So most of us agree on that and agree to pay for it in the form of taxes.

We all agree that education for our children improves their chances of becoming an asset to society, instead of a burden.
So most of us agree on that and agree to pay for it in the form of taxes.

Healthcare is not a right. Not , because not enough Americans believe it should be.
Theoretically, it sounds like a good idea.
However, Social Security sounded like a good idea too.
And Medicare sounded like a good idea too.
However, those systems are abused, plundered, and severely mismananged, making people despise those systems.
Younger Americans doubt they will ever receive all the monies they paid into that system.
And the regressive tax system caps Social Security taxes at $102K.
And capital gains, dividends, and interest, and some other types of income are NOT subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes.
That’s how Warren Buffet can pay only 17.7% on $46 Million and his secretary pays 30% in total federal taxes on only $60K.
Thus, the wealthy can conceivably avoid paying any Social Security and Medicare taxes.
But that’s not a major concern for the wealthy anyway, since income above $102,000 (for year 2008) are exempt from Social Security taxes.
Is that fair?.
If we are going to have these systems, shouldn’t everyone, at the very least, pay an equal percentage of their gross income to those taxes?
Is the new healthcare system going to work the same way, with caps that make it regressive?

Any way, it doesn’t mean healthcare can’t become a right.
That doesn’t mean a nation can’t provide it if the majority wants it.

However, it will be a failure if it turns into another vast system to extract wealth from the middle-class, and makes things worse.

It may be a good thing if managed responsibly, and that’s the real problem, with the current state of government and too many voters that make it that way.
It’s more likely to become another massive mechanism to extract wealth from the middle-class.
It’s more likely to cost more than it is worth.
It is more likely to help push the economy over the edge.
It’s lunacy be looking at more spending before stopping these numerous abuses that are costing Americans hundreds of billions per year, and robbing most Americans of their wealth (including inflation).
Those abuses will magnify the losses.

There are many other things that should be done first, but none of those things are being done first.
And any new Universal HealthCare system will still be very costly if it doesn’t eliminate the unnecessary middlemen, fraud, and illegal immigration.

How much do you think Universal HealthCare will cost for 20 Million illegal aliens?

Jim M wrote: After all, if it was found to be a “right” of those who pay no taxes to receive a tax refund, anything is possible.

When a worker pays a whopping 15.3% in Social Security and Medicare taxes, they pay taxes, so saying they “pay no taxes” is false. Everyone with labor income (not capital gains, interest, and dividends) is obligated to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 17, 2008 04:12 PM

It was a sham debate, since the person for whom I voted was not included in it.

I am opposed to shoring up housing prices. Tax revenues will be down regardless of who is elected, so deficits will continue to go up. JMcC’s attacks didn’t get close enough to the basic point that BHO is a phony who has never really done anything. People who vote for him are just substituting Axelrod and Co for Rove.

The next POTUS will not be an oilman. I expect the next four years to resemble the Carter administration more than anything.

The era of easy access to abortion is probably over. The SCOTUS is majority Roman Catholic. Anyplace that performs abortions finds protesters camped outside their door.

JMcC was 100% right on education. Public schools in Chicago, some within two miles of BHO’s residence, which previously had inflated enrollment figures, have been reorganized over and over again, when the students failed to achieve. Some schools have simply pretended to move, by using a different address from the street on the other side of the building.

One thing that the newer schools do have is smaller enrollments, leaving more and more young people out of the system altogether. The school superintendant wants to open up boarding schools, to literally capture the students.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 17, 2008 04:24 PM

d.a.n -

I don’t have a whole lot of time tonight, but tomorrow I should be able to give you some solid proof that other countries are providing Universal Health Care, ensuring a longer national life expectancy than is the U.S., and is doing so spending less per capita than America already is.

But I wanted to point out to you that America isn’t the only one with a major problem with illegal immigrants. Germany’s is bad, too.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 17, 2008 07:35 PM

d.a.n -

The stats below are from the World Health Organization’s comparison list of the health care situations in most of the countries of the world.

Germany, Spain, and France - and especially Israel - have significant immigration problems. Israel’s is probably worse than ours, proportionally speaking.

I’ll address the rest of your questions in the next reply.

America:
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/71
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 137/80
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 6,347
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 15.2

Germany:
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/82
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 70/74
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 5
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 106/55
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 3,250
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 10.7

Israel:
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/82
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 70/74
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 5
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 106/55
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 3,250
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 10.7

England:
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/81
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/72
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 6
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 98/61
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 2,598
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 8.2

France:
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/84
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/75
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 5
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 124/57
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 3,406
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 11.2

Spain:
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/84
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 70/75
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 105/44
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 2,242
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 8.2

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 17, 2008 07:51 PM

d.a.n -

In response to your questions:

* The way Obama and McCain are going about it isn’t going to work, because neither have eliminated the unnecessary middlemen.

I agree…but at least Obama’s is a start. McCain’s is another step backward.

* And what some other nations with Universal HealthCare have is not convincing, and often results in worse healthcare in many respects.

When it comes to modern industrialized democracies, that is NOT TRUE. In almost EVERY case, the national life expectancy is greater than our own and the cost per capita is LESS.

* Many people in Canada come to the U.S. for many of their healthcare needs, because their Universal HealthCare system can’t.

We DO have world-class health care…for those who can afford it - but many more Americans engage in ‘medical tourism’ than Canadians who come here, because most Americans simply can’t afford it. I and my family have done ‘medical tourism’ for dental care and got a fantastic deal.

* And with 20 Million illegal aliens, that alone could destroy a Universal HealthCare system in the U.S.

Not so. If that were the case, then explain Germany, whose immigration is more liberal than our own, and Israel, whose illegals are proportionally a greater problem than ours.

* Do those other nations give free healthcare to non-citizens?

Don’t know…but it doesn’t matter. What DOES matter is the national life expectancy of the citizens.

* Do those other nations have $10.3 Trillion National Debt?

Doesn’t matter. Look again at the numbers, d.a.n - UHC is LESS expensive than what we ALREADY have. If the national debt is your concern, then you should all the more want UHC.

* Do those other nations have a government as corrupt, plutocratic, kleptocratic, and dysfuncational as the U.S.?

What, you think the other nations’ politicians are MORE honest? Come now! How about ITALY????? Theirs has ALWAYS been more corrupt than our own, and they also have a significant illegal immigration policy, AND their economy sucks. BUT THEY ALSO HAVE a national life expectancy greater than our own, while spending less than half in tax money per capita than we already do! Their stats from the WHO are below:

Italy:
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/84
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 71/75
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 83/44
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 2,494
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 8.9

d.a.n - your choice is either with the conservatives’ “we CAN’T do it”…or with the modern industrialized democracies that have ALREADY done it.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 17, 2008 08:02 PM

Ohrealy said: “JMcC’s attacks didn’t get close enough to the basic point that BHO is a phony who has never really done anything.”

Man, that is just about the most blinded biased and prejudiced I have ever heard blurted out in a public forum.

He was a teacher of law. Best among his class as a law student. Chose community law and public service over contract or business law which would have been far more lucrative. Managed his campaign successfully to become a state Senator. Represented that constituency well enough to later run for, and successfully manage a U.S. Senatorial Campaign. As a freshman Senator he comes in helps initiate ethics reform and gets bi-partisan suppport to successfully pass the bill, with the assistance of many others.

He then launches a campaign and manages it incredibly successfully for the office president with his skin color, his youth, and relatively short time in federal government used against him and he beats the front runner and odds on favorite for his party’s nomination. He then goes on to be the first non-white candidate in history to challenge a War Hero Senior Statesman White candidate and handily holds his own in a competitive bid for the White House, the most powerful elected position in the world.

All this, and your partisanship blinds you into comments like Obama has never really done anything. Remarkable how blind partisanship can be to discount intelligence, education, demonstrated capability, accomplishment and managerial competence all in the name team sport politics. Don’t you see how irrational your comment is?

Your comment is as irrational as some liberal stating McCain has accomplished nothing but getting himself captured and tortured, with a record of cooperating with the enemy, and then marrying into money that bought him his Senate seat. And this makes him qualified for President?

It is an incredibly irrational and blind comment to make. Just as incredibly irrational and blind a comment as yours about Obama. Why is it so hard for partisans to acknowledge reality after having chosen a political side? (It’s a rhetorical question, the psychological and sociological reasons are too voluminous to really answer that question here.)

But, I know that people don’t have to think in terms of blinded comments such as these. There is a choice. We do have free will. It is such a shame more don’t exercise it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 17, 2008 10:53 PM

David, when Ohrealy says that BHO is “a phony who has never done anything,” I think it’s pretty clear what he means and the record shows Ohrealy is substantially correct.

The point is not that Obama wasn’t a good law student. He was. But there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of excellent for law students out there—as well as excellent students in other fields. This is alone is not a qualification to be President of the United States. I would place my own academic credentials up against Obama’s any day. But before you insist that I should be the president, know this: If nominated I will not run, and if elected, I will not serve.

Nobody denies that Obama has run good campaigns—though none so good as the one he still hasn’t won. But that is a totally irrelevant argument—especially coming from one such as yourself who has so often said that we should “vote out all incumbents.” All of our elected officials have won their campaigns—that’s why we call them “elected officials.” Does that make them qualified to even hold the jobs they now hold—much less become presidents in the future? John McCain has won far more elections than Obama ever has, if that’s the criteria you want to use.

When we say that Obama has never accomplished anything, we’re talking about accomplishments in actual governance as opposed to talking a good game during elections. These bills you tout that he supported but never authored (though, like many others he added amendments to them) which then went on to pass with 80%+ of the Senates are hardly unique “accomplishments” of Barack Obama deserving of any special notice.

Any potted plant in the Senate hallway has struck as significant a figure in our national governance as has Barack Obama, that guy from Illinois who spends all his time running for office and never carrying out the duties of the offices he holds.

Posted by: Loyal Oppostion at October 18, 2008 12:15 AM

Any potted plant in the Senate hallway has struck as significant a figure in our national governance as has Barack Obama, that guy from Illinois who spends all his time running for office and never carrying out the duties of the offices he holds.

Are you refering to McCain?

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 18, 2008 05:20 AM

Well said LO. Thanks!

Posted by: Jim M at October 18, 2008 12:44 PM

Well said google !!! Thanks !!

Posted by: janedoe at October 18, 2008 01:09 PM

VERY INFORMATIVE…

Posted by: SCIENCE at October 18, 2008 01:36 PM

Glen Contrarian wrote:

• d.a.n wrote: * The way Obama and McCain are going about it isn’t going to work, because neither have eliminated the unnecessary middlemen.

I agree…but at least Obama’s is a start. McCain’s is another step backward.

Obama’s plan is better than McCain’s, but both stink, and both will fail, because the don’t eliminate the middlemen, and both still fail to stop the 10 major abuses making healthcare and many other things less affordable.

Glen Contrarian wrote:

• d.a.n wrote: * And what some other nations with Universal HealthCare have is not convincing, and often results in worse healthcare in many respects.

When it comes to modern industrialized democracies, that is NOT TRUE. In almost EVERY case, the national life expectancy is greater than our own and the cost per capita is LESS.

That’s because of these 10 major abuses.

Not because of a lack of a Universal HealthCare system.
A Universal HealthCare system will fail miserably unless other reforms are made first.
I am not against a Universal HealthCare system ever.
I am against it at this time, because government is too corrupt and dysfunctional, and they will use this system to extract more wealth from the middle-class, and the voters will continue to reward THEIR incumbent politicians for it as long as they are so easily bribed with their own tax-dollars.
The order in which we do these things is what is important.
Just like David R. Remer pointed out the importance of a Article V Convention which must first require voters to do their part first.

Glen Contrarian wrote:

• d.a.n wrote: * Many people in Canada come to the U.S. for many of their healthcare needs, because their Universal HealthCare system can’t meet their needs.

We DO have world-class health care…for those who can afford it - but many more Americans engage in ‘medical tourism’ than Canadians who come here, because most Americans simply can’t afford it. I and my family have done ‘medical tourism’ for dental care and got a fantastic deal.

Yes, it is too expensive.

But again, that is because of the 10 major abuses (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm).
Healthcare would be affordable for many more Americans if most Americans weren’t getting raped on so many other things.
First things first.
Eliminate those abuses first, or the Universal HealthCare system will fail miserably.

Glen Contrarian wrote:

• d.a.n wrote: * And with 20 Million illegal aliens, that alone could destroy a Universal HealthCare system in the U.S.

Not so. If that were the case, then explain Germany, whose immigration is more liberal than our own, and Israel, whose illegals are proportionally a greater problem than ours.

I do not think those nations give free non-emergency medical care to illegal aliens.

Also, those are much smaller countries.
The U.S. has the largest number of immigrants in the world.
The U.S. population is growing by over 5 Million per year (One-Simple-Idea.com/PopulationUS.gif).
Illegal immigration is costing Americans net losses of an estimated $70-to-$327 Billion annually.

Glen Contrarian wrote:

• d.a.n wrote: * Do those other nations give free healthcare to non-citizens?

Don’t know … but it doesn’t matter. What DOES matter is the national life expectancy of the citizens.

False. It makes a huge difference.

Especially when illegal immigration laws are not enforced.
Also, those other nations do not provide non-emergency healthcare to illegal aliens.
Are hospitals closing by the hundreds in Germany or Israel, as they are in border states in the U.S.?
The cost of 20 Million (or more) illegal aliens using our hospitals, schools, welfare, prisons, voting, etc., etc., etc. is a huge cost.
Already, the net losses to Americans is an estimated $70-to-$327 Billion per year.
Hospital closures will continue to more north as the problem grows worse and worse.

Yet, our politicians choose to despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other for votes, profits, and (supposedly, but severely misplaced) compassion.

Glen Contrarian wrote:

• d.a.n wrote: * Do those other nations have $10.3 Trillion National Debt?

Doesn’t matter.

Really? That sounds like Dick Cheney’s “Deficits don’t matter”.

$10.3 Trillion of National Debt does matter.
And that does not even include the $12.8 Trillion (www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/faqs.html#2) borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching (13,175 new recipients per day).
When the debt-pyramid has finally destroyed the U.S. currency, and it takes a wheel barrow full of U.S. currency to buy a loaf of bread, we will then see whether National Debt doesn’t matter.

Glen Contrarian wrote: d.a.n - UHC is LESS expensive than what we ALREADY have.

False.

It can’t be “is” since it does not already exist.
The U.S. is not like a handful of much smaller nations, with different demographics and illegal immigration problems.
A Universal HealthCare system will most likely NOT be less expensive with the level of corruption and abuses in the U.S. government (among other numerous problems).
Without other more important reforms FIRST (especially monetary policies and debt), a Universal HealthCare system will mostly likely be another vast, mismanaged, costly, corrupt system used to extract weatlh from the middle-class, which is shrinking fast.

The middle-class is NOT shrinking solely due to a lack of a Universal HealthCare system.
It is shrinking due to other abuses. And those abuses will sabotage a Universal HealthCare system, as it is sabotaging Social Security and Medicare: taxes are regressive; illegal immigration is costing Americans $70-to-$327 Billion per year; unnecessary wars; plutocratic and kleptocratic government; voter fraud (an estimated 3% of voters are illegal aliens); job displacement by illegal aliens; hospitals over-run by illegal aliens closing in border states; etc., etc., etc.

Universal HealthCare system will most likely fail miserably unless other fundamental and prerequisite steps are implemented FIRST.
Just like a patient must be stabilized BEFORE doing open-heart surgery.
Otherwise, it will kill the patient.

Glen Contrarian wrote: If the national debt is your concern, then you should all the more want UHC.

National Debt by itself is NOT the major concern.

You are oversimplifying the problem.
The problem is excessive corruption and fiscal and moral bankruptcy that must be addressed FIRST.
Is Social Security saving us money?
Is Medicare saving us money?
How can they be saving us money when much of the money was pilfered by the wealthy in the form of subsidies, pork-barrel, and welfare for the wealthy?
How can they be saving us money when $12.8 Trillion of Social Security was borrowed and spent, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching?
How can they be saving us money when Medicare has hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities?
How can they be saving us money when millions of illegal aliens receive Medicaid?
How can they be saving us money there is rampant Medicare and Social Security fraud?

That’s not to say those systems couldn’t work.
The point is, they are so mismanaged due to excessive corruption which must be addressed FIRST.

Again, there are a LOT of things that can be done to make many things better, but few (if any) are being done.
Instead, the abuses are increasing.
More lawlessness.
More illegal immigration.
More regressive taxation.
More dangerous medical and pharmacueticals (killing 195,000 per year!).
More election problems and fraud (an estimated 3% of votes coming from illegal aliens).
More theft of systems by illegal aliens.
More pork-barrel and subsidies for the wealthy.
More predatory lending practices, usury, cooking the books, and fraud by greedy banks and corporations.
More erosion of the currency to extract wealth from the middle class (via rampant spending, borrowing, and money-printing to enrich the plutocrats).
More enslaving debt (the new modern slavery).
More dependency on government.
More gouging (e.g. fuel, electricity, healthcare, insurance, etc., etc., etc.).
More unnecessary war (i.e. Iraq: One-Simple-Idea.com/Transcript1.htm).
More corruption in government.

Despite all of the above, some people think this country can now produce a decent Universal HealthCare System?
Not likely.
More likely, it will be the last straw with another massive system to steal from most Americans and finally breaks the middle-class’ back.

Glen Contrarian wrote:

d.a.n wrote: * Do those other nations have a government as corrupt, plutocratic, kleptocratic, and dysfuncational as the U.S.?

What, you think the other nations’ politicians are MORE honest?

Most of them are less corrupt, based on the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI):

• Country_rank Country 2007_CPI_score Surveys_used Confidence_range
• 01 Denmark ______ 9.4 6 9.2 - 9.6
• 01 Finland ______ 9.4 6 9.2 - 9.6
• 01 New Zealand __ 9.4 6 9.2 - 9.6
• 04 Singapore ____ 9.3 9 9.0 - 9.5
• 04 Sweden _______ 9.3 6 9.1 - 9.4
• 06 Iceland ______ 9.2 6 8.3 - 9.6
• 07 Netherlands ___9.0 6 8.8 - 9.2
• 07 Switzerland __ 9.0 6 8.8 - 9.2
• 09 Canada _______ 8.7 6 8.3 - 9.1
• 09 Norway _______ 8.7 6 8.0 - 9.2
• 11 Australia ____ 8.6 8 8.1 - 9.0
• 12 Luxembourg ___ 8.4 5 7.7 - 8.7
• 12 United Kingdom 8.4 6 7.9 - 8.9
• 14 Hong Kong ____ 8.3 8 7.6 - 8.8
• 15 Austria ______ 8.1 6 7.5 - 8.7
• 16 Germany ______ 7.8 6 7.3 - 8.4
• 17 Ireland ______ 7.5 6 7.3 - 7.7
• 17 Japan ________ 7.5 8 7.1 - 8.0
• 19 France _______ 7.3 6 6.9 - 7.8
• 20 U.S.A. _______ 7.2 8 6.5 - 7.6

The U.S.A. has a lower Corruption Perception Index than Germany, Canada, France (19 other nations).

Glen Contrarian wrote: Come now! How about ITALY????? Theirs has ALWAYS been more corrupt than our own, and they also have a significant illegal immigration policy, AND their economy sucks… . BUT THEY ALSO HAVE a national life expectancy greater than our own, while spending less than half in tax money per capita than we already do!

Yes, Italy is 44th on the CPI list.

However, there are always some exceptions, and there are many other factors.
Italy is much smaller that the U.S.
Italy (58 Million) has a much smaller population than the U.S.(305 Million).
Italy has fewer illegal aliens than the U.S. (estimated to be over 20 Million in the U.S.).
Also, immigration and illegal immigration are two different things.
Besides, the U.S. also has more legal immigrants than most (if not all) other nations.
Also, only citizens who are legally resident in Italy can apply to join Italy’s healthcare plan.
Non-emergency healthcare is NOT provided to illegal aliens.
Also, Italy is not a poor country.
Italy is one of the biggest (if not biggest) yacht capitals of the world.
Italy is 7th of the top 10 richest nations:

• (1) U.S.A.


• (2) Japan


• (3) Germany


• (4) China


• (5) Italy


• (6) United Kingom


• (7) Italy


• (8) Canada


• (9) Spain


• (10) Brazil

Excluding Italy (with about a 120% Debt-to-GDP ration), most of the other nations have a much smaller Debt-to-GDP ratio than the U.S.’ (about 75% = 10.3T National Debt / 13.9T GDP, or 166% = (10.3T National Debt + $12.8 T Social Security Debt) / 13.9 T GDP)):

• 028 Canada Debt-to-GDP=65.40% (2006 est.)


• 030 France Debt-to-GDP=64.70% (2006 est.)


• 033 Austria Debt-to-GDP=63.00% (2006 est.)


• 046 Switzerland Debt-to-GDP=51.00% (2006 est.)


• 047 Netherlands Debt-to-GDP=50.80% (2006 est.)


• 054 Sweden Debt-to-GDP=46.40% (2006 est.)


• 058 Norway Debt-to-GDP=44.80% (2006 est.)


• 062 United Kingdom Debt-to-GDP=42.20% (2006 est.)


• 064 Spain Debt-to-GDP=39.90% (2006 est.)


• 067 Finland Debt-to-GDP=37.70% (2006 est.)


• 089 Denmark Debt-to-GDP=28.10% (2006 est.)


• 094 Iceland Debt-to-GDP=23.50% (2006 est.)


• 096 Ireland Debt-to-GDP=22.80% (2006 est.)


• 100 New Zealand Debt-to-GDP=19.90% (2006 est.)


• 105 Australia Debt-to-GDP=14.10% (2006 est.)

And all of the above nations score better than the U.S. on the Transparency International Corruption Index (CPI).

Also, Italy is near several other wealthier nations (Germany) or near-as-wealthy (e.g. Spain, France, Austria) of near-equal or higher standards of living and higher CPI scores than the U.S. (see list above).
The U.S. only borders one of the wealthiest 10 nations (Canada).
Those other countries don’t have a large bordering nation with millions of illegal aliens flooding across their borders to use their schools, hospitals, welfare, take jobs, prisons, and even vote in our elections.
Also, healthcare in the U.S. wasn’t always unaffordable in American, was it?
Medical insurance in the U.S. wasn’t always unaffordable was it?
So, what happened?
There’s a much bigger root problem than the lack of a Universal HealthCare system.

So, the need to create a Universal HealthCare system now is not very convincing, and misses the point anyway (which is how, and when it is done, and other abuses that threaten all systems, including a new UHC system).
Making healthcare more affordable is a necessary goal regardless of which system we have, and that’s not going to happen unless the unecessary middlemen are eliminated (One-Simple-Idea.com/HealthCareSolutions.htm).

Glen Contrarian wrote: d.a.n - your choice is either with the conservatives’ “we CAN’T do it”…or with the modern industrialized democracies that have ALREADY done it.

That sounds like Bush’s “Your either with us, or your against us” type of statement.

I reject the narrow, either/or choices, mischaracterizations, apples-to-oranges comparisons, and other weak arguemnts.
Especially saying that massive debt, corruption, illegal immigration, and inflation don’t matter.

I’m OK with a Universal HealthCare system, if done correctly and timely.
However, what Obama and McCain plan to do will most likely make things MUCH worse, without FIRST addressing abuses that will (and have been) sabotaging most (if not all) systems.
Already, they have placed bail-outs, pork-barrel, and welfare for the wealthy above Universal HealthCare.
Again, for a long time, I’ve recommended a voluntary, non-profit system (One-Simple-Idea.com/HealthCareSolutions.htm), but ti would probably fail too until there is more Transparency and Accountability, first. Also, any healthcare system should not be merged or overlap with welfare systems, which breeds other abuses.

I never said an Universal HealthCare system would never be possible.
The point is, there are currently many other things that should be done not only to make healthcare affordable, but remove the abuses that will sabotage all of them.
What many don’t realize is that many abuses are not only making healthcare unaffordable, but many other things unaffordable too (education, housing, energy, etc.).
One of the root causes is the destruction of the currency, via a dishonest, usurious, predatory, inflationary pyramide-scheme monetary system.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2008 02:21 PM

Loyal Opp said: “The point is not that Obama wasn’t a good law student. He was. But there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of excellent for law students out there—as well as excellent students in other fields. This is alone is not a qualification to be President of the United States.”

So you voted for Bush, as if being a governor was some assurance of qualification? You back Palin on the same basis?

Sorry, but, there is no substitute for intelligence and learning ability when it comes to the position of decision over the most complex policy issues in the world. That leaves McCain out, and Obama in.

Your argument fails to dissuade those who have more confidence in Obama’s abilities to absorb information and make and stick to sound decisions as evidenced by his campaign, than Mr. McEratic and Mrs. ‘I know what ever I study on cue cards, just don’t ask me to think contemporaneously on the spot in front folks like Ms. Courick (sp?>’

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 18, 2008 02:54 PM

I honestly can’t cheer-lead for Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin.

All 4 of them have crappy voting records and positions that stink to varying degrees.
I personally think McCain/Palin are probably less competent.
McCain obviously doesn’t know the current tax system is regressive, but then McCain was 894th in a class of 899 students, and is computer illiterate.

But Obama/Biden have some strange ideas (e.g. about “spreading the wealth”, people in small towns who “cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment”, etc.).

And both of them despicably choose to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes , profits , and (supposedly, but severely misplaced) compassion.
McCain voted for the first shamnesty of 1986, which quadrupled the problem.
And Obama obviously doesn’t see or care that repeating the shamnesty of 1986 will simply make the problem worse.
In fact, Obama wants to give drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens (that’s what he said in a early debate with Clinton and other Democrats).

Both sides are worse in some areas than the other.
Both are so bad that I’m not sure I can give my vote to either side.
I’m not sure either bunch can be trusted, and I know Congress can’t be trusted.

Therefore, all I would hope for is that voters not merely pull the party-lever, and sabotage their choice for President/VP with the same irresponsible, corrupt, FOR-SALE incumbent politicians in Congress.

If enough voters don’t priortize their nation above THEIR party, pet issues, and entitlements, and finally focus instead on these 10 major abuses, then we’re all about to see a bad situation grow much worse.

Otherwise, we will see a repate of year 1933, over 3 years into the Great Depression, when enough unhappy voters finally ousted 206 members of Congress.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2008 04:10 PM

So you voted for Bush, as if being a governor was some assurance of qualification? You back Palin on the same basis?

David, I’ve never said that simply being a governor is “assurance” of qualification. We never have such assurances. I assume that I do what most people do when deciding who to vote for. I look for candidates that:

a). Share my views—at least more than the other candidates do.

b). Have at least some record of trying to advance those views in government. That is the best way, after all, to see if they actually hold the views they espouse on the campaign trail. Considering how the public moods changes from time to time about many issues, I would never put it past a candidate from ANY party to simply put his finger to the political wind and say whatever is necessary to maximize their votes, whether they believe in or have any intention to actually govern the way they represent themselves during elections.

With McCain and Palin, I know what to expect, and I’m not 100% happy with either of them.

With Obama, however, we’re offered various plans and promises which he finds convenient to put forth during the election, but we simply don’t have a record of him actually trying to implement 99% of what he says, even when (as a Senator) he had every opportunity to do so. He was too busy running for ever higher offices.

I can fully understand it when people say they LIKE what Obama promises and will vote for him on that basis alone. Fine. But even if I DID like what he says (and in more cases than not, I do not), I see almost zero record of him actually trying follow through on his promises.

It’s actually his last fact that I’ll be pinning a lot of my hopes on if Obama gets elected. In the next election featuring Obama (if we’re to be treated to such a thing) he will no longer be somebody without a record. If as President he doesn’t accomplish anything more than he did as a Senator, that will be fine by me… but it will also be a good reason for other voters to see things the way I do and send him packing.

Posted by: Loyal Oppostion at October 18, 2008 06:57 PM

Many voters are torn this election, because their choices stink, the candidates with the most experience (McCain and Biden) stinks, and the candidates with the least experience stink (Obama and Palin).

That’s why it is more important than ever to not reward Congress (again) with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2008 07:39 PM

d.a.n, the closest thing we have seen to perfect presidents in the last century were FDR and Reagan.

FDR trampled the Constitution to try to save the people and the economy. Reagan left a growing national debt and broke the laws and hid it from the people. Reagan also made a religion of cutting taxes and charging spending to the next generation’s taxes. Bush 1 followed suit as did Clinton in his first 6 years. Of course Bush II made them all appear frugal.

A perfect president for a given time is a fantasy. Reality presents us with 5 major party choices and only two of them have a prayer of winning, and only one of them has the intelligence and learning capacity to at least attempt to address 2 or 3 of the most pressing issues facing the nation and her people, and his name does not start with Mc.

In any election voters have a choice between less than perfect candidates, as no candidate can please all the people on all the issues all of the time, and remain a single person with any integrity at all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 19, 2008 12:08 AM

David,

You worried me with that statement. Perfect meaning fantasy. A little too 1984. I’m guessing Hitler would be perfect, too. While I get your point, I have trouble, putting these people side by side.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 19, 2008 09:43 AM

Doug Wilder, the current mayor of Richmond and former governor of Virginia, was expounding this morning on one of the talk shows, that people are looking for excuses not to vote for BHO, like no one could possibly have any legitimate reason for not wanting to vote for him, other than racism.

Based on precedents, the first thing BHO will do if elected, is begin his next election campaign. That would be enough reason, since he already epitomizes exactly what is wrong with our political system, endless fundraising, catering to specific interest groups rather than the national interest. Much of what he is talking about has already been made obsolete by the current financial situation.

DRRemer, “Remarkable how blind partisanship can be to discount intelligence, education, demonstrated capability, accomplishment and managerial competence all in the name team sport politics. Don’t you see how irrational your comment is?”

This is a nonsense statement. What demonstrated capability, accomplishment, and managerial competence? The Strategy Group, or David Axelrod? The economy is the only reason BHO has any chance at all.

On your partisan nonsense, my party is the Green Party, for whose candidates I voted on Tuesday Oct. 14, and against Dick Durbin and Jan Schakowsky, as well as Barack Barackovitch.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 19, 2008 03:30 PM

David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, the closest thing we have seen to perfect presidents in the last century were FDR and Reagan… . In any election voters have a choice between less than perfect candidates, as no candidate can please all the people on all the issues all of the time, and remain a single person with any integrity at all.

Well, I don’t think FDR or Reagan would be my choice for being close to perfect in the last century.

Yes, it’s not possible to please everyone.

However, the bar is set so low, and our choices are so bad this election, it’s like trying to decide which rotting, gangrenous leg, both of which must be amputated, is worse.

Or like trying to decide which eye to jab with a sharp stick.

Or like trying to decide which pile of $#!+ stinks the worst (No, I’m not talking about Republican and Democrat incumbent politicians, but if the shoe fits?).

Or like trying to decide whether Obama or McCain is more despicable for pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other for profits , votes , and or (supposedly, but severely misplaced compassion).

Or like trying to decide whether McCain or Obama are more guilty of violating Article V of the Constitution (Obama taught Constitutional Law, and McCain has been in Congress for 26 years).

Or like trying to decide between a Great Depression, or a Greater Depression delayed a few more months by bail-outs for the banks and the wealthy via pork-barrel, cash infusions, and massive toxic debt piled onto the middle-class tax payers via a regressive tax system.

Or like trying to decide which corrupt, stinking, FOR-SALE, do-nothing, incumbent politician in D.C. is the worst.

And for anyone who thinks we aren’t (at the very least) in a recession …

_________________ GDP (in 1950 Dollars) ___________

$1.7T |——————————————————————

$1.6T |—————————————————————x-

$1.5T |————————————————————-x-x

$1.4T |————————————————————x—-

$1.3T |———————————————————-x——

$1.2T |——————————————————-x———

$1.1T |——————————————————x———-

$1.0T |—————————————————-x————

$0.9T |————————————————-x—————

$0.8T |———————————————-x——————

$0.7T |——————————————-x———————

$0.6T |—————————————-x————————

$0.5T |————————————-x—————————

$0.4T |———————————x——————————-

$0.3T |————————xxxxxx———————————

$0.2T |———————-x——————————————

$0.1T |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx———————————————

$0.0T |——————————————————————

_______1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

_______9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0

_______0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 0 0 1

_______0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0

__________________ GDP (in 2005 Dollars) ___________

$14.5T |——————————————————————

$14.0T |————————————————————-x—

$13.5T |————————————————————x-x-

$13.0T |————————————————————x-x-

$12.5T |————————————————————x-x-

$12.0T |———————————————————-x——

$11.5T |———————————————————-x——

$11.0T |———————————————————-x——

$10.5T |———————————————————-x——

$10.0T |———————————————————-x——

$09.5T |———————————————————x——-

$09.0T |———————————————————x——-

$08.5T |——————————————————-x———

$08.0T |—————————————————-x————

$07.5T |————————————————-x—————

$07.0T |———————————————-x——————

$06.5T |——————————————-x———————

$06.0T |——————————————x———————-

$05.5T |—————————————-x————————

$05.0T |—————————————x————————-

$04.5T |————————————-x—————————

$04.0T |————————————x—————————-

$03.5T |———————————-x——————————

$03.0T |———————————x——————————-

$02.5T |————————-xxxxx———————————

$02.0T |————————x—————————————-

$01.5T |———————-x——————————————

$01.0T |———-xxxxxxxx——————————————-

$00.5T |xxxxxxx——————————————————-

$00.0T |——————————————————————

_______1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

_______9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0

_______0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 0 0 1

_______0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0

That huge dip above in GDP is masked (hidden) when viewing GDP in current (one-simple-idea.com/NationalDebtAndGDPAdjustedForInflation2005and1950Dollars.gif) 2008 Dollars.
That sort of dive in GDP (relative to both 1950 and 2005 dollars) has never happened to such a large degree in over a century.
Do you think that is mere sensationalism?
Do the math.

Thus, if the Misery Index is: Misery Index = Unemployment rate + Inflation rate
Then the current Misery Index since 2001, based on the pre-1983 Inflation measurement method, is: 15.6% + 6.1% = 21.7% (as of the end of Aug-2008).
And that 21.7% Misery Index is only less than the 21.97% for Jimmy Carter for 1977-1980.
And that 21.7% is very likely to get much worse (if it hasn’t already since Aug-2008) before 31-DEC-2008, making the Misery Index for 2001-to-2008 that worst ever since year 1948.

At any rate , the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful). Enjoy! It’s obviously what you want. Bon Appetit!

Posted by: d.a.n at October 19, 2008 07:16 PM

Hi everyone, it is nearly election time in the US. So it’s time for you to send your message to American voters by posting a photo message in the hope of a better world.

Time is running out, and it might be the last chance for you to raise your voice.

Please do not hesitate to post your message or if you did so already, just send a message to your friends to view our page or site.

Take part in making OUR world better, take action now,

Give US a hope

GIVE USA HOPE!

www.giveusahope.com

Posted by: giveusahope at October 20, 2008 10:36 AM

Voting Deadlines

Most of the states require an absentee ballot request to be made by October 24th. You can click on this link and request your absentee ballot.

www.StateDemocracy.org

Check your States Deadline Date at http://bostonnewsdesk.blogspot.com/2008/10/apply-for-absentee-ballot.html

Posted by: shally at October 29, 2008 02:46 AM