PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

[Hoblit]

As far as I can tell, she will be doing this for the rest of her live.

Good call, Hoblit. How long did it take you to find that?

SPUD

I've known about it for days but wasn't going to say anything.

[JonPorobil]

Presidential debates + grammar quibbling can one equal...

BARACK OBAMA OVERDRIVE!

...That is all.

[jb]

Presidential debates + grammar quibbling can one equal...

BARACK OBAMA OVERDRIVE!

...That is all.

That's totally what Hitler would say.

[Sober]

Hey, look. This started as a discussion of health-care and taxes with regards to the upcoming presidential election, and I'm finding myself spending way too much time just trying to convince some people here that poor people exist.

Obviously they're a myth. Like Santa. Or Jesus.

Hey everyone, my girlfriend just lost 80% of her life savings in 3 days! YAY.

[erik]

My friend who lives alone in a one-bedroom apartment pays $615 per month, plus about $150 a month, give or take, on power and utilities. That's $765 a month just to keep a roof over her head and shower at the end of the day. Factor in groceries and gas (not to mention incidental expenses like groceries, fixing the vacuum cleaner, getting your car's oil changed, or the occasional new t-shirt or pair of socks as your clothes fall apart with age, and auto insurance, if you're lucky enough to own a car), and suddenly your outbox is noticeably taller than your inbox.

I don't think that example holds up, Generic, because you have to live within your means. If you make $800 a month, you're probably going to need to have roommates. That's just what everyone does the world over. So rather than paying $615 a month for her own one-bedroom, she'll pay $400 for half of a two-bedroom. If you can't afford to own a car, you ride the bus like everyone else. If there's no bus service where you live, you move, ride your bike, get rides. People make it work.

I'm not disputing the problem, but it's only helpful if examples are suited to the argument. :-/

That and minimum wage jobs aren't designed to be lived on as the sole means of income. They don't offer minimum wage jobs to skilled workers. Minimum wage jobs are just that, minimum skill for minimum wage. I understand that people can fall into this type of job but its not suitable for this argument because our economy isn't based on that.
(please don't bring up illegal immigrants here, its not relevant to this discussion and even if it is, it is its own can of worms)

If you find that you can't sell yourself to a job that pays over minimum wage, you will have to make due as JB suggested.

Why is talking about people who make minimum wage irrelevant to this conversation? And I'm not talking about people who have degrees and are hoping to find other work, I'm talking about people who are doing minimum wage because that's really all they can do. People who are uneducated and who are too tired at the end of working long-ass days to get educated, especially after coming home to families. A single person can do without a car, or can move in with a roommate. A family can't just move in with a roommate. These people, they really cannot save $50 a month for health insurance. Sometimes all the money you have goes to bills, food and clothes for your kids.

If one takes the position that they don't deserve health insurance, that's fine by me. But to argue that everyone could find $50 a month if they tried is very wrong.

[Sober]

Thought I'd jump in real quick and drop off this quote. It's by my girlfriend, and it shows how superior I am to all of you for reeling her in.

Our economy is the privatization of gains, and the socialization of losses.

BAM.

[Hoblit]

Thought I'd jump in real quick and drop off this quote. It's by my girlfriend, and it shows how superior I am to all of you for reeling her in.

Our economy is the privatization of gains, and the socialization of losses.

BAM.

Ha! I fart in your general direction!

Erik: My point is that it is hard for all of us to save $50 a paycheck or month. I mean, I'd have to give up drinking Absolute and start buying cheaper Vodka or go back to rum. This means there is a higher probability of me being hungover. Hangover's cost me time (and are very unhealthy!) and time is money. So its really a lose lose for me.

NO, obviously I'm kidding. I could obviously cut back and have a better shot at health insurance myself and I get that you're talking about families who just flat out CAN'T. However, even in your scenario there would still probably be multiple incomes. And even by your scenario, that family would be eligible for other social programs. Then one would argue how MUCH social services do they deserve anyways? Whats their incentive to better themselves.

NOW, that's not necessarily ME arguing that. I just see that side as well. I'm all for social services believe me. I've even experience the WIC program myself, it was important that I did too. We didn't abuse it, it just helped my young ass out when I was struggling with brand new expenses. But again, I still had health insurance at that time.

I just hate to see a brand new social service get abused. BUT I WANT AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE OFFERED TO ME AND MY PEOPLE. I do believe I'd ultimately like to see the Federal Government help out a little in that. But maybe there is a compromise here. A fail safe needs to be in place. Otherwise, whats the incentive to better yourself. Federal health insurance for everyone MIGHT get abused. Would this insurance cover pre-existing conditions? If its affordable would it pay for itself? Would enough people be paying into it against the amount of people using it? This is what I mean, these are my points. I don't have an answer... I'm just making it plain and obvious that neither one of these candidates can 'fix' this as an issue with a few (billion) bucks in a new welfare system. (because that is what it will be)

[erik]

Is the public school system a welfare system?

[roymond]

Hey everyone, my girlfriend just lost 80% of her life savings in 3 days! YAY.

Only if she sold before yesterday afternoon. If she didn't, then she's likely doing just fine compared to 6 months ago.

[Hoblit]

Is the public school system a welfare system?

Why do you ask a question you already know the answer to?

Obviously not.

I don't consider Federal mandated health insurance plans to be on the same level as public schooling.

BUT ON THAT LEVEL, there are already government institutions (not on the federal level) that offer health care at cut rates. I use those actually.

[Sober]

Is the public school system a welfare system?

Why do you ask a question you already know the answer to?

Obviously not.

I don't consider Federal mandated health insurance plans to be on the same level as public schooling.

BUT ON THAT LEVEL, there are already government institutions (not on the federal level) that offer health care at cut rates. I use those actually.

The federal government does not mandate that your children attend public schools. You may homeschool them or send them to private schools, but you still have to pay the 1% property tax that goes towards public schools whether you use it or not (or even have kids).

In a true universal healthcare system, it'd ideally be the same way. Everyone has 'free' access to public healthcare, and if you want to go private, then you can pay for that, but you're still taxed along with everyone else.

Check. YOUR MOVE, SON.

[Hoblit]

Is the public school system a welfare system?

Why do you ask a question you already know the answer to?

Obviously not.

I don't consider Federal mandated health insurance plans to be on the same level as public schooling.

BUT ON THAT LEVEL, there are already government institutions (not on the federal level) that offer health care at cut rates. I use those actually.

The federal government does not mandate that your children attend public schools. You may homeschool them or send them to private schools, but you still have to pay the 1% property tax that goes towards public schools whether you use it or not (or even have kids).

In a true universal healthcare system, it'd ideally be the same way. Everyone has 'free' access to public healthcare, and if you want to go private, then you can pay for that, but you're still taxed along with everyone else.

Check. YOUR MOVE, SON.

Ha, ya'll seem to think I'm against universal health care. I am not. I just think that there are a lot of complications that make this vision so extremely difficult that it may not end up being the dream that is intended. ME, I'm just pointing out the pickles and how unfair it can be and how unfair it can be to people who are against it. I'm really just a diplomat on the subject. I personally don't see how it can work as it is has been stated.

The 'tax' along with everyone else seems to be a great idea. Although unfair to folks who don't use it just as its unfair to for folks without children to pay tax on public schools. (While parents get tax breaks for having children)

I just don't think that it could possibly pay for itself. Assuming that we're not all taxed through the roof to the point of communism. (not RED CHINA / USSR communism, I mean to the definition of communism as the extreme end of socialism)

[JonPorobil]

Obama is going to raise taxes if elected. On the super-wealthy and on corporations. It's obscene right now, the way the people and organizations with the most resources wind up giving the least back, and that's one of the things Obama has made it his mission to correct.

I think many people entirely underestimate how much revenue we stand to recover just by repealing corporate tax breaks.

On the other hand, Obama (to the best of my knowledge) has not yet defined what "affordable" means for the purposes of his national health care plan, so it's tough to tell what your monthly bills and co-pay would be under this new system, and that could wind up making all the difference, too.

Hey, by the way, has anyone heard about the new clause in McCain's health care plan? Health insurance benefits will be taxed as income. I don't know why he thought that was a good idea, but hey, he's no expert on the economy, anyway.

[Hoblit]

Obama is going to raise taxes if elected. On the super-wealthy and on corporations.

1. It's obscene right now, the way the people and organizations with the most resources wind up giving the least back, and that's one of the things Obama has made it his mission to correct.

I think many people entirely underestimate how much revenue we stand to recover just by repealing corporate tax breaks.

2. Hey, by the way, has anyone heard about the new clause in McCain's health care plan? Health insurance benefits will be taxed as income. I don't know why he thought that was a good idea, but hey, he's no expert on the economy, anyway.

1. Of course that's only relative in ratio. One might argue that they actually give the most back. I'm not, but somebody else might.

2. I can see where he's coming from. If you USE the benefits, its as you had the money and you're being taxed on that as the income. I don't AGREE WITH IT, but that's the angle I suppose.

[Sober]

1. Of course that's only relative in ratio. One might argue that they actually give the most back. I'm not, but somebody else might.

Warren Buffett has a wager for anyone who would argue that point.

[erik]

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=mcc ... 1&ct=title

Seriously? What the hell?

[Hoblit]

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=mcc ... 1&ct=title

Seriously? What the hell?

IF, and only IF he accomplishes something with this, I think its a terribly good idea. These guys do hold an elective office position as it stands right now. They do have responsibilities that they have taken time away from to campaign. Considering the severity of our economy right now, I can kind of see why they would need to be present in Washington.

However, if it turns out to just be a face value ploy...then shame on him.

EDIT:

There is some breaking news that Obama actually called for a joint meeting to address the economy along side of McCain and had his offices call their offices. There are reports that McCain just ran with the idea as his own all the way to Washington. Reported by TIME. I'd link the article but its not loading for me so this could just be BS for all I know.

EDIT II:
An article less than an hour old from this edit states that they are both heading to Washington. (Although Obama's campaign seems, by way of other articles, to want to do BOTH. Go to Washington AND still hold the debate)

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10439171 ... &cm_ite=NA

[erik]

"It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess," Obama said. "I think that it is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."

[Sober]

Seriously. "Suspending" his campaign? Did John McCain just try to head-fake Barack Obama?

David Letterman wasn't terribly happy about John McCain standing him up. I wonder if avoiding one or two hard questions from David fricking Letterman was worth 5 solid minutes of lambasting on one of the highest rated late night shows.

I also happened to find this particularly funny. Does anyone else cringe like I do when listening to that?

And the Palin witchcraft video is one of the creepiest things I've ever seen.

[JonPorobil]

I also happened to find this particularly funny. Does anyone else cringe like I do when listening to that?

The best part is that under "related videos," the first item is the Miss South Carolina answer about students being unable to point out the U.S. on a map.

[Lunkhead]

John McCain hasn't made a vote in the Senate in 5 months. Seems like this whole "I suddenly have to go do my job" shtick is a blatantly transparent ploy to avoid the media, drum up publicity, etc. etc. What a crock.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/cong ... es/missed/

[HeuristicsInc]

holy crap, it's been since 4/8/08??!?! what a slacker! why not do your job sometime, mccain?
-bill