Middle of the road voters

reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
I think because of the economic meltdown this presidential race is pretty much over. Fair or not the party holding the oval office gets the blame which trickles down to the candidates in that party. Unless someone has a secret video of Obama doing the goat dance around a fire with small children being roasted this race is over.
It's no secret that I oppose Obama so everyone knows where I am coming from.
Nancy Pelosi is a left wing politician and controls the house. Harry reed is more middle of the road but still a pretty liberal guy and controls the senate. Barack Obam by any reasonable measure has shown himself to be very liberal, perhaps even more than Pelosi.
There is no way the Democrats are not going to have strong majorities in both the house and senate after the election and we are definitely talking a major shift to the left in US policy. Whether for or against Obama I was just wondering if this played into your decision?
If you are voting against Obama would Republicans having control of congress make you more apt to vote for him?
 
lovethesea

lovethesea

Active Member
All I know is that nothing will get done in the next 4 years regardless of who wins. Until this country (house and sentate) gets over itself we will be no better off in 4 years. Look what happened with the "bailout". No one would agree until a few billion more was attached (whats a few billion more among friends).......kind of like when I took my son to the Dr. , he knew something was up and I had to bribe him with candy.
Everyone stands around pointing fingers in a crisis(and then trying to figure out how they can make this work politically for them personally). WHO cares!! Fix the problem and lets once again learn from the mistakes and move on. Everyone is so blinded by their own pompus light that they don't see anything anymore or better yet they dont HEAR anything any more.
BOTH parties!!
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Lets not condone McCain's economic plans...
He wants to buy back and resell preforeclosed homes at a significant financial loss for each home. This would be extremely costly, beyond anything Obama has proposed. *Edit*
Criticize Obama for wanting to spend the money to give all Americans minimum health insurance if you want to. That would have a miniscule effect compared to what McCain is planning.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2791273
Unless someone has a secret video of Obama doing the goat dance around a fire with small children being roasted this race is over.

But I don't think people will take into account who is in congress, they didn't in 2000 or 2004 when everything was controlled by republicans. Yes it will make it easier for Obama and the congress to do what they want, but its not like there are no republicans in gov't and these people will still have to answer to the people in their next elections.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2791353
...
Criticize Obama for wanting to spend the money to give all Americans minimum health insurance if you want to. ...
Price controlling insurance and medical bills for every American is a far cry from how you describe it.
 
lovethesea

lovethesea

Active Member
I thought it was taxing the actual benefit of what it cost your employer to pay your premium (if the employer actually decided to keep that benefit for us) .....not the actual cost of your medical costs. Since I heard of this a few weeks back, I can't find anything from McCain that spells it out.
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by lovethesea
http:///forum/post/2791359
I thought it was taxing the actual benefit of what it cost your employer to pay your premium (if the employer actually decided to keep that benefit for us) .....not the actual cost of your medical costs. Since I heard of this a few weeks back, I can't find anything from McCain that spells it out.
You may actually be right. My understanding was that the benefits were being taxed. But it looks like that may not be so.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Back in the 80's the company I was working for made a change where the cost of health insurance wasn't considered income for tax purposes. I assume up to that point it was all taxable. If I am reading McCains plan right you still get the tax credit which would by far cover the taxes on the amount your employer pays for your premiums.
WHat I don't like is neither candidate is willing to take steps to control costs.
I'll make you a deal Crimzy. I'll let Obama give everyone in the country health coverage if you give us a flat tax with no dependent deductions or exemptions. Everyone pays the same percentage on all their income period
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2791381
I'll make you a deal Crimzy. I'll let Obama give everyone in the country health coverage if you give us a flat tax with no dependent deductions or exemptions. Everyone pays the same percentage on all their income period

Well Reefraff... since you and I are, of course, the powers that be, I'll agree to those terms. Let's write up some legislation and I'll sign.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2791385
Well Reefraff... since you and I are, of course, the powers that be, I'll agree to those terms. Let's write up some legislation and I'll sign.

As long as we're fixings the worlds problems let's take care of that pesky palestinian issue while we are at it
 
lovethesea

lovethesea

Active Member
well, IMO every employer would drop the insurance benefit in a heartbeat if they were told they could. Then it would be a free for all while all of us seek the best coverage/price etc. Insurance companies could say pre-existing condition to every little thing if they want.
The companies would be slammed with millions of people trying to find the best benefit. Thats why companies have people that can shop, price, compete, etc with many insurance companies for their few employees, to thousands of employees.
does it all need changing??? yes, especially where costs are concerned but this way does not seem viable for the everyday family that needs coverage.
This is exhausting...........

so are we writng in Crimzy and Reefraff ??
 
matt b

matt b

Active Member
If McCain did not pick sarah palin I would not mind him winning but the fact he picked he just to get women votes is just wrong.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by lovethesea
http:///forum/post/2791450
well, IMO every employer would drop the insurance benefit in a heartbeat if they were told they could.

There is nothing preventing employers dropping health benefits right now unless there is a union contract in place.
 
gmann1139

gmann1139

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2791273
Unless someone has a secret video of Obama doing the goat dance around a fire with small children being roasted this race is over.
Ok, I had this discussion with a buddy last night.
If Bin Laden's on ice, and they wheel him out, dead or alive, does that trump the currently circling the drain economy, and cause a shift in voting patterns?
I say yes, it benefits McCain. He disagreed, saying it wouldn't be that major an event.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by gmann1139
http:///forum/post/2791618
Ok, I had this discussion with a buddy last night.
If Bin Laden's on ice, and they wheel him out, dead or alive, does that trump the currently circling the drain economy, and cause a shift in voting patterns?
I say yes, it benefits McCain. He disagreed, saying it wouldn't be that major an event.
It wouldn't matter.
All the anti-war crowd who today are saying "see, we haven't got Bin Laden!" would tomorrow say "See, he's not important... Al Qaeda still exists".
You can't win with some people...
 
lovethesea

lovethesea

Active Member
I couldn't agree more. (that would have been Bill Clintons new job as 1st man if Hillary got in.....getting Bin Laden 2nd attempt)
I thought that employers with over a certain amount of employees had to provide some sort of insurance? I guess it is just to remain competitive?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by lovethesea
http:///forum/post/2791721
I couldn't agree more. (that would have been Bill Clintons new job as 1st man if Hillary got in.....getting Bin Laden 2nd attempt)
I thought that employers with over a certain amount of employees had to provide some sort of insurance? I guess it is just to remain competitive?
I've heard of a couple of states trying to get ballot initiatives passed to require that. As far as I know none have passed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top