Republican Candidates

natemd

Member
Rylan1 said:
Warren Buffet is not a normal rich guy. It still doesn't change the fact the tax code is off. The you could argue (I'm not) that most of the money the Gates Foundation donates is oversees.

I agree that the tax code is off. I also agree that Warren Buffet is not a normal rich person. If we had a couple more rich guys like him I think the country could get headed in the right direction. I'm a Buffet fan if you couldn't tell.(I was a Finance major in college with an econ minor, so I studied a lot of what he has done.) I'm not arguing either about the Gates foundation, I believe somewhere in the realm of almost 1 Billion has been given in grants towards global development with another 8.5 billion towards global health and searching for the cure for diseases. Where as the US has gotten roughly 4.9 billion. However, I believe we all benefit from the money put towards global health. My problem with politics is that the good hardworking individuals that could really do a lot for the country don't want to get involved in politics directly because it would only slow them down.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Don't do that. I apologize since I think it is my fault that certain issues came up...
I am going to try to leave them as they are and just say in my opinion the best republican candidate will not focus on 'religious' or other special interest agendas..
I think that a lot of the 'issues' being addressed by the republican party don't really deserve the time and attention they are given...
Fixing problems with the system that are being exploited should be the number one concern of any presidental candidate in my opinion.
I can handle that, I don't nessasarily agree with it, but that is fine.
I don't want to see a book on obama's socialist agenda of change or the utter flaw of Bush's tax cuts. (even tho they are bringing in more dollars now then before the cuts how does some one not understand that 100 dollars is more than 75 dollars?) I'm not going to vote for obama osama, sorry. I've done enough research. all I wanted was to hear what other REPUBLICANS thought about the REPUBLICAN candidates and their pros or cons. Considering what they have heard over the last two days and their own research.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
I can handle that, I don't nessasarily agree with it, but that is fine.
I don't want to see a book on obama's socialist agenda of change or the utter flaw of Bush's tax cuts. (even tho they are bringing in more dollars now then before the cuts how does some one not understand that 100 dollars is more than 75 dollars?) I'm not going to vote for obama osama, sorry. I've done enough research. all I wanted was to hear what other REPUBLICANS thought about the REPUBLICAN candidates and their pros or cons. Considering what they have heard over the last two days and their own research.
Sounds to me you are not open minded
. Just because someone is of a particular political party doesn't mean he is a better candidate. I considered candidates of both parties. But the book is out! And the remarks written or research you all have done is wrong about Obama. So I put the facts out so that it is clear. People are saying his tax plan takes money out of their pocket and it doesn't except for maybe 5% of Americans or less. They say his health plan socializes medicine and it doesn't. This info is applicable to All candidates and frankly, the GOP misses the ball. They don't want to do anything with taxes and they have no solution for healthcare.. Healthcare is a major problem...it seems all they want to talk about is less taxes and terrorism, which leaves out the important issues. I've heard little about other domestic issues such as education, healthcare, ecomomy, fiscal responsiblity, immigration... etc..etc..
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Rylan1 said:
I've been watching both races very closeley. I am a Obama supporter, but from the GOP side...
QUOTE]
If he is so wonderful, why do you have to start your whole premise with something that is not true?
Everything you've brought to this debate are typically flawed liberal arguments, so either you are seriously misguiding and need to come out of the liberal closet or you "stretched" the truth a little bit.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
As for your "not socialized medicine. We'll have to start at the beginning with a definition according to wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/we
n "under group or government control"
So when a plan incorporates the SCHIP program than that is socialism. He wants to expand
"Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function." These programs. I see government control that means Socialism.
Manditory coverage of Children
Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans
.
This is socialism. Since When is a 25 year old a child?
Do I need to go through the entire post?
I do admit his plan is more "free" than say Hilary's "plan" But like with all governent programs they snowball, And in the land of the blind the man with one eye is king.
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Back to healthcare... here is Obama's plan.
Barack Obama's Plan
Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All
Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.

Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans
.
Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
As for the tax code, you will get no arguments from me that taxes suck.
What we seems to misunderstand is what they actually tax.
They heavily tax wage from labor. So when I get a paycheck from my company I get taxes 20% or whatever. If I invest and turn a profit, I pay a lower tax rate on my income from investments. It is around 15%.
But the uber rich don't make much money going to work every day. They make their investments work for them. So warren buffet who makes the vast majority of his money in investments of course he is going to have lower taxes. Than say my uncle who owns a company and makes the majority of his income in a wage.
That is the way it works. Is it fair, (up to debate) is it right (up to debate) but to use Warren Buffet and say that all rich people odn't pay taxes is simply flawed. And misinformation on the Bush tax cuts and diversionary to the whole tax code argument.
 

rylan1

Active Member
stdreb27 said:
Originally Posted by Rylan1
I've been watching both races very closeley. I am a Obama supporter, but from the GOP side...
QUOTE]
If he is so wonderful, why do you have to start your whole premise with something that is not true?
Everything you've brought to this debate are typically flawed liberal arguments, so either you are seriously misguiding and need to come out of the liberal closet or you "stretched" the truth a little bit.
Huh? I am a Browns fan, but I watched the Steelers vs Jags game.
I don't understand what you mean.
If Obama wins I will vote for him, but I need a 2nd option for whom I am unsure. To be honest my second choice may be McCain.
I am not streching any truth... all my remarks are documented by other sources.
As far people 25 or less... many of these people do not have healthcare because of the types of jobs they have. 2nd, most employee based plans say that you can be insured upto 22-25 if you are a college student under your parents plan... For example I was not eligible for health insurance when I worked part-time through college.
Third, children have no choice to have or not to have health care. They should be covered. Are you telling me that you don't agree with this?
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
As for the tax code, you will get no arguments from me that taxes suck.
What we seems to misunderstand is what they actually tax.
They heavily tax wage from labor. So when I get a paycheck from my company I get taxes 20% or whatever. If I invest and turn a profit, I pay a lower tax rate on my income from investments. It is around 15%.
But the uber rich don't make much money going to work every day. They make their investments work for them. So warren buffet who makes the vast majority of his money in investments of course he is going to have lower taxes. Than say my uncle who owns a company and makes the majority of his income in a wage.
That is the way it works. Is it fair, (up to debate) is it right (up to debate) but to use Warren Buffet and say that all rich people odn't pay taxes is simply flawed. And misinformation on the Bush tax cuts and diversionary to the whole tax code argument.
I never said that, but what I am saying is that we pay more of a %.. My remarks said that he pays 17% of taxable income... not the investments that are tax exempt.
And since your uncle owns a buisiness... he shoud realize the costs of insuring employees and that for small businesses ... it is a burden. I know because I talk to over 300 business owners each and every year.
 

bang guy

Moderator

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Third, children have no choice to have or not to have health care. They should be covered. Are you telling me that you don't agree with this?
In this country if you take a child, or any person for that matter, to an emergency room with a injury or illness they will be treated
. It doesn't matter what job they have or even their residence status. Currently, everyone in this country has health care. They can chose to use it or not, but it is there when they need it.
 

petieaztec

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
The only religious views being forced on anyone in this country are from the Atheists...
well said my friend!!!
 

rylan1

Active Member

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
In this country if you take a child, or any person for that matter, to an emergency room with a injury or illness they will be treated
. It doesn't matter what job they have or even their residence status. Currently, everyone in this country has health care. They can chose to use it or not, but it is there when they need it.
Maybe, however... doesn't this raise the costs of medical care because the hospital covers the bill, and ultimately they pass this to the consumer. Everyone does not have healthcare... they say at least 46 million do not. When I worked partime I could get it, but it would be like 50% of my check.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Lets look at Huckabee and his tax program... the "Fair Tax" it would basically scrap the IRS and tax all items around 23%. So if you bought a pack of gum worth a dollar it would be $1.30. By the way my math is correct. The % is based on what is dollar + 23%? I have some views on this... what are yours?
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by itom37
Interesting then that the founding fathers, who you seem to think intended ours to be a theocracy, or at least overridden by preference for christianity, did not mention church, god, or christ in the constitution. Religion is curiously absent. The first time we see mention of church is in the first amendment when separation of church and state is established.
I certainly do not believe our Government should be a theocracy. I've seen first hand the persecution that goes with that form of government. I will not, however, allow anyone to try to erase the influence Christianity had on our natin's founding fathers and the establishment of this great country.
Now, you are wrong. The founding fathers certainly did mention God. I sited examples.
I also quoted the First Amendment that absolutely does NOT call for "seperation of church and state".
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by itom37
On what non-religious grounds do you find that acceptable? If it's not a religious issue then then what basis is there to deny homosexuals the right to marry?
On what non-religious grounds do we deny consenting adults who are brother and sister from marrying each other or from a man marrying half a dozen women if they are all consenting adults?
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Why is it that Warren Buffet only pay 17% of his income and the middle class pays double that? The rich are taxed less. So are you saying that someone who makes less than $100,000 doesn't work hard? I think that there are many misconceptions about what my candidate of choice campaign is about
Ryan, do you understand what the Capital Gains tax is?
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
For many college student yes you could possibably consider 25 years. I think there should be a stipulation that says college student though. But if we can spend a trillion dollars in Iraq, than we can afford better healthcare. And if you follow the polls and media reports... Obama is getting republican and independent support... at least from Iowa and N.H. The coverage for young adults also will be through their parents plan. This is like many employer plans that we currently have--- there is nothing unusual here.
If everyone were insured... healthcare would be less because hospitals would no longer have to cover the costs of those who have no insurance.
Ryan, the difference is National Defense is the government's responsibility. National health care is not.
I stand by my original point. Obama is not, nor will he ever get ANY Republican support. Unlesss you count folks like you who claim to be "GOP" yet agree with nothing the party supports.
 

jerthunter

Active Member
I never knew Obama was a republican candidate....
I might be nice to keep the discussion of Obama, tax, health care, etc... to another thread. That would be the polite thing to do I think..
But if I am wrong let me know so we can start talking about Mr. Nader...
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Ryan, do you understand what the Capital Gains tax is?
Not really... but I am resourceful. I may have a novice understanding
Are you for them or against them?
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
... the GOP misses the ball. They don't want to do anything with taxes and they have no solution for healthcare.. Healthcare is a major problem...it seems all they want to talk about is less taxes and terrorism, which leaves out the important issues. I've heard little about other domestic issues such as education, healthcare, ecomomy, fiscal responsiblity, immigration... etc..etc..
*With the tax cuts, government revenue increased.
*Healthcare is not a major problem. The problem is people refuse to make it a priority when they budget. We have one of the greatest systems in the world, available to anyone...
*If you haven't heard issue like immigration, tax cuts and the economy being brought up you haven't been listening.
 
Top