5 Responses

1. Michael Loeb

   June 12th, 2008 at 9:37 pm

   1

   I found the deficit information less than useful.. the Tax Policy Center admits that it can not account for the fact that McCain claims he will decrease spending to offset the tax cuts. Obama promises to increase spending. So in reality this deficit indicator is pretty meaningless.

   I like McCain’s stance of “it’s not governments job to bail out people that make poor investments”, but what happens when they privatize social security and tell people go invest for your future. Some fools will buy every penny stock out there hoping to find the next Amgen or Microsoft. When retirement comes and they are penniless what happens? They’ll turn to the gov’t and cry. Are we going to turn poor elderly people into the streets… no. Don’t privatize social security, and put back what you’ve stolen/borrowed from the fund over the past 80 years.

   Obama wants companies to pay “fair share”.. what does that mean? ExxonMobil paid 29 billion in taxes in 2007, and that’s still not enough. He doesn’t realize that major corporations are owned by shareholders, through the pension and IRA’s and 401Ks. Who does he think he’s hurting when he takes money out of the private sector to pay for his socialistic society? Has anyone out there ever been hired by a poor man? He really just doesn’t have a clue as to how the system works.

2. Chris B.

   June 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

   2

   As someone who tries hard to be a reasonably well informed person, it is so frustrating to see the blind devotion that Obama supporters have to this man. Their support is best described as an “infatuation,” because they fail to realize the completely destructive policies that are part of “Obamanomics.”

   Before you try to discredit what I have to say by launching an assault on George Bush or John McCain — don’t bother. I’m with you. Fiscal conservatives should be — and mostly are — completely disgusted with what had happened in the last 8 years when it comes to our national debt, budget deficits, and the growing size of government. And while George Bush has disgusted me, I actually fear what would happen to this country under the policies of Obama.

   I’ve heard the Democratic talking points all week — “John McCain voted with George Bush 95% of the time.” Ok, but what about the fact that Obama has voted 94 times for higher taxes in just 3 years as a Senator. He’s planning to raise income taxes, Social Security taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes. He is, based on his voting record, the most liberal member of Congress. Do “reasonable” people — either on the left or right — really want an extremist of this nature representing their views?

   Is he doing this to reduce our growing budget deficit? No.. He’s doing it to INCREASE SPENDING, most notably on socialized medicine. Irresponsible doesn’t begin to describe his intentions.

   The national love affair will come to an end. It has to. His skeletons are already coming out of the closet at an alarming rate. His policies will be exposed.

   There was only one candidate in this race who told the truth, would have made the truly difficult decisions, and was, therefore, completely un-electable. His name was Ron Paul.

3. Syed Zaidi

   June 24th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

   3

   Part of me believes that either one of these candidates getting into office wont be able to accomplish much domestically. Now, certainly, if Obama gets in and a stable democratic majority remains the question is how much will he be able to get done. For example, I understand your point on socialized medicine. I havent found a good example anywhere in the world where socialized medicine could work on the scale of 300 million people. That being said, every democrat has their own views on what healthcare should look like. Does this mean that nothing will get done? I dont know. What I do know is that this feels like like 1974/1975 all over again.

4. KenG

   July 1st, 2008 at 10:11 am

   4

   On socialized medicine:

   Go to frontline.org and watch T.R. Reid’s sick around the world. Universal healthcare is currently delivered to well over 300 million people worldwide, and it works well, as documented in this report. Reid methodically reviews 5 major industrialized nations with universal healthcare, and finds the common attributes across all systems that make them successful. Not all systems reviewed are socialized, and Germany, in particular, is based on private entities to deliver services to patients. One overwhelming point becomes clear - given the resolve, universal healthcare is achievable.

   One other point - the U.S. healthcare system has the dubious distinction of ranking somewhere in the mid-thirties among industrial nations for infant mortiality and longevity. At the same time, the U.S. pays double per capita compared to the next most expensive system.

5. Syed Zaidi

   July 1st, 2008 at 6:59 pm

   5

   Hi Ken!

   I read/watched that report and I have to say that I fundamentally disagree/dont believe alot of whats in the report.

   For example, I have first hand experience with the UK health care system for well over 10 years. In those 10 years, I have never heard of a single positive experience. In fact, many of my family members pay for private health care in the UK! I know, for example, that it takes 2+ years to get an angiogram. For the most part, UK citizens seem to be relegated to reactive medicine in the form of Emergency Room care.

   The problem I have with Universal Healthcare is the scale issue. Sure, this report shows 5 different countries. Each with, in their own mind, good healthcare. The problem is no solution that is currently available seems to be able to scale to 350+ million people.

   I completely agree that digital healthcare can/will/should reduce costs significantly and those saving will, over time, be passed to consumers. However, at this point I am more confident in our system than any other country I have ever visited.

   The one question that I would like to see debated is how the cost of universal healthcare impacts the economy. For example, Japan essentially subsidizes part of Toyota because of national health care. Would universal healthcare allow us to compete more effectively internationally?