You can say whatever you want. It is afforded to you by the U.S. Constitution. However, don't be suprised when someone challenges you especially when your arguments are contemptuous.

What do you mean by this? I am not understanding the metaphor. Who are the lunitics and what is the assylum?

Arm yourself!

For those of you supporting Obamas "Tax the rich" plan. Do any of you really believe big companies pay taxes?

If I am Brand X and provide you a neccessary product with high demand for 4 bucks each. My taxes go up 1.2 million a year and I produce and sell 2.4 million units a year, guess what? Your cost for that unit just went up to AT LEAST $4.50 for each one of those units.

Oh and I want to give STF credit. His staement is 100% correct.
The president only has limited powers. He can't screw things up TOO bad.

So Obama can't REALLY screw things up unless he has a Democratic controlled House and Senate filled with corrupt radicals like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barny Frank Chriss Dodd. OOPPSS!!

What I am really looking foward to is the appointment of Bill Ayers to a cabinet position, the pardonning of Tony Resko, and with a little luck, we can get Rev Right to do the invocation at the innaugural address.

You have voted for, and made excuses for, the most corrupt and ineffective administration in the last 100 years...(would you like the list of indictments?)...and yet you continue your fear-based commentary on rumors and out right lies conveniently served up to you and your right wing buddies by the RNC.

Since your continuing stream of nonsense is not winning the election campaign, give us a break and come up with some policy ideas or at least some new gossip. Dredging up the communist in the closet worked for a couple of decades..why not try that?

His associations with Tony Resko, Rev Wright and William Ayers are outright Lies? Hmmm, thats funny. I thought that the NY Times was one of the left wings more prominent rags.

I have not bashed anyone. I am merely bringing up points of discussion that I wish Obama would answer or release complete information on.

It is my experience that one can surely be judged by the people they associate with.

I had a good chuckle this morning. I was listening to the people's propaganda on MPR, hearing McCain's camp latest regarding Obama's affiliation with Ayers (again.) I guess the Obama camp has a new television spot that brings up McCain's direct help with regulators for Keating (again.) Now the kicker, McCain's response was that it was the worst mistake of his life... I thought that his cheating on his first wife was his worst mistake? Oh wait, maybe that was his biggest mistake? You know, there's a difference between worst and biggest...

On NPR this morning, they said if McCain was elected and his tax polices where introduced, it would raise our national debt 5 trillion before then end of his term. It was because of military spending and another thing I do not recall. This was brought up by Obama speaking this weekend about it taking 2 years to get the budget under control if he was elected. The way the NPR spelled it out, a McCain spending plan says nothing about getting the budget in control through out the 4 year term.

Anyone hear this?

Let me see if I have this right. The choices are tax and spend or borrow and spend and leave it for our children to take care of?

Where are you Ron Paul?

Krugman on Healthcare:

From Saturday's NYT (Oct 6, 2008)

Sarah Palin ended her debate performance last Thursday with a slightly garbled quote from Ronald Reagan about how, if we aren’t vigilant, we’ll end up “telling our children and our children’s children” about the days when America was free. It was a revealing choice.

You see, when Reagan said this he wasn’t warning about Soviet aggression. He was warning against legislation that would guarantee health care for older Americans — the program now known as Medicare.

Conservative Republicans still hate Medicare, and would kill it if they could — in fact, they tried to gut it during the Clinton years (that’s what the 1995 shutdown of the government was all about). But so far they haven’t been able to pull that off.

So John McCain wants to destroy the health insurance of nonelderly Americans instead.

Most Americans under 65 currently get health insurance through their employers. That’s largely because the tax code favors such insurance: your employer’s contribution to insurance premiums isn’t considered taxable income, as long as the employer’s health plan follows certain rules. In particular, the same plan has to be available to all employees, regardless of the size of their paycheck or the state of their health.

This system does a fairly effective job of protecting those it reaches, but it leaves many Americans out in the cold. Workers whose employers don’t offer coverage are forced to seek individual health insurance, often in vain. For one thing, insurance companies offering “nongroup” coverage generally refuse to cover anyone with a pre-existing medical condition. And individual insurance is very expensive, because insurers spend large sums weeding out “high-risk” applicants — that is, anyone who seems likely to actually need the insurance.

So what should be done? Barack Obama offers incremental reform: regulation of insurers to prevent discrimination against the less healthy, subsidies to help lower-income families buy insurance, and public insurance plans that compete with the private sector. His plan falls short of universal coverage, but it would sharply reduce the number of uninsured.

Mr. McCain, on the other hand, wants to blow up the current system, by eliminating the tax break for employer-provided insurance. And he doesn’t offer a workable alternative.

Without the tax break, many employers would drop their current health plans. Several recent nonpartisan studies estimate that under the McCain plan around 20 million Americans currently covered by their employers would lose their health insurance.

As compensation, the McCain plan would give people a tax credit — $2,500 for an individual, $5,000 for a family — that could be used to buy health insurance in the individual market. At the same time, Mr. McCain would deregulate insurance, leaving insurance companies free to deny coverage to those with health problems — and his proposal for a “high-risk pool” for hard cases would provide little help.

So what would happen?

The good news, such as it is, is that more people would buy individual insurance. Indeed, the total number of uninsured Americans might decline marginally under the McCain plan — although many more Americans would be without insurance than under the Obama plan.

But the people gaining insurance would be those who need it least: relatively healthy Americans with high incomes. Why? Because insurance companies want to cover only healthy people, and even among the healthy only those able to pay a lot in addition to their tax credit would be able to afford coverage (remember, it’s a $5,000 credit, but the average family policy actually costs more than $12,000).

Meanwhile, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most: lower-income workers who wouldn’t be able to afford individual insurance even with the tax credit, and Americans with health problems whom insurance companies won’t cover.

And in the process of comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted, the McCain plan would also lead to a huge, expensive increase in bureaucracy: insurers selling individual health plans spend 29 percent of the premiums they receive on administration, largely because they employ so many people to screen applicants. This compares with costs of 12 percent for group plans and just 3 percent for Medicare.

In short, the McCain plan makes no sense at all, unless you have faith that the magic of the marketplace can solve all problems. And Mr. McCain does: a much-quoted article published under his name declares that “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.”

I agree: the McCain plan would do for health care what deregulation has done for banking. And I’m terrified.

I find it funny that people are argueing a price hike situation if we tax the upper class when infact hikes, job losses, increased debt and all this economic woe came under an 8 year tax cut for them. Why are we still talking about trickle down theory? The water in economics flows up, the difference is if you got a river flowing up or a creek flowing up, but the end effect is still a big basin of water. As for prices, in a healthy capalistic system, prices are affected by demand, not tax increases that brings back the taxes between 1990-2000.
Then there is no tax and don't spend anything. Leave it to each individual citizen to their own and lets get the conch. No government works in that manner.
I'm extremely disappointed in Mccain now. This slash and burn and screw facts campaign that Bush used agains Mac has taught Mac well. I'm not saying Obama isnt' guilty of this, HE IS. But Mac is really taking this to the next lvl...about the same level as Bush running ads about Mac in 2000 that he had a illegit black love child.

O. whatever. I gona resign myself to destiny. It's been fun talking to most of you guys and debating, smearing and making fun of these canidiates
NObama 08, McSame and Phailin 08!

Even if McCain gets elected and floats this "health careless" plan to Congress it's not likely to pass. Predictions are that Democrats will pick up some Senate seats and have a stronger majority there than depending on Leiberman to vote their way as the swing vote when things get partisan, and the House will maintain or strengthen its Democratic majority.

A Democrat would rather gnaw off his/her right arm than vote for something that would ignite a firestorm with voters and seems to target the Dems prime voting bases.

Of course, predictions, shmedictions! Who knows what the election will really bring?

Well if NPR and Obama say it, it must be true. Right?

You're asking a bunch of lefties to answer that question? I think you already know the answer.

I have a huge problem with one party controlling all three branches.....let's hope we can keep it close in the Senate so they can't steamroll us on some of these IMPORTANT issues!

How do I know the answer, when you or anyone else has not answered my question yet?


I searched NPR's website and AP and could not find anything to back this up.

All I seem to get is info about each side attacking each or from this weekend.