Brokaw did not challenge McCain's claim that Obama plan would "fine" small businesses that do not offer health insurance
SUMMARY: Tom Brokaw did not challenge Sen. John McCain's false claim that under Sen. Barack Obama's health care plan, "[S]mall-business people who have employees without health insurance, that he is going to fine them if they don't have, have the insurance policy that they want, that Senator Obama wants them to have." In fact, while Obama has proposed requiring large businesses that do not provide health coverage to pay a percentage of their payroll into a National Health Insurance Exchange, small businesses would be exempt.
During the October 26 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tom Brokaw did not challenge Sen. John McCain's false claim that under Sen. Barack Obama's health care plan, "[S]mall-business people who have employees without health insurance, that he is going to fine them if they don't have, have the insurance policy that they want, that Senator Obama wants them to have." In fact, while Obama has proposed requiring large businesses that do not provide employer-sponsored health coverage to pay a percentage of their payroll into a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans purchase private health insurance, small businesses would be exempt. Obama also has proposed a refundable Small Business Health Tax Credit for small businesses that do provide employer-sponsored health care.
Indeed, during the October 15 presidential debate, after McCain stated, "Now, Senator Obama, I'd like -- still like to know what that fine is going to be," Obama responded, "Zero, because as I said in our last debate and I'll repeat, John, I exempt small businesses from the requirement for large businesses that can afford to provide health care to their employees, but are not doing it." Obama continued:
I exempt small businesses from having to pay into a kitty. But large businesses that can afford it, we've got a choice. Either they provide health insurance to their employees or somebody has to.
Right now, what happens is those employees get dumped into either the Medicaid system, which taxpayers pick up, or they're going to the emergency room for uncompensated care, which everybody picks up in their premiums.
The average family is paying an additional $900 a year in higher premiums because of the uninsured.
So here's what we do. We exempt small businesses. In fact, what, Joe, if you want to do the right thing with your employees and you want to provide them health insurance, we'll give you a 50-percent credit so that you will actually be able to afford it.
If you don't have health insurance or you want to buy into a group plan, you will be able to buy into the plan that I just described.
In addition, while discussing his relationship with President Bush, McCain claimed that "I've stood up against my party, not just President Bush, but others, and I've the scars to prove it, including taking up with [Sen.] Ted Kennedy [D-MA] immigration reform knowing full well that that was going to hurt my chances in the primaries." But Brokaw did not point out that during the Republican primaries, at the January 30 Republican presidential debate, McCain said that he would no longer support the comprehensive reform bill he co-sponsored with Kennedy if it came up for a vote in the Senate.
From the October 26 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
BROKAW: Senator, in the last of the presidential debates, moderated by Bob Schieffer, you drew greater distinction between yourself and George Bush. You said, "I am not George Bush." And then this past week in The Washington Times, a newspaper in Washington, this was the account: "Senator John McCain blasted President Bush for building a mountain of debt for future generations, failing to pay for expanding Medicare, and abusing executive powers, leveling his strongest criticism to date of the administration, whose unpopularity may be dragging the Republican Party to the brink of a massive electoral defeat. 'We just let things get completely out of hand,' he said of his own party's rule in the last eight years."
But then we have an account of you on Meet the Press, going back to June 2005. And this is what you had to say about your relationship with Present Bush at that time.
[begin video clip]
McCAIN: The fact is that I'm different, but the fact is that I've agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I have been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.
So I strongly disagree with any assertion that I've been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with.
[break]
McCAIN: Well, I'm very honored and humbled to have the opportunity to receive the endorsement of the president of the United States, a man who I have great admiration, respect, and affection.
[break]
McCAIN: I intend to have, as much possible, campaigning events and together, as is in keeping with the president's heavy schedule. And I look forward to that opportunity.
[end video clip]
BROKAW: Senator McCain, both in tone and language, you are very close to President Bush in those appearances. The Congressional Quarterly did a review of your votes: 92 percent of the time, you voted with President Bush. So it's a little hard for the public to separate you from this administration, isn't it?
McCAIN: Well, it may be the way you describe it. And by the way, the last interview that I did with The Washington Times -- of course, I've been repeating for last eight years that the spending was out of control. That's why I voted against these projects, these pork-barrel spending. I was the harshest critic of the failed strategy in Iraq and pointed it out at hearing after hearing and fought against it. I've supported action to address climate change from -- since 2000 and said we've got to do something about it. There were sharp disagreements there.
There were a number of disagreements on general overall philosophy. I am a Republican. I respect the president of the United States. Of course we let spending get completely out of control, and I've been talking about it for a long, long period of time.
Now, I know how it is on this show. You show various segments and comments that we make thousands of, and I understand that. But the fact is, I am not George Bush. The fact is that I was not popular within my own party. The fact is that when I said that we were failing in Iraq and we were going to lose, I was criticized by Republicans. The fact is, when I did campaign finance reform with [Sen.] Russ Feingold [D-WI], I was opposed by my own party and my own president.
So do we share a common philosophy of the Republican Party? Of course. But I've stood up against my party, not just President Bush, but others, and I've the scars to prove it, including taking up with Ted Kennedy immigration reform knowing full well that that was going to hurt my chances in the primaries.
So I could go down a long list of issues with you. Do I respect President Bush? Of course I respect him, but I pointed out we were on the wrong track in a whole lot of ways, including a $10 trillion deficit, including saying we've got to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and proposed legislation to try to fix it before that triggered the housing collapse, including today, when I'm saying they should be going out and buying up these mortgages and giving people mortgages that they can afford rather than bailing out the banks.
BROKAW: We're going to get to that very issue in a moment. One of the things that you've been saying in the course of your campaign is that Senator Obama has neither the experience nor the judgment to be the president of the United States. We've got some polls on how he's doing with the American voter on some of the critical issues of the day.
This is the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that was taken from October 17 to October 20. On health care, who is better equipped to deal with that? Obama has a 39-point advantage over you in that poll. As you can see, the economy it's up 21 points; the housing crisis, a 21-point advantage; taxes, 14. In Iraq, you have an advantage over Senator Obama of about five points. These are not pundits.
McCAIN: We've now finally found the pony.
BROKAW: These are not the pundits or the media elites. This is a broad-based poll across the country.
McCAIN: That I don't agree with.
BROKAW: People making judgments about who's qualified to be --
McCAIN: But I don't agree with their conclusion that I'm, quote, 11 or 12 or 14 point -- whatever it is. We have polls, including, I think, a Zogby poll showing us three or four points behind. So if you want to continue to referring to a poll that I disagree with, I have to start out our conversation -- I don't agree with that. We are closing, and we have been closing.
BROKAW: But it's not the only poll, Senator. A number of polls show that.
McCAIN: Oh, yeah. And it's not the only poll that shows us close. So, you know, I'm sure we don't want to spend the morning arguing about polls that are accurate or inaccurate.
But I will stand before the American people with my view that I think that we don't -- we cannot fine small-business people and their -- or their employee -- small-business people who have employees without health insurance, that he's going to fine them if they don't have the insurance policy that they want -- that Senator Obama wants them to have, that if they have children that don't have health insurance that Senator Obama wants them to have, they will be fined, that he wants to spend an additional trillion dollars. I'll stand on those issues. I'll stand on them, and I'll take the verdict of the American people. And I guarantee you that two weeks from now, you will see this has been a very close race. And I believe that I'm going to win it.
BROKAW: All right. I don't want to dwell on these polls unduly, but even you had a big --
McCAIN: Here we go again.
I do like the fact that Brokaw played back Grampy's own words that he supported Bush most of the time and agreed with his policies...pretty hard to deny it, but McBush tried his best.
"Grampy"? Are we still picking on the age of McCain? How would you like everyone to refer to Obama as "Homey"?
Let me see if I understand.
We can be called vermin, cowards, traitors, socialists, terrorist sympathizers, unpatriotic and un-American by those in the McCain camp, but comments about McCain's age are out of bounds. Correct?
Gramps is WAY OUT OF BOUNDS! Stick to: liar, unethical, hypocritical, mudslinger, and balogne pony. Not gramps.
"Gramps" is precisely in bounds. Actuarially, a 72-year-old man with a history of four melanomas has a poor chance of surviving a stressful term as POTUS. His age is the primary reason many people are not voting for him, according to the polls.
That and what it would mean for our country to have a religious zealot like Palin as president.
But I think djasper was simply having a bit of fun.
Sorry, that reply was supposed to be for etrw.
sucks, u found me out. All seriousness aside, I just watched for the 2nd time on pbs, a program about mickey c. and Obama. The fact that mickey closly alligned himself with the bush misadministration's policies for the primaries and essentially "flip-flopping" all over the place = hypocrite, That Obama would raise taxes on the middle class=liar, that he is connected with Keeting=unethical, that he propagates smears against Obama (Wright, fining small busineses for not having health ins. for employees, meeting with dictators without preconditions, etc., etc.) and that he used to be a maverick but, now is just a bologne pony and this is just the tip of the ice burg, is more accurate than Gramps. I don't find he term Gramps derrogatory. It's more accurate to call him one of the other beforementioned.
shucks, u found me out.
Gramps is WAY OUT OF BOUNDS!
Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain Gramps McCain
:-)
actually, gramps is just fine with me. I also think his mind has slipped. Dementia is evident. He makes more verbal errors than baby bush.
How about John Cougar Melanomacamp
And just so you know, I'm younger than McCain but the nicest thing I've ever been called is Grampop, gramps, pop pop or pop.
Grampy, as used above my mary59, is demeaning. I think anything relating to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age discrimination etc. should be off-limits in a respectful argument regarding politics. I am shocked at how liberals have certain rules for people they AGREE WITH and other rules for people they DISAGREE with. This whole campaign has been an embarrassment whereas Hilary and Palin have suffered sex discrimination in the media and McCain has been discriminated against because of his age.
Do you have any examples of sexism against hillary or palin?
If you're opposed to comments relating to race, ethnicity, age, etc., what is your position on calling someone unpatriotic? or socialist? or "paling around with terrorists?" or an "america-hater?" Where do YOU draw the line?
I'm a liberal, and a life-long democrat. But I'm also a war veteran. Do I hate america? am I unpatriotic?
You rightwingers are going to have to get your sh*t together if you're going to start whining about name calling. Y'all started it, for christ's sake.
You took the words out of my mouth, which is unsanitary.
Do you have any examples of sexism against hillary or palin?
The only one I can think of is when someone at a McCain rally asked Gramps "How do we beat the bitch?" in reference to Hillary Clinton.
There was also the "Iron my shirt" idiot.
Notice how all the sexism seems to come from McCain supporters????
In a non related topic, when McCain supporters aren't punching themselves in the eyes and carving "B"'s into their face, they are running around assaulting democratic staffers. Click the link to watch the video of them CAPTURED ON TAPE.
Rep. Wolf does nothing while GOP staffers physically assault Democratic trackers.»
Last Friday, two staffers for Judy Feder, the Democratic nominee for Virginia’s 10th congressional district, were assaulted by two individuals accompanying Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA). Feder’s staffers were trying to ask Wolf about his support for Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) proposed $5,000 health care tax credit. Wolf stood idly by as the assault took place. Lowell Feld at Raising Kaine described the encounter:
Grampy, as used above my mary59, is demeaning.
And the names you have called Obama are just eccentrically endearing, right?
You're a hypocrite.
Shocked!!
As I've told you before at least a dozen times, thanks for your "concern".
This seems like a distraction from this real being addressed issue. I wonder why you would do that?
I think of Obama as, "Hopey," myself, compliments of a friend from another online community. ;)
Sylvanz
I thought Halfrican was the right's prefered term for Obama?
Does that mean I have to take my yard sign down? I just got it delivered yesterday...
Hey, where can I get one of those?
Right here: http://signs.cafepress.com/item/geezerdingbat-yard-sign/308173853
Thanks for the link. I think it would be fun to replace all the real signs in a neighborhood with these and see how long it would take for them to notice.
Just kidding, of course. I would never touch another person's campaign sign..... but it would still be funny as hell....
Zamfir--have you been paying attention to what people are saying about Obama? Where is your outrage over that?
Maybe he doesn't recall hearing anything. Here, this list isn't by any means complete, but perhaps it will stimulate a few brain cells so he can respond.
• Sarah Palin has referred to those parts of the country that support her and John McCain as the "pro-America areas of this great nation."
• Jeffrey M. Frederick, the Chairman of the Virginia Republican Party, has likened Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden in a pep talk to campaign volunteers, explaining that "Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon. That is scary."
• Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann first told Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball that she was "very concerned" that Senator Obama "may have anti-American views," and then went on to say that "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America?"
• North Carolina Republican Congressman Robin Hayes from North Carolina told a crowd that "liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."
• Marcia Stirman, the chair of the Otero County Republican Women in New Mexico, wrote in the in the Alamogordo Daily News that "I believe Muslims are our enemies," and that "Obama isn't a messiah or a Democrat. He's a Muslim socialist."
• Republican U.S. Senator Mel Martinez from Florida denounced Obama's economic policies as "Socialism, Communism, not Americanism."
Any one of these incidents, viewed in isolation, might be dismissed as an aberration. Together, they form a disquieting, unmistakable pattern.
Yes but, one must remember tha right wingers are suffering fron Dendrite necrosis, frontal lobe entropy and spongiformencephalopothy. When you also consider they are copraphagichebraphrenics, it explains these pie-hole farts.
I have a theory that becoming a conservative is an early indicator of Alzheimer's disease.
EXHIBIT A - Ronald Reagan started off as a Democrat and a union leader, became a conservative later in life, and died from Alzheimer's disease.
EXHIBIT B - Marched with Dr. King, became a conservative later in life, and died from Alzheimer's disease.
I rest my case.
Exhibit B was supposed to read as follows:
EXHIBIT B - Charlton Heston marched with Dr. King, became a conservative later in life, and died from Alzheimer's disease.
I think chimps are decendants of republicans. The average adult chimp has the intelligence of a 5 year old. My proof is Heston stared in "Planet of the Apes". No I did not get them reversed. What you read is the truth according to shyawn inshannities handbook on debating.
You two made me LAUGH OUT LOUD!!! Thanks.
Amazing. McCain supported Bush all the way in these disastrous economic "free trade/no regulation" policies. This has meant economic ruin for thousands of people.
McCain wanted to go into Iraq and pushed for it. He wants military force instead of diplomacy. And somehow calling him "grampy" is over the line??!!! I'm being polite by using a rather benign moniker. My own grampa was a Republican, but an honorable one.
Besides, his age AND health are relevant, since he was forced to name an Evangelical Glossolaliac Christian Dominionist Right Wing Nitwit to succeed him as President if he gets sick or dies.
Hey Mary, I made a post relating to you. See if you can find it. You are going to waxed aren't you? After all, Obama is in and bush is out!
If insaneloki tried to push me across the street, I'd wax him good ;-)
First, who decides what is and is not a small buisness? Until this is defined a conversation on who gets fined is moot.
Second, what most people seem to be forgetting is that it is not now nor ehas it ever been a requiremnet for employers to offer health insurance for their employess. Obama's plan would be an historical first and certainly one that would be challenged in coruts for years to come.
Third, since healthcare is not listed as a power or responsibility of the Federal Government in the Constitution then according to the 10th Ammendment reverts to State authority.
The US Small Business Administration might help you with defining a small business.
Interstate highways are not listed in the constitution either. Find one that didn't use federal funds for construction. Providing for the general welfare is in there. A nominally healthy population is considered a good thing in many quarters.
State authority seems fine till things like death with diginity or medical marijuana seems to go against an assumed federal authority.
Th Constitution is a legal document and the single phrase "general welfare" needs to be taken in context of the document as a whole.
What is the context of your ass as a whole?
What?
I new someone would bring up Uranus. This is NOT a place to discuss astronomy.
No, the notion of a fine itself is moot. I don't buy your framing of healthcare as a requirement. Along with more and more Americans who are uninsured or shackled by outrageous premiums, I believe healthcare is a moral obligation that is owed in exchange for the massive profits that workers create. I mean really, if an employer can't create a budget for their business that doesn't provide opportunity for their employees, I really don't believe they are sufficiently prepared to run an ethical business.
Now, if you want to talk about penalties, look no further than McCain's plan to tax employer provided healthcare as income. McCain will use the tax code to push American workers from the coverage they get at work into the insurance market. It's a cold utopian vision of market fundamentalism that, as we have seen in the housing market, will further expose people to the vicious predation of the profit over people free market gangsters.
Look, we get it. The cons don't want healthcare for all to get off the ground, because it's a dangerous liberal initiative that would ultimately undermine and expose cultural conservatism for the sham it is.My heart was swollen with patriotic pride when I heard Obama say of the American dream, “It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have obligations to treat each other with dignity and respect.
It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.
Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.
Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.
That's the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation, the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper.
That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now.”
The problem is that people are rely too heavily on the Government. The Federal Government should not use it's assumed authoirty to bully the people of this country.
That is why the "Civil War" happened. The South was sick of being told what they had to do. After seeing how bloated the Federal government has become and the powers it has userped for itself I am convined we can, and most likely will, see a new civil war in my lifetime.
Only if bullying consists of raising wages and freeing people from the manacles of the high price of healthcare and education does the argument have merit. And I'm not so sure you can support your dependency narrative with much more than anecdotal evidence, but if you can I'll listen.
Also, I'm not willing to boil the cause of the Civil War down to one sentence that has only resentment at its core. I think the new revolution, of which you beam, will take place not with bloodshed, but in the tradition of a society that is progressing toward a more perfect union; in the grassroots movements that transcend left or right.
People have the power to do all that you say themselves without Government interference or influence.
Roundhouse you may be hate filled but I have to believe your not an idiot. You know how over bloated this government is. Poeple are dependent on it for their daily lives this whole finanacial bailout is a prime example.
How can you say my sentence has resentment at it's core? That is why the South seceeded. Granted there were many reasons cited but it boiled down to wanting to govern themselves and not be told what to do.
I hope the Revolution/Civil War is bloodless however if history has taught us anything it won't be.
"People have the power to do all that you say themselves without Government interference or influence."
Show me. How do I, as an individual without the leverage of collective bargaining, have the power to oppose the unified, collective strength of ownership and demand a square deal? How do I, as an individual have the power all by myself, to raise wages for all workers? But honestly, societies form governments to protect themselves from aggressions that are too massive for individuals to oppose alone.
"Roundhouse you may be hate filled but I have to believe your not an idiot."
I don't think that particular claim has any credibility. Just remember, I'm the one who sees change coming from political participation and you're the one talking about bloody revolution.
"Poeple are dependent on it for their daily lives this whole finanacial bailout is a prime example"
No, it's an example of how there is no such thing as a free market and only exposes that those masters of the universe are dependent on us to bail them out.
"How can you say my sentence has resentment at it's core?"
How? Bad writing. I meant to communicate that I don't think that southern resentment was the main reason for the Civil War. Your resentment is not relevant to anything pertaining to our talk.
And I'm still waiting, beyond your personal insistence or anecdotes, for you to support your claim that government that works for the people produces dependency.
Health care for all is an obligation we (our gvt.) owes our fellow American. No man is an island. We are all interdependant on each other. You could I guess, call it a "moral" obligation. N. Koreans walk over the dead in the streets. Their gvt. turns a blind eye. Sould that be us? You, me and the others posting on this site is America. Sidebar: When billybob o'really says some one is an America hater, is he refering to the Grand Canyon, Yosimite, Mamouth cave or what? Is he refering to ALL Americans or what? Anyway, as fellow travelers on this ball on the outskirts of the Milkey Way, are we to say to the sick amongst us: Your on your own bud. Good luck with that terminal disease? We should demand this of us (all Americans=our government. Gvt. bloat is another issue alltogether. Just because our gvt. is full of waste and corruption is no excuse for "it" not providing for the sick or the weakest among us. That IS a disgrace!
I don't know how did the civl rights movement get anything accomplished? This government is set up so the individual has as much power and say as any corperation. It is not the government's fault that people have allowed themselves to become so apathetic and jaded they just roll over any government control.
Bloody revolutions may sound hate filled but if done for the right reasons they aren't.
So you go from saying you have no pwer to saying that the "masters of the universe" need us. Which is it? Either we have power or we are powerless you cannot have it both ways.
When you have someone handing you something for nothing it produses dependency. If a parent does everything for their child that child will never learn independence. It is basic psychology.
Just like the banks. If you bail them out, they won't have to adhere to responsible business practices. Simple as that.
I'm still waiting, beyond your personal insistence or anecdotes, for you to support your claim that government that works for the people produces dependency. You are stuck in this something for nothing crap that has no place in the core liberal principles of government working for the benefit of anyone willing to work. Something for nothing is the conservative way. They want to suck profits from everything without returning anything. Fairness, to the conservative, consists of working a man to death for dirt wages, no pension, no healthcare, no way to advance and no interference from government regulation. So don't go there until you're willing to acknowledge the reality of the corporate communism that Republicans have legislated with the third lowest corporate tax rate in the world and subsidized commodities that guarantee huge profits.
And you can stop attempting to elide the ability of an individual to subvert the status quo with the power of organized, unified voices. That's how the civil rights movement got it done, it was a movement of people organized and strengthened by one another constantly pressuring the establishment for change.
I have to finish by saying anytime violence is used as a solution, especially in a democratic republic such as ours where we all have a voice, then bloody revolution is necessarily an expression of hate.
Own your hate. It's what the right is. It's what you vote for when you vote Republican.
No conservatism is about letting the worker have the power to negotiate his own employment terms without outside interference. Because as been stated in this blog in the past companies are dependent on their workers.
The individual has power over this government. It is an undeniable fact. When the poepl really want something doen absent government interference the mechanisms are availble. IT has been proven and cannot be denied.
Really? Was the American Revolution an expression of hate? Or was it an expression of Freedom, an expression of Self Determination?
Why must you insist on continuously comparing me to Republicans. I am not a Republican and do not support any current Republican candidates.
Cool. Glad you support labor unions.
Conservatism is exactly what I said it is. It's about making life easy for the fat cats.
The individual has a voice, but together we have power.
Violence is the opposite of power.
And for a so called, "independent" politically unaffiliated person, you don't have a modicum of the same sharp criticisms for Republicans that you have for Democrats. I find your protestations highly suspect.
The Federal Government should not use it's assumed authoirty to bully the people of this country. That is why the "Civil War" happened. The South was sick of being told what they had to do.
Are YOU serious?
Are YOU serious?
According to his user name, he's insane.
That comment knocked me back, too. This country is seriously in need of better K-12 educational standards, especially in history.
This is a pervasive myth in the South. When I was a freshman in College, many years ago, the American History teacher introduced the section on the Civil War by stating, "The Civil War was NOT about slavery".
If you examine the writings and speeches from the time, there is no question that Slavery was the central issue which led to the Civil War. The "states rights" smokescreen has been used by subsequent generations of Confederate apologists to avoid the unflattering truth.
I remember when I was in 7th Grade in New Jersey back in 1965. Our brand-new Social Studies textbooks referred to the war that took place from 1861 to 1865 as "The War Between The States". When someone asked why they didn't call it the Civil War, our Social Studies teacher told us that the publisher chose that term so they could sell textbooks down South.
In Kentucky they teach it was because there was a watermellon shortage in the North. I don't know as I went to school in California. We kind of stayed out of that mess. Mickey c. spent 5 years in a sothern prison camp. I do know that for sure.
I was taught that line of bull in high school and college also, but the argument seemed half-hearted even then, and you see it taught less and less now, even in the heart of the Confederacy. The "States Rights" smokescreen has also been a pretty effective, if completely dishonest, prop for the GOP's Southern Strategy, but that seems to be running its course too - finally.
No one is denying that slvery was an issue. And that the South wanted to keep slavery. But the "Civil War" war was about States rights versus Federal control. It is not a myth it is fact.
the fact is that it was about the right to own slaves. see my link below.
There is no link provided. That was ONE right being defended.
That was THE issue. The lazy southerners had gotten used to the free labor and didn't want to disrupt their economy by actually have to do work.
It had nothing to do with being lazy. Ther entire ecpnomy was based on a free labor force. To just rip that away would have been devastating. We saw this during Reconstruction.
well, gee. i guess the slaves weren't inconvenienced?
Exactly, because they were lazy.
the link is a few posts below this post. you answered it. it was more than one right, it was "the" right.
Always.
You make it sound as if we should have avoided the first "Civil War" (why you put this in quotes, nobody knows). Was opposition to the immoral practice of slavery really something that should have been dropped in order to avoid the war?
If people want to wage war in order to protect the institution of slavery, then they go down in history as racists. If people want to say "you spend too much money on things (including military force) so we're going to put your bloated military force to the test", then they'll go down in history as idiots. The idea that we shouldn't have more healthcare because people are going to raise arms against such "bully" tactics is one of the most bizarre arguments I've ever seen.
I put it in quotes because since the South seceeded it was a seperate nation and technically not a Civil War but hey history is written by the winners.
Slavery had very little to do with the "Civil War" it was one small aspect. It is the most provacative of all the reason, true but not the only reason.
Like Slavery I am just using mandating healthcare as small example as to why I believe a Civil War is imminent. General Government pervasiviness and meddling into our daily lives is the reason I believe it to be iminent.
It was a separate nation? They didn't have to win to establish independence?
Again, you seem to be suggesting that eliminating slavery is "general government pervasiveness and meddling into our daily lives". That would be incredible. If that's not your suggestion, then your comparison makes no sense.
The Articles of Confederation allwed for States to seceed. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says it replaces or invalidates the Articles of Confederation. When the South chose to seceed they became a seperate nation with there own name (The Confederate States of America) and their own Constitution.
They didn't need to win to allow this because the United States is not an Empire and the States do not have to affiliate themselves with it if they so choose.
The North did not really care about slavery. if they did then the Border States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and West Virginia) would not have been able to fight for the North while maintaining their slaves.
they allowed them to keep their slaves because they did not want them leaving the union. but the north did not want slavery to spread and it was outlawed immediately after the war. and your statement that slavery had little to do with the civil war is totally untrue. if you read the secession declaration by south carolina, the first state to leave, it very clearly states the reason as the federal government's hostility to slavery, and lincoln's anti slave views is given as a reason.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/features/freedom/history/story.html?id=8b13b486-306e-4f5f-b53b-86b052dff530&k=94075
So slavery was ok as long as they did not seceed? If slavery was really important to the north then they wold have required any state fighting for their side to abolosh slavery before joining.
I have read it and while it does talk about slavery it also talks about state autonomy and Federal Government bullying.
Ever heard of the Missouri Compromise? The intent was to phase out slavery over time. The South knew this and forced the issue. There was even a big battle during the creation of the Constitution whether to abolish slavery at that time. It was decided to allow slavery with the phasing out of the barbaric practice over time.
The fact is the States did not want the Federal Government to tell them how to run their affairs. The Federal Government did not fight the war to free slaves but to assert the authority and control over the states.
you keep making these generalized statements about "the states did not want the federal government to tell them how to run their affairs". but clearly the "affairs" being talked about are the right to own slaves. it's spelled out in great length in the south carolina secession statement.
Slavery is used is used as a prime example, yes. But the Federal Government was asserting itself in other ways as well. I never said slavery was not a part of the reason for the war it was just ONE.
it's not "a" prime example. it's "the" prime example. again, it's very clear. they list a long line of anti-slavery actions taken over the years by the federal government, and with the election of an abolitionist president they see the
eventual "extinction" of slavery. your claims otherwise are just that. claims unsupported by facts.
it does more than "talk about slavery". they make it very clear that is the reason they are leaving the union is because of all the anti slavery measures taken by the federal government. and the refusal of the government to crack down on abolitionist groups. the secession statement makes it very clear that what they are worried about is the "extinction" of slavery. all their complaints about the federal government have to do with the efforts to outlaw slavery. it's right there to read.
But apparently the outcome of the war had an effect on whether the secession actually took hold or not. It seems like a pretty tortured rationale on your part, since having a valid entity obviously relied on defeating the North in battle. I haven't studied up on this in a while, so maybe I'm not thinking about it right. It seems like they all could have just seceeded again after the war, if it was that simple, or avoided a war altogether.
Again, the more important point is that you seem to be saying that eliminating slavery was "government pervasiveness". Of course there's some subjectivity as to what is a worthy cause for government intervention, but reasonable people can agree that slavery is wrong. If the government has to step in to change something that is morally reprehensible, then obviously there's merit to them having some level of control over the actions of the individual states. What part of this do you really imagine you can argue against?
The North forced the war onto the South. The war was needed except by the North to establish dominance.
I might find it morally reprehesible and you might as well but it does not give us the right to force that morality on others.
Iraq had many moral reasons for going in, it didn't make it right for us to though.
We're talking about slavery here. There are human lives affected by the morality in question, so the government most certainly does have the right to force it on others.
The problem with the Iraq comparison is that the cost/benefit aspect isn't the same. As a theoretical exercise, Iraq is probably better off without Saddam and with democracy, but invasion changes all the factors. People might be better off, but there's no certainty there, and the means of change doesn't make it worthwhile. But slavery is completely immoral, so there's not much that would make the cost of change too high.
"That is why the "Civil War" happened????? Wow...pick up a history book.
Wow...pick up a history book.
He should pick up ANY book - learn something - get a clue....
You can make a moral argument for a lot of things. The question becomes do we want the Government to start legislating morality?
Moral arguments can be made to ban Gay Marriage it does not necessarily mean there should be laws against it.
The question becomes do we want the Government to start legislating morality?
And your opinion on the legislative aspect of Roe v. Wade is, again...?
I believe abortion is a State issue and the Federal Government had no buisness ruling on it.
is this going to be another save that egg and sperm arguments? What about the zygote and placenta?
Actually I believe when a woman consents to sex she takes on all the responsibility and consequences that may come with it. So when she ends up pregnent it is implied consent to let that life use her body to grow to maturity. I believe that once a woman becomes pregnant that her body ceases to just be hers but, looking at it as a lease, partially the childs.
I also believe that if abortions is going to be allowed the father should have a say. That child is as mich his as it is the woman's.
I do believe that life begins at conception and that you should not punish an innocent child by killing it just because the mother made a mistake.
The man is also obligated should the mother give bith at which time it is officially a child. Sper and eggs are alive as well. They are potential human beings. The father has NO say as the potential child is in the womans body, not his. We could always return to back alley/coat hanger abortions or you could adopt all of the unwanted babies. Starting now you have ten minutes to decide. The future of mankind rests in your hands. Now you only have 9 minutes. Really now, Roe V wade was to protect the rights of the born (women) as the alternative was no longer a viable option. We have been down this road several months ago and you will have to take my word for it, leave this one alone and practice your beliefs in the privacy of your own home. Leave these poor women alone. They fought log and hard for their right to choose. Also, NEVER argue with a woman as might get placenta upside your head!
It isn't a potential child it is a child at conception. It is convenient not to think of it as a life, it makes it easier to kill. I hear that is what Sociopaths do, they dehumanize their victims.
Woman have a right to choose about their own body, I agree. But when they have a life growing inside them it ceases to be just the woman's body.
Sorry, we resolved that issue on MMFA months ago and it is official. You lost that argument even though you were not in it. Your opinions might have made all the difference but oh well, when you snooze you lose.
The issue isn't resolved as long as innocent cvhildren are murdered just because they happen to be inside their mother's womb.
If you really believe "innocent cvhildren[sic] are murdered" then why the hell would you want it to be up to the states? That makes no sense. Of course, you wouldn't be the firt anti-choicer to talk out both sides of your mouth.
I do not want it at all. However, I know we live in a Democracy and I would rather the Constitution and have the individual States decide the issue.
So the individual states should be able to legalize murder, by your defintion? That makes no sense and it exposes the moral confusion of the righties.
There you go again with that arrogant conservative belief that you can force your beliefs on the majority of the country and tell us that life begins at conception.
I get it. As male and a conservative, you need to absolve yourself of responsibility and scapegoat women. Man up. If you think, as you say, that when a woman consents to sex she takes on all the responsibility and consequences that may come with it, then you can't have it both ways. It is inconsistent to turn around and say that I also believe that if abortions is going to be allowed the father should have a say. You have already given away your right to have any say whatsoever, so stop being a hypocrite.
The belief that it isn't life at conception was forced onto the country. The only reason it was done so is so that the victims of the slaughter were dehumanized and it made them easier to kill.
Just because the woman takes on responsibility when she consents to sex does not mean the man gives it up. He also has responsibility in the matter. And if abortion is going to be allowed the Father should have a say as without his involvment there would be nothing to kill. Because if that baby is carried to term then the Father is going to be expected to step up with support. You can't say the Father is responsible financially for the baby but then has no say when it comes to the decision to end it's life.
It's all about viability. I don't care when "life" starts. After all, my house plant is "life". What matters is when personhood is bestowed on a developing organism. I peg this at viability outside the womb.
Most agree that abortions shouldn't be completely outlawed. They are right.
"Just because the woman takes on responsibility when she consents to sex does not mean the man gives it up."
Actually, yes you said exactly that because you said, women take on ALL the responsibility and [ALL] the consequences. In fact, the direct quote is, "Actually I believe when a woman consents to sex she takes on all the responsibility and consequences that may come with it."
Where I come from, even in conservative speak, that means you have washed YOUR hands of ANY obligation, duty or responsibility. You just gave license to the individual to take responsibility for her own actions. So, butt out, pal. As righties say all the time, "it ain't my problem, it's your fault."
If you weren't trying to force your own true beliefs on that individual, and the rest of us, you would let she, and the rest of us, live with the consequences of our own actions. You would stop interfering with her. But that's not enough for you. No. You have to arrogantly lampoon me for making a moral argument for healthcare for all, you tell me duhhh, "moral arguments can be made for many things" and then turn around, like a hypocrite and tell me abortion is wrong because you believe that life begins at conception. You believe it's murder, you believe it's immoral. it's your beliefs that are being forced on us. Personally, I believe abortion is obscene, it is not an option I would consider, but what somebody does with their own body is between them and their maker. Further, I have no desire for women to go to prison, possibly executed, because they had an abortion, which is what would be the consequence if abortion were made illegal. Most importantly, I don't want a return to the bad old days, I don't want women to die slowly from a back alley surgery.
"You can't say the Father is responsible financially for the baby..."
You're right, I can't because I didn't. I don't know how you miss these gaps in your story but you weren't talking about about a legally obligated husband. You were talking about the pregnant girl, an unwed girl, and ALL of HER responsibility, as if the male had nothing to worry about anyway. You can't say it's her fault and still expect to have a say in the outcome of her choice.
Now, no need to shrink from your own words.
Sure you can. Besides, I think it would be a refreshing departure from the legislation of immorality we currently have in our permissive laws on torture, predatory lending, usury and pre-emptive war, to name just a few.
When you allow the Government to legislate morality you open the door for a Dictatorship.
Just look at China, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia they legislate morality and look how many are persecuted.
Then let's just scrub the penalties for murder off the books.
Rape? I realize that Sarah would love a society in which rapists can chose the mother of their baby, but in the end, who needs laws against rape anyway?
Nobody is going to tell me it's immoral to steal.
People who lie on the witness stand face penalties.
So I don't subscribe wholeheartedly to that slippery slope argument, but I do see a speck of truth in it.
Then again, who's to say that providing government incentives to employers who are good shepherds of the communities they serve amounts to legislating morality. I call it good government.
sounds like you are describing a republican. We could suspend all laws for a week and see what happens. We may not need the police after all. Courthouses could become marijuana coops.
Employers do not serve communities.
Are you high?
Of course employers serve communities. They serve communities by offering jobs to people within the community, who then spend their paychecks for goods and services provided by the community.
Get a freakin' grip, dude.
Every member of the community serves the community with sales tax and property taxes. Also by helping little old ladies like mary across the street.
But they are not obligated to do so. They can shut their buisness down. They serve their investors. An individual buisness has no obligation to society as a while. People do not start a buisness to serve the community they do so to make money. Anything else is secodndary.
That's exactly why regulation is required to make sure that business practices aren't hurting the country economically. For instance, shipping jobs overseas. You can't count on individual businesses to consider their impact on the society they benefit from on their own accord. Government has to make them care.
Government can go too far. It is for the people to rein them in.
Same with corporations.
When you allow the Government to legislate morality you open the door for a Dictatorship.
Yet it's YOUR side who wants constitutional amendment over who is allowed to marry whom.....
You do not know what side I am on,, as I have not stated any political affiliation. So anything you think you know about it purely assumption. And we all know what assuming does.
I do not support a Federal Constitution ammendment to ban gay marriage as marriage is not a Federal issue. If state wishes to do it then that is there buisness.
"When you allow the Governmet to legislate morality you open the door for a Dictatorship."
Terry Schiavo. Banning gay marriage--and in the not-too-distant past laws banning inter-racial marriage. Anti-abortion crusaders. You're absolutely right, but it is not Liberals who are trying to legislate morality--we preach TOLERANCE. You advocate INTOLERANCE.
Not only that but, conservatism is antithetical to progress of any kind by definition. The status quo by definition is static. The vitupritive diatribes promulgated by the right wing is indicitive of a small mind. Great minds discuss ideas, mediocre minds discuss events and small minds discuss people. (The later is exempt if one is having fun)
Exactly. That is why conservatism is a failed ideology.
It also sucks. When a republican passes away the birds sing a merrier tune.
Conservatives discuss ideas. I find it interesting that people who aspouse an inclusive, tolerant, atmosphere are so quick to marginalize and degrade someone else just because there opinions may differ.
It is not you personally. You, I am sure are a nice person (although, I have spoken to some of your close friends and I wonder). It is your opinions. Opinions are the cheapest commodities on earth. I only make astute observations and in science that is considered imperical truth. Most people on this site only put forth astute observations or they are flagged immediately by Obama himself. ( sometimes Pelosi does this when Obama is working on his socialist manuscript due out in early 09. It is titled " How I scammed 58% of the voters and became GOD")
I am a nice person and darn right pleasure to be around. (If I do say so myself)
I am confused a bit by your post. Are you suggesting you do not support Obama because then I would like you to look at Bob Barr. He is who I am casting my ballot for.
All of my stuff is my opinion based on astute observations.
Just becasue something is considered emperical truth doesn't make it so. Evolution is considered empiracly tue but it is still just a theory not a fact.
"All of my stuff is my opinion based on astute observations."
And your modesty is immense.
Evolution is fact, just like gravity. Any nutter who doesn't acknowledge that isn't worth talking to as they've checked their brain at the door long ago.
Evolution is a theory, that is why it is still called the Theory of Evolution. Science is observed fact and since no one has observed species to species evolution it cannot be Law (Fact). Now if the theory was The Theory of Adaptation then yes I would agree it to be fact since that has been observed.
Just because it is considered fact does not make it so. By sciences own defintitions it is not. There haven't even been any transitional animals found for species to species evolution. It is all supposition and theory.
Everything in science is a theory because science by definition is subject to refinement and outright refutation.
Evolution is as much fact as gravity. The evidence is overwhelming.
You need to stick to subjects of which you have a basic understanding. What those subjects are, I have no idea.
Gravity is a theory, too. Do you deny that it exists? EVERYTHING in biology is a theory. Viruses have been observed to evolve over time. Before you start spouting off about science, learn how it is defined. If you want to talk about it you have to at least understand what you are talking about.
I do not advocate intolerance. I am simply saying that these battles belong on the State level not the Federal level. The Federal Government should not be used as a tool to bully the people.
how about when the federal government enforced the civil rights laws. was eisenhower wrong to order the integration of little rock schools?
Since Education is a State issue then yes he was wrong. While agree with his decision it does not mean he had the Constitutional right to do so.
The Federal government taxes money out of the people then offers it back to the states for projects using it to force states to bend to their will. This is not what the Federal Government should be doing.
He did have a Constitutional right to do so. For reference, please see Brown v. Board of Education. The states cannot deny civil rights and hide behind states' rights. If you want do that, you'll have to repeal the 14th amendment.
Good point. I hadn't thought of that.
There's a huge difference between legislating a hinderance to people's lives, such as banning gay marriage, and legislating something to help people, such as health care. There's no societal reason to ban gay marriage. The only thing that comes close is the idea that society isn't comfortable with it by and large, which is a circular argument. It shouldn't be socially acceptable because it isn't socially acceptable.
Having a healthy population helps the economy, helps having productive and competitive work forces. There's a societal reason for health care.
Just becasue there is a societal doe not make it right.
What? You already said it was "legislating morality". Therefore it's moral. So it's both moral and serves a societal purpose, and it's still not "right"? I wonder what criteria is left for you to judge it by.
A societal argument was made to exterminate the Jews it didn't make it right.
National health care does not serve society better as it forces the government into provate health decisions and raises taxes to pay for it.
That's why libertarians are nuts. They are anti-democracy. They don't think the majority can decide on anything that might impact people unwillingly.
That is untrue. But if the majority vote in something wrong it doesn;t automatically become right.
The majority of poepl won;t be voting on healthcare issues as they won;t reach the ballot and will be decided in the legislature.
Libertarians are ultimately anti-democracy. It's a fact. Thom Hartmann gets them to admit this each time they are on his program.
First, you've already agreed that there's a moral basis for legislating healthcare, so the holocaust argument is completely nuts. Obviously killing millions of people is not acceptable, and a societal argument for that is based on rabid bigotry. That's not exactly comparable to wanting a healthy population, you understand.
Second, you get something in return for taxes. If someone has to pay more in taxes so my wife can get covered, then they can do that instead of being a greedy, self-centerd, short-sighted bastard. Insurance companies cover her, because she has a pre-existing condition. The reason she doesn't have insurance is because she was fired from her job which covered her, for the very reason that they didn't like having to pay for someone's heart surgery and following checkups. Bad for the bottom line, of course. Can't have that.
Now tell me how having government-provided health care is worse than that, please.
That was supposed to read "Insurance companies won't cover her", of course.
It may sound extreme but a moral societal argument has been made for examples.
How is greedy to want the money you work hard to earn to stay with you? If you choose to donate to charity or such that is your decision. But it is not greedy to expect to keep what you earn. I do not have insurance myself, I know how hard it is. But I am not going to force someone else to provide it for me just because I might be able to get a majority on my side. Thats what gangs do not what a civilized society does.
Just look at the Netherlands. they have said it is ok to euthanise the elderly. In the U.K. people over 50 get denied medical treatment because they are told they are too old. This is the sort of thing that happens with government ran healthcare. People become numbers, marginalized, dehumanized, and therefore easier to kill.
"It may sound extreme but a moral societal argument has been made for examples."
Such as? Please demonstrate an "extreme" argument that has both a moral and societal basis. It seems unlikely you'll find anything, much less anything in the neighborhood of the holocaust.
It's greedy because you don't get to keep all of what you earn. Taxes are a part of society. If I made 300K a year, I wouldn't give a damn if my taxes were bumped up a little to help sick people. Do you really not get that? To say "some extra money sitting in a bank is more important than your health" is greedy and immoral.
Euthanasia isn't necessarily connected to healthcare. That should be a person's right. And why aren't people "easier to kill" when their health is weighed against competitive profit margins?
If you recognize there's something that you need, something that's in society's interest to provide you, then it's not like a "gang" to demand that. Voicing your concerns and opinions is part of the democratic process! Almost one in six people without healthcare, and the desire to fix that isn't "civilized"? You really do need professional help.
Dropping the Nuclear Bomb, the Holocaust, invasion of Iraq to name a few. Societal and moral arguments were made for all three of these.
It is not greedy to want to keep your money for yourself and your family. It is greedy to to want to tax someone more just because they happen to be successful to give the money to someone else.
That is exactly what happens in a national health care situation. They look at an old person dying and who needs an operation. They figure he won't live long so the cost is too great versus any benefit society would get and deny the operation and the guy dies. Or someone is living on life support and they pull the plug because it is cheaper than letting them live. I agree it should be a family or the person's decision not the Governments.
A desire to fix it is not bad. A desire to take money from other people just because they make more than you to pay for it is bad.
There is no legitimate moral argument for the holocaust. The invasion of Iraq and Hiroshima are pretty sketchy arguments as well. I'm talking about legitimate arguments, not just someone's bizarre rationalizations. Tell me how the holocaust had a genuine moral basis, please.
Of course it's greedy to not care about the welfare of others. Why shouldn't rich people pay more to help others? Society is about living together, and "I've-got-mine-screw-you" is not consistent with that concept.
Again, you fail to explain how a system based on profit doesn't lead to decisions about "cost being too great". Obviously a competition for profit margin will lead insurance companies to marginalize people, and it has.
palin couldn't make it again?
but then the poor thing would get asked all kinds of questions that she thinks are unfair. the tough hockey mom couldn't handle katie couric. better to go on hannity and get asked "why is obama a socialist". i can tell she's ready to go into her act right after the election, about how the media misinterpreted her. of course, she had standing invitations to every show, weekday and sunday, but she ran the other way.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/26/palin-annoyed-with-cbs-interviewer/
What?
what what?
One word, dude:
PARAGRAPHS!
And, barring that, perhaps you could distill what you read into a few cogent comments instead of cutting and pasting large tracts you don't understand.
Perhaps dude's handle should change to paragraph independence?
I think this is the first time we have agreed. Scary! :)
Don't be scared. I'm a wonderful person when I'm not playing the role of liberal foil on the internet.
One word, dude:
PARAGRAPHS!
MMFA's software may be partially to blame for that one.
Occasionally when you join a discussion, the remarks window where you can add a comment will only accept text - you don't see the toolbar above it. When you enter a comment in a window with no toolbar, all line feeds are stripped out and your reply becomes one big paragraph.....
A brilliant analysis to which therre can only be one rational response:
Republicans riot as Dick Cheney shoots Theosophical quail in oil price, while market collapses. Syrian revolutionary finds hidden weapons in trunk of White House limo while Limbaugh helps Sarah with her grammatical innuendos. Commando trolls charge ACORNS in Green Zone, while spilling hot coffee lawsuit over Diebold’s ‘real America’. Flag pins waving in $700 billion field as Roubini notes the folly. More lies will help us win. Raise the executive salary of victory, for we must not fail. Hannitized Great Americans note: life is beyond what? No answer coming? Time it! Eisnachers do not wear white sheets. Put them in their place; for we live by mottos embossed on sweat shop bumper magnets.
I hope this clears it up for you.
As a matter of fact, sen Obama explained his plan quite well during the last debate and emphasized he would not fine small businesses. If I, Wolf the voter understood this, why can't McCain the president wannabe can't / won't ?
Obama has not yet said how he will define a small buisness under the plan. Will he hold himself the changeable by industry definitions of the SBA or will have a standard model for the purposes of this legislation.
McCain's argument could have meritt depending on how this question is answered.
Are his standarsd going to be based on the amount of revenue the buisness produces or the number of people the buisness employs? Is his plan also to cover part time workers?
My guess is he's using the federal government's guidelines.
He needs to be clear. There should be no guessing.
He's not going to get your vote, so I don't really care what you think.
Makes no difference how you define small business. What is defined is the 250K dollar wall. sen Obama clearly stated small business will not be fined and McCain simply refuses to admit hearing that. In the third debate they split screened and showed him dumbfounded during that particular event.
The 250K wall is for his tax plan not his health plan.
His definititon of a small buisness is crucial to understanding his plan fully.
small business is just two words describing the smaller of two businesses,or whatever number you want.
But it is two words that need to be defined for Obama's plan to make sense.
Use the federal definition. There. Done.
But your not Obama. He has not said what definition to use. Nice try though.
The 250K is NOT a wall. Any thing OVER 250K will be taxed at 39%. 0-250K at36% BIG DEAL AND SO WHAT? Anyone not making 250 K would take that deal including you. Stop listening to mickey c. and palin, they will only baffle you with BS cause that is what they are spewing forth. They are desperate. Desperate people do and say crazy crap (a new breakfast cereal) so morons will vote for them. Please, I beg of you, open your eyes and mind before you get flushed along with mickey and palinscank.
No the deal I want is a flat tax across the board. No matter how much your making you pay the same percentage of your income in taxes.
Or we could just pass the Liberty Amendment and get rid of the income tax.
Right on for the Flat tax. Now your cookin
Media Matters, I significantly disappointed you are not being completely truthful with your readers. Obama will "fine" businesses for not participating in his health care policy, and those fines are extensive and far reaching. Those fines will cause a net loss of jobs along with reduction in pay scale.
Readers are invited to learn more about Obama's health care policy by reading a review by the New York Times. Here, you will find truth on your own,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/us/politics/27healthcare.html
As to quality of health care provided by Obama's policy, you only need to look to the British health care system which is rated as one of the worst around. Obama is modeling his policy upon the British health care system. Readers who are interested in discovering truth on your own, simply reseach the British health care system; truth is available at your fingertips.
Again, Media Matters, you are performing a disservice for America by not being fully truthful; you are misleading Americans.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Internationally, depending upon what part of medical care you you look at, the U.S. is rated 20th to over 40th. This works well for you? Infant mortality ranks in the far end. Yet what country spends more per capita on medicine, highest admin salarys, highest overhead?
All I got out of this so called "interview" was a thirty minute "free" campaign ad for Senator McCain. No follow up, no objection, just like at his rallies.
10/26/08
E-mail to Tom.
Dear Mr. Brokaw,
Nice job on Meet the Press! You are a truly hard-hitting journalist. You sat there--like the corporate wimp you are-- and let McCain say that Obama "is going to fine small businesses if they don't have the insurance that [Sen. Obama] wants them to have." No Tom, that's not true.
This is another example that proves the following: You can't cut the mustard anymore!!! When you let someone just sit there and lie to you, as McCain did, and you, as journalist, just twiddle your thumbs, then what can we conclude?
Hey, good call, MMFA!!! You're ACTUALLY right on this one. Obama WON'T "fine" small business for not providing a health plan to it's employees.
BUT, small businesses who DON'T offer a health plan WILL have a higher tax liability at the end of the year!!!!!
So, cheer up, small business owners, it's not a FINE, it's JUST HIGHER TAXES. There, now, don't you feel better?
Oh, and before any of you neo-libs start telling me I'm wrong, allow me to present the text that proves that I'm right, straight out of the "Blueprint For Change":
"They will also
create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to
50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees. To be eligible for the credit,
small businesses will have to offer a quality health plan to all of their employees and cover a meaningful share
of the cost of employee health premiums."
So, like I said, it's NOT a fine. It's higher taxes. What Obama is saying to the small business owner is:
"Use the money for health care, or hand it over to me."
Thanks for posting the quote that disproves your own argument. It saves us time.
Not getting a tax credit is not a tax increase. That would be like saying someone pays a "barren tax" for not having a kid and getting the tax credit.
So, enlighten me...........
You have 2 small businesses, for this purpose, identical in every aspect.
One provides health insurance to their employees, one doesn't.
Who has the higher tax bill at the end of the year?
I'll take a crack at it. The company that did not do the thing to earn the tax credit will not get said credit.
Why would you assume a ompany should get a credit for something they didn't do? Sounds like Socialism and spreading the wealth to me.
Now how about this question...
You have two married couples, one has a child and one doesn't.
Who pays the higher tax bill? Hmmmmm?
I am wondering also, If there is a buy 2 of something and get a 25% discount and I am only going to buy one, will that put me in a higher tax bracket?
I understand the trolls that don't even try to come up with a logical argument. I pity those folks. What torques me is people who attempt to use the most tortured logic to defend policies.
Not being given a tax credit, is a tax increase. That one takes the cake.
Two people have the same income. One has a kid and the other doesn't. Who pays the higher tax bill? Same twisted logic.
From FD: "So, like I said, it's NOT a fine. It's higher taxes." Hey idiot, the business owner who doesn't offer health insurance will pay the same as he would now; the business owner who offers insurance gets a tax BREAK.
From FD: “What Obama is saying to the small business owner is:"Use the money for health care, or hand it over to me."”
What he is saying to business owners is that if you offer health insurance, you will get a tax BREAK.
Your lack of logical thought (on this thread and others) lends me to believe that you were never a democrat.
And before you flag me... Idiot - An extremely incompetent or foolish person.
Apparently you do not understand what a tax credit is.
Thanks for posting the quote that disproves your own argument. It saves us time.
Not getting a tax credit is not a tax increase. That would be like saying someone pays a "barren tax" for not having a kid and getting the tax credit.
You forgot to say Obama will not be swiftboated.
By the way, did anyone ever provide evidence of which hospital Obama was born in and the name of the doctor that delivered him?
(Except Snoopy, who stated (but provided no proof) that Obama was born at Kapiolani, which is weird because Obama himself states that he was born at Queens hospital. Snoopy must think that Obama is a liar or something.)
"Snoopy must think that Obama is a liar or something."
I was just trying to think of the hospital at which I was born. Wait, was that me or my sister? Why is it that, no matter how hard I concentrate, I can't quite remember for sure? Matter of fact, I'm having a hard time remembering a lot of details from that first year or two. I guess if I ever answer a question about it I have to watch out - I could be called a liar.
I think you are actually mickey c.. Hey mickey, D E M E N T I A , ring a bell?
Umm....what?
just funnin with u. There is a lot of hostility on this site. It actually pains me. Jockularity never hurt anyone.
OK - fair enough. I was just out in left field for that one and didn't know if I needed to be concerned.
I was wondering if Zamphir is going to cut another skin flut album? My old one is worn out from over use.
Do not feel concerned. The election is near and the court battles will follow. Then you can be concerned.
How did that Berg lawsuit turn out for you? The last we heard, Obama was about to be disqualified for the Presidency. Any updates on that?
Brab. I'm sure your question is rhetorical, but I read a short blurb today that just said the case was thrown out because Berg lacked standing to challenge BO's qualifications. I definitely don't doubt the frivolity of Berg's claim, but it would've been better if the Court threw it out as meritless, rather than on the ground of legal standing . . .
It was rhetorical, yes, I was mocking the nut.
I think they did the right thing, they reached the same conclusion as the case against McCain's standing as a natural-born citizen. I don't see what difference it makes, politically. If it had been dismissed on its merits, then it just would have been a liberal judge being an "activist".
I remeber thsi happened with bush the first time. They finally came up with a pap smear to establish his origin.
In all seriousness, you can download and read the memorandum issued by the District Judge. http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/
It's the last document on the page. Berg, on his website www.obamacrimes.com has issued a "press release" indicating that he is appealing it to the Supreme Court.
This guy is just all kinds of crazy. The comment boards on that site are frightening, too. Of course, many of them are dumb enough to think that there is some right to appeal to the Supreme Court, or that the Court would actually grant certiorari on a case like this (assuming the comment boarders know what "certiorari" means), but some of them get downright violent talking about Obama and using terms like "sleeper cell".
The movie Manchurian Candidate comes to mind
By the way, FD, where is your link to the summary judgment you alluded to in that hospital thread? You said "game over," yet the suit got dismissed.
It was frivolous and not worthy of discussion. I hope you aren't too upset. I know you felt the same way when the McCain suit was thrown out too, right?
Obama will not be swiftboated.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
So, who pays the higher tax bill at the end of the year?
The small business that provides healthcare to it's employees, or the small business that doesn't?
"who pays the higher tax bill at the end of the year?"
Probably the small business that doesn't. So? The small business that makes more money also pays more taxes... the small business that doesn't invest in a fleet of trucks pays more taxes. Are small businesses that don't buy trucks "fined"? Of course not. Find a new talking point.
"So, who pays the higher tax bill at the end of the year?
The small business that provides healthcare to it's employees, or the small business that doesn't?"
I think the better question is, which small business do more and better qualified people want to work for? And which small business has happier more prodcuve employees?
It's always profit first with you right wing loonies.
prodcuve = productive
"When you allow the Government to legislate morality you open the door for a Dictatorship."
An interesting quote coming from a "Conservative". I just hope somebody gets that message to Glossolalia Palintwit in case Grampy wins.
If he does, I am ready for a "fun" tax. Someone with a arm band and a uniform holding a note pad will be posted at the foot of my bed. That is just too scary a thought. Grampy winning! That would make palinscank PRESIDENT. Maybe she will let mickey c. use the tanning (melanoma bed) bed she has installed in the oval office.
If the Troglodytes manage to steal this election, then it will be clear that our Democracy is broken. I have no doubt that Grampy would not finish his first term. I'm guessing that he made a deal with the RNC power brokers to make Palintwit president if they would steal the election for him. I won't relax until this thing is over.
I am on 100,000 mg Zanax a day until it is over. There is no room at the foot of my bed. Seriously, I know what you mean. A "thing" is going on in the courts in Co. right now on registration. I keep my TV on at night and tuned to CNN so I can trust my thinking the next day. I tried faucks new for a while but, I started to feel compelled to visit stalls in mens rest rooms. Hence the Zanaxes.