Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama on Congress: 'I'll whup 'em' (positive discussion)

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
Browbeat?

Give me a break. He was joking and you know it. Do you really think that you are convincing anyone that he was threatening them?

Browbeat?

That sounds like something from an old episode of Adam 12.

I also see your ready to whip out the flip flops again this year. Do you really want to do that? I hear John McCain's closet is full of them.


With all due respect, do you even know what browbeat means? I suggest you look it up because it has nothing to do with threatening anybody. Perhaps I should have used the word "strongarm" or something of the like that you wouldn't equate to a 60s TV series.

As far as flip flopping, if you're looking for somebody to defend John McCain you've come to the wrong place. I dislike him just about as much as Obama. If you've been following the news at all in the past few weeks, you couldn't have missed Obama swaying in the wind on several issues. He doesn't seem to have any real opinions or ideals, he forms them on the fly from the most recent polling.




posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
I agree that there are some who take advantage of a system that provides for the needy. But there is also a portion of the population that cannot work for various reasons and they are the ones that need the help. We shouldn't let a few people ruin the program for the many.


I completely agree with you that there are "needy" people that rely on these programs to get by. I don't have an issue with that. I think you have it backwards though. A correct statement, in my opinion would be "We shouldn't let many people ruin the program for the few." It's high time that the welfare system is thoroughly examined and those who are able to work are put to work for that money. I'm sure the government can find something for these people to do for their free money. Start off by having them fix up a local park or pick up garbage from the sides of roads in the area. Better yet, put them to work in the "jobs that Americans won't do." We're currently paying them out of our taxes to sit on their butts..why not put them to work picking vegetables and lower the prices for the rest of us?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueTriangle
 


furthermore, nobody is doing this issue any justice by calling those who exploit the welfare system "few"

There aren't a "Few"
If there only were a "few" welfare wouldnt cost this country BILLIONS of dollars EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

And for what?
it's not so people can have food and water, and shelter and a car.
Those needs are met to nearly everyone in this country -- though NOT everyone, and those who arent met, are the ones who need welfare.

So the real way of putting it is this
Dont let the MAJORITY of welfare receipients ruin it for those who really do need it.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
It's high time that the welfare system is thoroughly examined and those who are able to work are put to work for that money. I'm sure the government can find something for these people to do for their free money. Start off by having them fix up a local park or pick up garbage from the sides of roads in the area. Better yet, put them to work in the "jobs that Americans won't do." We're currently paying them out of our taxes to sit on their butts..why not put them to work picking vegetables and lower the prices for the rest of us?

You are aware that welfare was reformed back in the 90's aren't you? People that go on welfare now have to be back to work within two years. It was reformed under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act that made the following changes.


* Ending welfare as an entitlement program;
* Requiring recipients to begin working after 2 consecutive years of receiving benefits;
* Placing a lifetime limit of 5 years on benefits paid by federal funds;
* Aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births.



As for Universal Health Care, only those that cannot afford UHC will be getting it for free. If people can afford it, they have to pay for it. Obama's proposal is to make UHC affordable so more people can buy it, and it would require uninsured people with children to cover them. Anyone else that already has health care can keep it, or if UHC is cheaper, they can buy it. John McCain's plan is similar, but it is voluntary and gives tax credits for buying it.

Here is an article that compares the different proposals of the presidential candidates. Also keep in mind that these are just proposals. If it actually makes it through the legislative process, the bill could be completely different.

[edit on 6/7/2008 by Hal9000]

[edit on 6/7/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ybab hsur
 

I suppose that you are also just as misinformed about welfare. Yes now that there are fewer people on welfare there are fewer able to take advantage of the system.


The consequences of welfare reform have been dramatic. As expected, welfare rolls (the number of people receiving payments) dropped significantly (57%) in the years since passage of the bill. Substantially larger declines in welfare rolls were posted by many states, and even big city-dominated Illinois achieved an 86% reduction in welfare recipients.

Welfare Reform


Thanks for playing.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


okay, i see what your numbers can make it look like

but tell me why local drug peddlers are cashin a welfare check
tell me why fat house wives with X number of children cash a welfare check

tell me why ANY single person, ANYONE cashes a welfare check that doesnt deserve it. How many people exploit the bill for tax breaks to students (I think its called the HOPE or something)

How many parolee's violate their parole and are brought to justice (and yes, some are never caught, i agree, and it shouldtn be that way)
But parole is a way of saying "you screwed up, but we cant have a Prison on every street corner, so we're gona let you out"

We have parole officers to monitor parolee's
Why do we have zero checks and balances in place for welfaree's?

Now i admit, i stand corrected on my assumption that it was bigger problem than it actually is - i thank you for the post showing me that
but it doesnt change my mind that its not a big big big problem.

How can anyone say that it doesnt bother them that Money is going towards some felon who's too lazy to get a damn job, and chooses to peddle some reefer on the side to buy his 10,000 dollar rims

but government money that goes to those who need it in Iraq and Afghanistan does.

The idea of welfare is sound and just. it should be for disabled and elderly americans. ONLY

all others need not apply



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ybab hsur
We have parole officers to monitor parolee's
Why do we have zero checks and balances in place for welfaree's?

I think you are still assuming that the system is still as bad as it once was. Now with fewer people on Welfare NWMAP is better able to monitor those on welfare, where before they were overloaded. I can’t find any statistics on that, but I remember that was one of the problems. The US Dept of Health and Human Services also has a Children’s Bureau for monitoring families on welfare. So there are more checks and balances than you might think.



but it doesnt change my mind that its not a big big big problem.

I am not out to change your mind, but I do suggest looking into it more yourself.



but government money that goes to those who need it in Iraq and Afghanistan does.

My problem with the money being spent on the war is for one thing, going toward reconstruction of things that we bombed. It is also going to corrupt profiteers in a scandal far worse than welfare ever was. Doesn’t that bother you? I guess that is a discussion for another day.



The idea of welfare is sound and just. it should be for disabled and elderly americans. ONLY

all others need not apply

That makes sense of course, but I think if you looked into it there are other cases that should be included. Other wise we would have a lot of hungry people out there, which would also lead to more unhealthy people that would be a burden on our health care system. That in turn will lead to higher insurance for everyone. You will pay for it one way or another.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ybab hsur
furthermore, nobody is doing this issue any justice by calling those who exploit the welfare system "few"

There aren't a "Few"
If there only were a "few" welfare wouldnt cost this country BILLIONS of dollars EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
...
Dont let the MAJORITY of welfare receipients ruin it for those who really do need it.


You misunderstood my post, my friend. I'm on your side on this issue. Here's my quote "We shouldn't let many people ruin the program for the few." I was eluding to the fact that many who abuse it will ruin it for the few who actually need it.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
You are aware that welfare was reformed back in the 90's aren't you? People that go on welfare now have to be back to work within two years.


You got me there, Hal. Let the record show that I'm not above admitting my lack of knowledge when it applies. I see this happened in 1996 which was in the middle of my college and post-college haze time period...a time when I had ZERO interest in politics. My experiences that shaped my opinion on welfare in general happened mostly in the 95-96 timeframe as I spent a lot of time in the "ghettos" of Akron, OH doing construction work. Since that time I've personally met a handful of people who were certainly scamming for disability so I assumed that nothing had changed.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Interesting that we have a congress that is open for business everyday for the lobbyist with the fastest check book not for the America people anymore.

The mega health care industry is one of the biggest lobbyist in Washington, Obama has said that he will take lobbyist out of congress.

Perhaps that is what he mean when he said that he will shut them down.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Obama's plan for Health Care AND Global Poverty would significantly affect your hard-earned income as much of it would go towards NEW taxes to support this rediculous unaffordable legislation.

Universal Healthcare will take YOUR money and help pay for Illegial Alien (or poor Mexican residents with bad hygene issues) and their visits to the Hospital. They have already de-resourced several Hospitals in California who served them without Health Insurance or no means to pay for it.

As resources decrease due to this kind of servicing, your taxes will INCREASE even more to support the loses!!

If you want to keep your money, do not vote for the Muslim man.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueTriangle
 

That is good of you to admit that and I have more respect for you. BTW, Did you go to college at Akron U.? I was also going about that time, but in the evening.



reply to post by marg6043
 

Hello Marge. Have you heard that Obama has told the whole DNC they can no longer accept contributions from lobbyists.

Obama's In Control: No More Lobbyist Contributions To Democratic Party

I think that is the way to take control.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


I agree, many people do not understand that in our congress is the lobbyist the ones that write the laws that are passed in their benefit.

When a government is ruled by corporate lobbyist that government is corrupted as is happening in our nation now.

Is about time that somebody step up againts this corrupted groups and force our nations for the people politicians to start addressing the peoples needs not their pockets and those of the fat butt corporate lobbyist.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Obama's plan for Health Care AND Global Poverty would significantly affect your hard-earned income as much of it would go towards NEW taxes to support this rediculous unaffordable legislation.

Now I am the one that has to admit that I am not familiar with the Global Poverty Act, but a quick search I did find this.

Obama, Hagel, Cantwell, Smith Hail Committee Passage of the Global Poverty Act

I need to study it before commenting, but it is clearly a separate bill. UHC is going to be funded by rolling back GB's tax cuts to the wealthy.



Universal Healthcare will take YOUR money and help pay for Illegial Alien (or poor Mexican residents with bad hygene issues) and their visits to the Hospital. They have already de-resourced several Hospitals in California who served them without Health Insurance or no means to pay for it.

I have heard this before and was unable to verify it. While he was a state senator, I believe he did support allowing illegal imigrants obtaining driver licenses and something about health care, but his current proposal does not mention it. If it were true, then he would be wrong IMHO, but it also doesn't mean that it would get past approval of other legislators.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
McCain and Hillary both have similar health care plans that promise affordable health care for everyone. What makes McCain's plan better than Obama's plan is that McCain will give the same assistance to everyone, while Obama punishes those who work to get ahead by decreasing their government assistance for healthcare as their incomes rise, and that is plain wrong. People who are working to get ahead in life should get the same assistance as people who don't.

Obama wants to expand Medicaid, which is a terrible plan that punishes the working class while subsidizing illegal immigration. Medicaid should be eliminated in my opinion. It is a terrible plan that vastly increases costs by over crowding emergency rooms and is breaking down our nations trauma center capabilities. Emergency rooms should be reserved for emergencies. McCain wants to reform medicaid, which is a much better direction to take.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Oops, forgot to post a link to McCains health care policy.

www.johnmccain.com...

I am especially not for Obama's world charity program. Most of the aid money winds up buying weapons for dictators, or enriching international contractors. Anybody who has read up on the effectiveness of these world charity programs should know that they create more problems then they help. I am tired of subsidizing third world dictatorships with aid money.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
McCain and Hillary both have similar health care plans that promise affordable health care for everyone.

Have you asked McCain about that? I think he would beg to differ. The Clinton and Obama plans are similar in that those that can't afford it are covered by the government. McCain's plan will offer insurance to those that buy it, but I don't think it covers those that can't afford it. I could be wrong, because I am more familiar with the first two.



What makes McCain's plan better than Obama's plan is that McCain will give the same assistance to everyone, while Obama punishes those who work to get ahead by decreasing their government assistance for healthcare as their incomes rise, and that is plain wrong. People who are working to get ahead in life should get the same assistance as people who don't.

I don't see how Obama's plan will "punish" anyone. Can you elaborate on this? Seriously, I would like to know if there is a flaw in his plan.



Obama wants to expand Medicaid, which is a terrible plan that punishes the working class while subsidizing illegal immigration.

How is this subsidizing illegal immigrants? If they get sick and wind up in the hospital, they will receive treatment by law as it has been for years, but they will not have the UHC plan that insured American will have.

This is the key. With UHC Americans can receive preventative treatment that will hopefully reduce costs. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If they receive regular treatment that prevents a catastrophic illness, that should reduce cost.



Medicaid should be eliminated in my opinion. It is a terrible plan that vastly increases costs by over crowding emergency rooms and is breaking down our nations trauma center capabilities. Emergency rooms should be reserved for emergencies. McCain wants to reform medicaid, which is a much better direction to take.

Have you visited an ER lately? Myself, I have never seen, and hope to never see a crowded ER. Maybe you should turn off the TV and experience the real world.

[edit on 6/14/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

The problem with McCain's plan is it is voluntary. What do you think most people, who don't have insurance, will do if they are told they have a choice to buy this insurance? Now I am against the government telling folks what to do, but health care insurance is what every community minded person should have. This is what will be difficult to convince even the most independent minded. We no longer live in a country that has open prairies and herds of buffalo. We live in a world were the actions of one person affect everyone else.

If we implemented JM's plan, my estimation is that nothing would change. It is designed to fail. Like mandatory auto insurance, health care insurance should also be mandatory. We need serious change to fix the health care crisis, and that is not a campaign slogan.

Some would argue that it is not fair that someone should get free health care while others have to pay. This is a fair argument, but what I have been trying to point out is that it is in everyones best interest to have them covered, because hopefully it will reduce everyone's premiums. One of the causes of rising health care costs is the law that makes it so that hospitals cannot refuse anyone treatment even if they can't afford it. The reaction to this was hospital administrators complained about it because it was not backed up with a plan like UHC. The result is health care insurance rose to cover this additional cost, so we are already paying for it. Remove the burden of covering the uninsured, and our premiums should come down. If not, we could buy UHC if we want and if it is cheaper. Everybody wins.

[edit on 6/14/2008 by Hal9000]

[edit on 6/14/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Like McCain's plan, or Hillary's, Obama plan only offers people assistance to help them pay for health insurance. I'm sure all three candidates claim that their plan is the best. You have to read the plan and make your own deductions.

I explained just how Obama's plan punishes those who succeed in increasing their income by cutting government assistance to their health care plans. McCains plan gives the same assistance to everyone.

Under medicaid, if you do not have insurance, and get sick, you can go to the hospital and get medical treatment that medicaid will cover, but if you have any assets, like an IRA or 401k plan, the government will take the money out of those plans to pay for the medical treatment or garnish future wages. If you have no assets and no future income of any significance, then you don't have to pay back medicaid, or if you are an immigrant, you are not expected to pay back medicaid, in case you are an illegal. Those people who are trying to make it on their own wind up being punished, while those who never intend on making an effort to get ahead, and immigrants, are given a free ride. This is an extremely bias system that punishes those people who try to become self sufficient in this world. If you don't want to believe me then do the research yourself.

Illegals and people with no legitimate income will still be able to get medicaid for free, so why would they buy into any paid insurance program under Obama's plan. The parasites will still be able to draw from the system under Obama's plan, while the working poor will have to sacrifice income to get medical insurance. Everyone who is willing to make an effort gets the same assistance under McCain's plan, and that is much more fair.

Go to an area with a large illegal population and take a look for yourself. Or, take a look at the facts, emergency rooms in areas with large hispanic population are closing down, see the previous poster. Research the subject yourself. If all you want to do is personally attack me when you don't like the facts I bring up, then you will never learn anything.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I repeat, both Obama's plan and McCain's plans are voluntary. The difference is that McCain plans to give equal assistance to all, while Obama's plan is tailored to primary help the very poor, and to leave out those who are struggling to get ahead, and the working middle class, and that is wrong.

Those who have nothing will still get free medical treatment under the very unfair Medicaid plan, while working people will have to choose between spending their gains on getting ahead, or paying increased medical insurance.

McCain's plan is more fair, and has an equal, if not better chance of succeeding than Obama's plan.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join