NOBama Nation: 1.7 Trillon required for Universal Healthcare AND Global Poverty Act

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Good post and questions BlueTriangle.

People tend to forget that 9/11 and the Code Red virus in 2001 caused nearly 2 Trillion$ in economic damage to the US in terms of business downtime.

Another argument you'll hear now then, is that the war in Iraq has caused higher Oil prices. It has not caused the higher Oil prices. A larger increase in Oil demand year after year now, by in large part, from China's booming economy has placed greater demand on Oil. Oil companies have also been taking advantage of the oppurtunity to add a few cents to the cost after the Barrell trade. These are not just US companies, but Oil companies from around the Globe.

The Iraq war has been mostly funded by other countries, with the US owing China now 4.6 Billion. China though, has greatly benefited from the US in terms of the trade deficit, now 220 Billion$ in China's favor. China has defintely not played fair with regard to the World Trade Organization rules and continue to get away with it.

The war in Iraq has not directly affected the American Taxpayers' pockets. There was no new tax introduced to fund this war.

Obama will tax you, and you'll see the largest taxes to your check to date. You will do without.

Funding Global Poverty also requires cooperation from those poor countries governments. Many are militarized lke Burm'a government. They will surely take your money, claim it is going for hunger aid, but instead by more weapons, drugs and prostitutes with it.




posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by wisefoolishness



The recent wars:

The Gulf War- President George H.W. Bush, a republican.

The current Iraq War- President George W. Bush, a republican.

Republican is as republican does.


Kosovo War - William Jefferson Clinton (Democrat)
Vietnam War - John F Kennedy, Lyndon B Johnson (Both Democrats)
Bay of Pigs Invasion - John F Kennedy (Democrat)
Korean War - Harry S Truman (Democrat)
World War II - Franklin D Roosevelt (Democrat)
World War I - Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)

GWB and GHWB are Liberals and RINO.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls


Newsflash: You already live in a socialist state. What do you think a subsidy is?


Yes, and look at the deficit, price of gas, housing bubble, unemployment rates, and just generally how poorly we are doing.


Originally posted by biggie smalls
Universal healthcare implies providing healthcare for all, for free. That sounds so terrible doesn't it? Something for nothing.


If it's too good to be true it probably is.


Originally posted by biggie smalls
Obtaining money out of thin air is impossible, you are correct. As I said before, taking money out of one pocket and placing another is how this thing works.


Yes, the government will steal more of my money than they already do. This is totally something I'm going to be voting for.



Originally posted by biggie smalls
Ah yes here it is the 'lazy' people. I guess everyone who is poor and disenfranchised by society is somehow lazy and stupid. Right.

I'm sure those sloths are too lazy to get a job anyway, so why cut their government-supplied heroin? What do you care anyway?




You're right, I don't care about them, and that's why I don't want my money stolen and given to them.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentScmidt
Kosovo War - William Jefferson Clinton (Democrat)
Vietnam War - John F Kennedy, Lyndon B Johnson (Both Democrats)
Bay of Pigs Invasion - John F Kennedy (Democrat)
Korean War - Harry S Truman (Democrat)
World War II - Franklin D Roosevelt (Democrat)
World War I - Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)

GWB and GHWB are Liberals and RINO.


Where are the republicans that saved us from those wars?

I don't care if they're RINOs or not. And I'm not sure what being a republican in name only has anything to do with this. They would make the same terrible mistakes no matter what party they were in.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


Actually everything in our nation is been funded by money from foreign nations buying our debt.

American is bankrupt as we are not longer wealthy producers of anything and we are a nation of consumers on credit.

But our government finds money to keep spending like a drunken sailor on a weekend spree with a hooker.

We have a Trillion dollar war that is doing no a darn thing to help any American in this nation.

But that is OK and justified, while millions of Americans can not afford basic health care and plague by unemployment, foreclosures and high cost of living.

Pity, lets bash Obama.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
There is no 'liberal' and 'conservative' politician. That is a misnomer. A politician is always about big government because they don't have a job if there is small government. That's how federalism works.


Research Ron Paul



Originally posted by biggie smalls
Yes the old liberal versus conservative trite. I'm glad you're stuck in the box. "They" have won. You have been assimilated into the matrix as Agent Smith, just like your avatar and name.


lol wut?




Originally posted by biggie smalls
Actually, liberals tend to be less war, same size government (which is still bull#), and shifting spending away from war towards helping people.


Liberals are more war, I'll admit todays liberals like BHO and HRC are a bit more conservative on war issues than George Bush or John McCain but they are still very liberal on everything else which is very bad for American people. And BHO and HRC aren't even that anti-war. If they were anti-war they would remove us from Iraq the minute they step in office, but even BHO himself states he can't guarantee the troops will be home until 2013. His handlers, the NWO/elite want war, so it doesn't matter if he's anti-war or not any way.

Same size government? No, under BHO's proposals the size of the federal government will be more than doubled than what is is now, with them having much more power over us than they do now. Just the mere fact of the existance of his "universal healthcare program" is evidence of this. You cannot accomplish universal healthcare without having a massive federal government.




Originally posted by biggie smalls
I think the word you're looking for is NeoConservative, just like the 'liberals' these days are NeoLiberals.

DINOs.


DINOs vs RINOs. Well, the only issues RINOs are conservative on are abortion and taxes, the only issues DINOs are convservative on is war, so the fact of the matter is, you vote for a RINO or a DINO, you are still getting mostly liberal.



[edit on 8-6-2008 by AgentScmidt]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentScmidt
Kosovo War - William Jefferson Clinton (Democrat)


UN sanctioned.


Vietnam War - John F Kennedy, Lyndon B Johnson (Both Democrats)


Started? Yes. Escalated? Republican.


Bay of Pigs Invasion - John F Kennedy (Democrat)


That was a war?


Korean War - Harry S Truman (Democrat)


UN sanctioned.


World War II - Franklin D Roosevelt (Democrat)


WORLD war dude. Btw, the world was at it WAY before the US was involved.


World War I - Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)


See WW2.

You did forget one though, the war on drugs. That one spent billions screwing with central and south America. Republican.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Thanks for making my point Marg, the US Taxpayers' are not funding the war, but other countries are. China has benefitted from a 220 Billion$ trade-deficit with the US (in their favor). Now, they have bought US debt in the form of hollow bonds, in other words, there is a good chance China won't be able to cash out.

Also, if there wasn't a Utopia, it would be necessary to invent one.

Do not use the war as an excuse for it affecting you directly. Obama's combined spending for Global Poverty and Health Care will cost more than 1.7 Trillion. You will provide this, other countries will not help you. It will come from your paycheck. It will not come from Obama's. Making his Father's Native Kenya (for which he has a citizenship) more rich and to put his cousin in power (in Keyna, he campaigned for his cousin there) is not your responsiblity.


[edit on 8-6-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid


UN sanctioned.
UN sanctioned.
UN sanctioned.


And what does that have to do with the point I was making? They still got us into those wars, does it matter if it was UN Sanctioned or not? Is War suddenly a good thing by your standards if the elite/NWO's puppet administration the UN approves of it?


Originally posted by intrepid

Vietnam War - John F Kennedy, Lyndon B Johnson (Both Democrats)


Started? Yes. Escalated? Republican.


Started by JFK, escalated to full combat by Lyndon B Johnson, and ended by Gerald Ford (a republican)



Originally posted by intrepid

Bay of Pigs Invasion - John F Kennedy (Democrat)


That was a war?


No more than the 'operation' and now 'occupation' in Iraq is.





Originally posted by intrepid

World War II - Franklin D Roosevelt (Democrat)


WORLD war dude. Btw, the world was at it WAY before the US was involved.


World War I - Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)


See WW2.



Ok? So they didn't start the war, they just got the USA involved and are responsible for the deaths of many Americans. What's the difference? Republicans still got us out of those wars.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentScmidt
And what does that have to do with the point I was making? They still got us into those wars, does it matter if it was UN Sanctioned or not? Is War suddenly a good thing by your standards if the elite/NWO's puppet administration the UN approves of it?


A republican would have done the same. The president really had no choice.



Ok? So they didn't start the war, they just got the USA involved and are responsible for the deaths of many Americans. What's the difference? Republicans still got us out of those wars.


As I said above, they really had no choice. And I still haven't seen all of these life saving republicans...



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Well, I sure haven't seen any life-saving Democrats. Usually, the Democrats get used by other countries in return for boosting their image, but at the same time, giving millions of US taxpayers' money to dicatators.

Case in point:

Bill Clinton giving Kim Jong 5 billion$ (yes 5 Billion) to come out publicly and state he halted his Nuclear program (while continuing the secret one of course). Bill's image got boosted, the American people fooled (at least those that voted for him) and Kim Jong got 5 billion$ richer with your money.

Bill also gave China alot of knowlege, know-how and sensitive technlogies. These advantages afforded to China will result in many US deaths over defending Taiwan.

Democrats build other countries militaries for them. These militaries come back and kill Americans much more effectively. It is only when something has to be done and can no longer be ignored that Republican's have to go in and get the job done. If not, continues to grow like a Cancer. Many Dems don't care, they only care about telling you what to do, how you should live, and getting some big fat paychecks.

Both parties are corrupt, but suffice it to say, the Democratic party is the more corrupt.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Well, I sure haven't seen any life-saving Democrats.


Ever heard of FDR? The only thing he did was take America through the great depression. Well, depending on who you talk to, he also was the only reason why we got into WW2



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Hello Wise Fool(?). I suppose Japan bombing Pearl Harbor didn't get the US involved (whether protracted or not, Japan drew first blood).

Keep listening to Reverend Wright's sermons. You will eventually get all the facts the US government never wanted you to know about. It has nothing to with Bias what-so-ever.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Why are you making this into a democrat versus republican and liberal versus conservative issue?

They are two sides to the same coin. Aside from the few that actually care about the American people (dare I say Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike? Gravel) all a politician cares about is getting reelected.

Politiks is not simply a right and left issue. There is an entire political spectrum.

If you want to blame Obama for spending a lot of money on healthcare etc, what was originally 3/4 of a trillion dollars and is now almost 2, why don't you look at what the previous President(s) have done to this country.

Bill Clinton is no saint, and in fact I despise him and his wife. They had their own set of problems, but if you look more recently to our current President and his failed economic policies et all you will find that America's problems have nothing to do with party affiliations.

The whole idea of politiks is to get the American people so divided that each and every law that is passed will ensure our freedoms are removed even more.

Have you heard of the Patriot Act (1 and 2)? This was passed by a Republican-majority. Does that mean the average Republican American believes restricting our freedoms is a good thing? I sure hope not. The same can be said about Democratic bills and the average Democrat.

People are not so cut and dry to be able to fit into the Republican/Democrat mold. We are much more complex than that. To think otherwise in my opinion denotes a high amount of ignorance about the nature of humanity. Most of us want to do what is best for everyone. Unfortunately in this country that usually means Americans and ones who are just like us.

Why don't we ever care for the 'other' whether that means an inner-city 'minority' or the illegal immigrant? We are very selfish as a nation. Look at this very thread.

If we claim to be a freedom loving nation that brings democracy elsewhere, why don't we start acting like it?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Hello Wise Fool(?). I suppose Japan bombing Pearl Harbor didn't get the US involved (whether protracted or not, Japan drew first blood).

Keep listening to Reverend Wright's sermons. You will eventually get all the facts the US government never wanted you to know about. It has nothing to with Bias what-so-ever.


Hello jet x net(?). No, of course the bombing of Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with the US entry into WW2


I don't listen to Reverend Wright's sermons. I get all the info I need here on ATS...



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 




In 2007, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent — two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person.1 Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). link


So according to your figures we would save well over a trillion dollars a year! Awesome! Thanks for the heads up! My Vote goes to Obama for sure!



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Do you realize expenditures cover medical research, lawsuits etc. etc.??

Obama's plan would be in addition to most expenditures. There would still be lawsuits (probably more because the government is highly dysfunctional, quackery etc.). The research in the private sector may go down, but that is only hurting the advancement of technology of the medical industry (selfish!).

Bottom line, the new plan is in addition to many expenditures that will still apply (along with new ones introduced) and will come from your pocket directly.



[edit on 8-6-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Well, I give the OP credit for posting a political thread about a real issue.

I think that the cost of Obama's programs are fairly astounding. I have no idea how he plans on funding them. There is simply no way it can be done without raising tax dollars.

People think he will just be able to pull the plug on Iraq and divert the money spent there into healthcare, but it won't work that way. The Bush administration is going to ensure that there will be no leaving Iraq. We will still be spending billions of dollars a month there regardless of who the president is.

I just don't think we will be able to fund both at the same time. Our economy is on the brink of death now and to add on another trillion dollar money sink will be disasterous.

I want to know how either candidate plans on reviving the economy, which is the number 1 issue for most Americans right now. This program is only going to make it that much more difficult.

I don't have high hopes for the next four years.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Well said Karl. The economy is looking very bleak, with Gas prices going over $4 today as a prime indicator. Higher Gas prices are a seismic wave through the economy causing higher prices on Food etc.

The canidates aren't affected because each make millions. They both have enough money for several lifetimes if managed even remotely intelligently.

It's your Mom and Pop businesses that get ousted by the Walmarts, and the working class gets screwed only to pay for these guys and their policies.

How can they *really* identify with most of America in terms of financial problems?? They can't, just move on to self-serving agendas.

It is not our responsibility to feed the world. We do enough of it now. The Global Poverty Act is a joke. It will only end up in the hands of the local militias of those poor countries it is aimed to support.

You pay for it, they exploit it.

Go watch some Rambo IV. Download off movielink.com. Rambo tells you how it is
There is no negotiation and any amount of handouts that is going to change the vicious Burmese military.



[edit on 8-6-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


Rad the link mate:



Although nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.3




In 2005, the United States spent 16 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2016.1...Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.




Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.


In fact I have herd that up towards 25% of the total expenditure of health care in the US goes to administration fees. This includes things like advertising. To be quite honest I think there is plenty of evidence to support the FACT that creating a NEW form of health care is not only good for our HEALTH but our POCKET BOOKS as well.

All from my original link








top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join