Obama says we need to "spread the wealth around"

1235789

Comments

  • prytojprytoj Posts: 536
    It's not a question of simply 'taking care' of kids, it's a question of the quality of care. Preventative care is tons cheaper than an emergency room visit, which is what uninsured kids are mostly relegated to. ER visits used as a substitute for preventative care drive up healthcare costs across the board for everyone. It's cheaper in the long run to make sure quality healthcare is accessible to everyone.

    still better in a free market than in government control. We do need comprehesive reform that deregulates the PATIENT, which is true deregulation, which is comprehensive reform of the rules as they are now to ensure maximum choice.

    But if we can't get the lobbyists out of the way, we have no shot and we might be forced to have this nonsense.

    And guess who "has raised more money from commercial corporate interests and corporate lawyers by far more than John McCain"?

    That's right, your buddy, to the tune of 430+ mil. Now that's a whole lot of gettin' out of the way. No thanks.
  • prytojprytoj Posts: 536
    Nader on Cspan last Sunday with the quote BTW, if he matters at all.
  • prytoj wrote:
    still better in a free market than in government control. We do need comprehesive reform that deregulates the PATIENT, which is true deregulation, which is comprehensive reform of the rules as they are now to ensure maximum choice.

    But if we can't get the lobbyists out of the way, we have no shot and we might be forced to have this nonsense.

    And guess who "has raised more money from commercial corporate interests and corporate lawyers by far more than John McCain"?

    That's right, your buddy, to the tune of 430+ mil. Now that's a whole lot of gettin' out of the way. No thanks.

    Which nominee has hired lobbyists to run his campaign? Which nominee's campaign manager is a lobbyist? Incidentally, that lobbyist's firm was drawing $35,000 a month from Fannie and Freddie in exchange for 'maintaining a relationship' with that lobbyist/campaign manager's candidate. That lobbyist's firm continued to draw a fee from Fannie and Freddie almost up until the time his candidate was attacking his opponent for the opponent's ties to Fannie and Freddie.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    Commy wrote:
    the salary of a CEO is nearly 500 times the average worker salary

    Of all these people who are suggesting that income is proprotionate to hard work, I'd like to know how many actually believe that CEOs work
    500 times
    harder than their employees.
  • prytojprytoj Posts: 536
    Which nominee has hired lobbyists to run his campaign? Which nominee's campaign manager is a lobbyist? Incidentally, that lobbyist's firm was drawing $35,000 a month from Fannie and Freddie in exchange for 'maintaining a relationship' with that lobbyist/campaign manager's candidate. That lobbyist's firm continued to draw a fee from Fannie and Freddie almost up until the time his candidate was attacking his opponent for the opponent's ties to Fannie and Freddie.

    that's CHUMP CHANGE compaired to what Obama's been getting from the same folks, you out'cho mind, Craig?
  • LONGRDLONGRD Posts: 6,036
    mammasan wrote:
    I don't agree with Obama's tax plan but this statement is just ridiculous. I earn less than $250,000 a year and every dollar is earned through hard work. Now if Obama's tax plan will allow me to keep more of that hard earned money so be it, it's mine to keep.

    Secondly have you ever lived on welfare? Do you know what it like to have to live off of government hand outs? When my parents first came to this country they needed government assistance in order to survive. They didn't enjoy it and trust me they where not living in anything remotely considered luxury. Yes there are people who abuse the system, they are lazy and refuse to stand on their own two feet, but should the thousands upon thousands of people who truly need these programs just to survive deserve to be punished because of the actions of a few. Social programs consume far less than the wasteful spending employed by our defense department but I never see people bitch about that.
    I can relate to that. My mother and I lived on welfare a few years as well when we first arrived here. It was a necessary need at the time for us to survive. The smart thing my mother did was invest her time in adult school to learn English. After about 3 years, she got a relatively good job and we're pretty much on our own. Took her about 15 years but she bought a house of her own under her name and everything.

    Anybody with self-determination and pride should know that welfare gets you nowhere, it'll help you get on your feet but that's about it. You got it all on your own, and there are plenty of funding and aids that will help you if your motivated enough to get you better opportunities. So my point is, use it to better your opportunity but not abuse it or live off of it.
    PJ- 04/29/2003.06/24,25,27,28,30/2008.10/27,28,30,31/2009
    EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
  • prytoj wrote:
    But if we can't get the lobbyists out of the way, we have no shot and we might be forced to have this nonsense.

    Wait. How does getting 'lobbyists out of the way' equal more choice for the patient? If you regulate or restrict the rights of lobbyists to advocate for their clients in congress, aren't you regulating the rights of healthcare providers to make money in a free market system? What does lobbying have to do with patient choice? McCain would deregulate the health care system, giving consumers the choice to purchase insurance from different states, and giving them a $5000 per family tax credit to purchase health insurance. By the way, he'd also factor that tax credit into your income tax, effectively taxing your tax credit.

    In any event, I'm not sure what one has to do with the other.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • prytojprytoj Posts: 536
    who doesn't support lobbying? We can all do it, and many individuals do as well as businesses. Nobody said anything about outlawing LOBBYING.

    By out of the way, I mean out of the way of the patient. WE need to LOBBY harder, if anything. We also need to watchdog their lobbying practices to make sure there is an equity there.

    Sorry for the confusion.
  • prytoj wrote:
    And guess who "has raised more money from commercial corporate interests and corporate lawyers by far more than John McCain"?

    That's right, your buddy, to the tune of 430+ mil. Now that's a whole lot of gettin' out of the way. No thanks.

    Hold up a second. You're either lying or being disingenuous with that "$430+ mil" figure. Are you talking about total money raised, or a breakdown of contributions from "corporate interests and corporate lawyers", as your post implies? If you're saying he's raised $430 million from "corporate interests", I have to call bullshit.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • prytoj wrote:
    who doesn't support lobbying? We can all do it, and many individuals do as well as businesses. Nobody said anything about outlawing LOBBYING.

    By out of the way, I mean out of the way of the patient. WE need to LOBBY harder, if anything. We also need to watchdog their lobbying practices to make sure there is an equity there.

    Sorry for the confusion.

    Lobbying = money. How are uninsured and under-insured people supposed to raise enough money to successfully compete with insurance and pharmaceutical companies? If you can afford to pay for a golf weekend in South Carolina for a bunch of congressmen, you probably already have health insurance.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • prytojprytoj Posts: 536
    McCain would deregulate the health care system, giving consumers the choice to purchase insurance from different states, and giving them a $5000 per family tax credit to purchase health insurance. By the way, he'd also factor that tax credit into your income tax, effectively taxing your tax credit.

    This is all good stuff right? Or was there a negative in there?
  • prytojprytoj Posts: 536
    Lobbying = money. How are uninsured and under-insured people supposed to raise enough money to successfully compete with insurance and pharmaceutical companies? If you can afford to pay for a golf weekend in South Carolina for a bunch of congressmen, you probably already have health insurance.

    Well, there are many ways to do just that, primarily through organization.

    But Aside from that, you can write your representatives, write a newspaper editorial, contact your local tv station and make them cover an issue, and the good work we're doing right here.

    Did you know there's this channel called Cspan, and they have interview all sorts of folks, including our representatives, and you can actually call in live, and they'l take your question and answer it live. It don' matter how dumb you sound, they sit there and give your their best answer. Its awesome from 7:30 to about 10:30

    They do listen to the loudest dollar (obama), but they also listen to the loudest voice. They really do.
  • prytoj wrote:
    They do listen to the loudest dollar (obama), but they also listen to the loudest voice. They really do.

    First of all, they really don't. They listen to one thing, and that thing is money. Lots of groups advocate for patient rights, but they simply don't have the money to match the pharma and insurance interests. I'm not saying that Obama doesn't listen to money, but you're insane if you think that McCain doesn't, either.

    Incidentally, which candidate has received more money in small amounts from more individual donors than anyone in the history of American politics?

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10223.html

    The article is from May.

    "Altogether, Obama's campaign has taken in an unprecedented $226 million, most of it contributed online. His donor base is larger than the one the Democratic National Committee had for the 2000 election.

    These are hardly political fat cats. Ninety percent of his donors give $100 or less, and 41 percent have given $25 or less, according to the Obama campaign. Overall, he has raised 45 percent of his money in small contributions. Hillary Rodham Clinton's figure is 30 percent, Republican John McCain's is 23 percent."
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • prytojprytoj Posts: 536
    Hold up a second. You're either lying or being disingenuous with that "$430+ mil" figure. Are you talking about total money raised, or a breakdown of contributions from "corporate interests and corporate lawyers", as your post implies? If you're saying he's raised $430 million from "corporate interests", I have to call bullshit.

    well, whatever the number is or how you'd like to interpret that,
    you can have fun getting around these:

    "has raised more money from commercial corporate interests and corporate lawyers by far more than John McCain"? Nader 10 short days ago

    and

    "special interest groups against whom he has (SOMEWHAT DISINGENUOUSLY) railed " buckley, an actual Obama supporter.

    I forgot where I got that number, but i t's solid. Forgive, I've been running concrete at the libs constantly and I forgot where I got that one.
  • prytoj wrote:
    well, whatever the number is or how you'd like to interpret that,
    you can have fun getting around these:

    "has raised more money from commercial corporate interests and corporate lawyers by far more than John McCain"? Nader 10 short days ago

    and

    "special interest groups against whom he has (SOMEWHAT DISINGENUOUSLY) railed " buckley, an actual Obama supporter.

    I forgot where I got that number, but i t's solid. Forgive, I've been running concrete at the libs constantly and I forgot where I got that one.

    I'd really prefer to see figures. His OVERALL totals are in the $430 million range, probably. That's a big difference from what you were implying.

    As far as the Nader quote goes, I'd be inclined to believe it, but I'd also say that he's raised more money from ALL economic demographics compared to McCain: poor, middle class, the rich, etc. He's been able to more effectively make his case to a broader section of America as a whole, and his overall fund raising totals reflect that reality. I'm guessing he's probably raised more money from uninsured people than McCain has. Does that mean he'll advocate for them more effectively than McCain will?
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • prytojprytoj Posts: 536
    I'd really prefer to see figures. His OVERALL totals are in the $430 million range, probably. That's a big difference from what you were implying.

    As far as the Nader quote goes, I'd be inclined to believe it, but I'd also say that he's raised more money from ALL economic demographics compared to McCain: poor, middle class, the rich, etc. He's been able to more effectively make his case to a broader section of America as a whole, and his overall fund raising totals reflect that reality. I'm guessing he's probably raised more money from uninsured people than McCain has. Does that mean he'll advocate for them more effectively than McCain will?

    C'mon, man It's 1:00 am right now, I'm fuckin tired. If i have time tomorrow I'll research it proper. But I think If you've been following these threads, you know I don't throw out subjective shit. It's solid. I'm almost done....
  • prytojprytoj Posts: 536
    "commercial corporate interests and corporate lawyers " Nader

    are WAYYY different than

    "ALL economic demographics compared to McCain: poor, middle class, the rich, etc" YOU
  • prytoj wrote:
    "commercial corporate interests and corporate lawyers " Nader

    are WAYYY different than

    "ALL economic demographics compared to McCain: poor, middle class, the rich, etc" YOU

    You're not getting my point. I'm not saying Ralph is incorrect. I'm saying that Barry probably HAS raised more money on Wall Street than McCain. I'm SAYING that he's raised more money from EVERY demographic overall, and his donations from Wall Street are just one piece of the larger picture.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • prytojprytoj Posts: 536
    You're not getting my point. I'm not saying Ralph is incorrect. I'm saying that Barry probably HAS raised more money on Wall Street than McCain. I'm SAYING that he's raised more money from EVERY demographic overall, and his donations from Wall Street are just one piece of the larger picture.

    ehhh, okay. but if you are calling for facts I'm surprised you have none. I'm okay either way, I know what's up.

    And my first reaction was "splitting hairs"
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    GTFLYGIRL wrote:
    Your ignorance is appalling...

    But it's your *apparent* lack of a soul that is sickening.

    Good Day. Good Luck.


    Kettle, meet pot.
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    unsung wrote:
    Kettle, meet pot.

    Really? How so?
  • prytoj wrote:
    ehhh, okay. but if you are calling for facts I'm surprised you have none. I'm okay either way, I know what's up.

    And my first reaction was "splitting hairs"

    Barry has more money overall. I couldn't find demographic breakdowns.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424#bli
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    First of all, they really don't. They listen to one thing, and that thing is money. Lots of groups advocate for patient rights, but they simply don't have the money to match the pharma and insurance interests. I'm not saying that Obama doesn't listen to money, but you're insane if you think that McCain doesn't, either.

    Incidentally, which candidate has received more money in small amounts from more individual donors than anyone in the history of American politics?

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10223.html

    The article is from May.

    "Altogether, Obama's campaign has taken in an unprecedented $226 million, most of it contributed online. His donor base is larger than the one the Democratic National Committee had for the 2000 election.

    These are hardly political fat cats. Ninety percent of his donors give $100 or less, and 41 percent have given $25 or less, according to the Obama campaign. Overall, he has raised 45 percent of his money in small contributions. Hillary Rodham Clinton's figure is 30 percent, Republican John McCain's is 23 percent."

    facts are in the tank.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • prytojprytoj Posts: 536

    while I couldn't find "that "$430+ mil" figure" right off hand, the difference is clearly substantial

    thanks for keeping an open mind...cause it's all about lookin' out for eachother, right?

    An Obama presidency is unacceptable.
  • prytojprytoj Posts: 536
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."

    just saw that, new best laugh of the day.
  • VictoryGin wrote:
    facts are in the tank.


    It's a BIG FUCKING TANK. Even Mike Dukakis and his goofy helmet are welcome. Get in, motherfuckers!

    An Obama presidency is preferable.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    It's a BIG FUCKING TANK. Even Mike Dukakis and his goofy helmet are welcome. Get in, motherfuckers!

    An Obama presidency is preferable.

    are floaties allowed in the tank?
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • VictoryGin wrote:
    are floaties allowed in the tank?

    All Obama-sanctioned flotation devices are welcome in the tank. Arm floaties, donuts, etc. You must donate $430 million to Obama for America in order to gain admission to the tank, though.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • prytojprytoj Posts: 536
    i'll call it a night with some trivia. GUess who said it:

    “I think he (obama) can be ready but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”

    anyone? how 'bout this one:

    "I would be honored to run with or against John McCain because I think the country would be better off."

    anyone?

    Correct, Senator Joe Biden! on national TV no less!
    even he dont think "an Obama presidency is preferable" how can you?
    c'mon, spin it!
    maybe NOW Obama's ready, maybe Biden changed his mind, is that...wait....flip-flopping? we HATE flip floppers 'round these here parts!

    Biden is only along for the ride, don't fool yourself.
    Vote with your head, not your heart. Look at the record.
  • AnonAnon Posts: 11,175
    don't let the bed bugs bite...
Sign In or Register to comment.