GOP Primaries/Candidates thread

[BigSqwert]

This alone would put me out of business. It is not the job of business to provide insurance to its employees. It is a bebefit, offered by some, to try and obtain the better employees. Why is it some kind of f***ing obligation that businesses need to provide, or pay, for this? Get out of my wallet.

Perhaps you didn't read the last statement you quoted: Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.

[EvilMonkey]

Perhaps you didn't read the last statement you quoted: Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.

Perhaps you have no idea how government works. That threshold will be so low that the only business not qualifying would be a lemonaide stand.

[kapkomet]

I highly doubt you actually read his plan on all the key issues on his website like you claim you did. He actually has original ideas in there even though, according to you, he has no stance on anything at all.

I read it. I didn't study it. I have read most of the candidates' websites in a general overview. Granted this was 6 months ago and some things have come out since then...

 

Having said that, I'm sorry I don't agree with your "he's going to save the universe" candidate. The man is not presidential material, at least not yet.

[southsider2k5]

Looking at the top 4 - Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson - I think you are only 50% right. Clinton and Edwards are pretty worthless, they are definitely retreads, and they are manifestly dishonest. But, like him or not, Obama does in fact bring a new approach and attitude to the table, and he is indeed a new face. And Richardson has, more so than any candidate in either party, a Presidential resume. So I personally think there is some value in those candidates' presence.

Obama is in trouble because he is having problems explaining his ideas in 30 second sound bites. I think explained out some of his positions make sense, but broken down for TV news, the Clinton Machine is just making him look terrible. Richardson doesn't have a chance to get any TV time, which means he doesn't have a chance.

[Balta1701]

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson said Sunday he is dropping out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination after finishing sixth in an Iowa straw poll.

 

"I have no regrets about running," he said in a statement released Sunday evening by his campaign.

 

"I felt my record as Governor of Wisconsin and Secretary of Health and Human Services gave me the experience I needed to serve as president, but I respect the decision of the voters. I am leaving the campaign trail today, but I will not leave the challenges of improving health care and welfare in America."

 

The statement was issued several hours after WITI-TV in Milwaukee reported that Thompson, 65, told one of its reporters he was withdrawing.

 

"I have very much enjoyed my years in public service and I am comforted by the fact that I think I made a difference for people during that time," Thompson said in the campaign announcement. "I hope to continue working to serve others over the next few years."

 

The statement said Thompson intends to take some time off before returning to the private sector and his nonprofit work.

One down.

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama is in trouble because he is having problems explaining his ideas in 30 second sound bites. I think explained out some of his positions make sense, but broken down for TV news, the Clinton Machine is just making him look terrible. Richardson doesn't have a chance to get any TV time, which means he doesn't have a chance.

I think you are dead on, both counts. Obama is clearly at his best when he can actually speak at length, and when he is off the cuff. When he is trying to spew the 30-second bits his staff are feeding him, he loses the natural appeal he brought to the table. Too bad really - the age of the sound byte is killing him. The perfect example was the first debate. He looked unusually stiff and forced in his statements, until he got into a little back-and-forth with Kucinich. Then he suddenly looked, almost, Presidential.

 

And you are also right about Richardson, which drives me nuts. In addition to the sound byte mindset of the media killing Obama and others, you also have the media dumbing down the campaign by filtering out everyone but the 2 front runnners (and, on occasion, Edwards). It means that candidates 4 through 10 have no chance to even be seen and heard.

 

[Balta1701]

So?

 

What does it say?

 

Seriously, I could have wrote the same s***, if my inclanation was to set up a governmental entity for health care.

 

It's NOT anything new, innovative, different, or anything that should set him apart as a leader of our country.

 

Everyone blah blah blah blah blah... whatever. It's not anything that differentiates him from any other candidate.

You know one thing that I find fairly amazing? It's that the media and others have managed to spend so much time wondering if Obama is all style and no substance...but have spent essentially no time asking the same question about the Republican candidates.

 

I'll give you a beautiful example. Obama, as shown earlier, has pages and pages of policy reccommendations. Even some of the small scale stuff gets touched on. I'm looking through the "Fighting poverty" page, and he's spending time on increasing small business loans directed at minorities, expanding Pell grants, increasing support for ex-offender programs, etc. Quibble with the ideas all you want, at least they're there.

 

On the contrary, stumble over to something like Rudy or Mitt's policy page. Rudy's entire policy page is that 12 point speech he gave a few months back. Obama has more details on Veterans Affairs than Rudy has on his entire policy page. Rudy's page doesnt' even mention health care at all. His health care plan, which he presented a week or two ago, was basically a tax cut for people who buy the most expensive insurance packages, and the slogan Socialized medicine sucks! Romney's issue page is better than the vacant page @ Rudy's, but it's still mostly just video, and doesn't include 1/10th of the detail Obama's does.

[kapkomet]

You know one thing that I find fairly amazing? It's that the media and others have managed to spend so much time wondering if Obama is all style and no substance...but have spent essentially no time asking the same question about the Republican candidates.

 

I'll give you a beautiful example. Obama, as shown earlier, has pages and pages of policy reccommendations. Even some of the small scale stuff gets touched on. I'm looking through the "Fighting poverty" page, and he's spending time on increasing small business loans directed at minorities, expanding Pell grants, increasing support for ex-offender programs, etc. Quibble with the ideas all you want, at least they're there.

 

On the contrary, stumble over to something like Rudy or Mitt's policy page. Rudy's entire policy page is that 12 point speech he gave a few months back. Obama has more details on Veterans Affairs than Rudy has on his entire policy page. Rudy's page doesnt' even mention health care at all. His health care plan, which he presented a week or two ago, was basically a tax cut for people who buy the most expensive insurance packages, and the slogan Socialized medicine sucks! Romney's issue page is better than the vacant page @ Rudy's, but it's still mostly just video, and doesn't include 1/10th of the detail Obama's does.

 

Balta, read what I've been saying about the GOP candidates, and you will see that I have been saying the same thing for months. I can't stand the GOP candidates. None of them. They are pitiful, pathetic, unsubstantiated morons.

 

In all seriousness, I like Obama better then any of the GOP candidates from purely a charismatic standpoint ( holy s***, did I just say that???). I have two exceptions as far as issues, and they are big ones. Health Care, and Iraq. Also, I don't trust him for some reason - that's more of an intangible, honestly. And because of that, as of this time, though, I wouldn't vote for him...

 

Oh, one more thing... Obama's site is a LOT more in depth then it was when I looked at it last. So I have some reading to do.

[kapkomet]

So based on this conversation... and in the interest of SERIOUS debate (not snarkiness, as I am most of the time as are a few others)... how about we review a GOP site and a DEM site a week for issues and debate them?

 

I promise, I'll try to stick to the topics and not get snarky. Thoughts?

[NorthSideSox72]

So based on this conversation... and in the interest of SERIOUS debate (not snarkiness, as I am most of the time as are a few others)... how about we review a GOP site and a DEM site a week for issues and debate them?

 

I promise, I'll try to stick to the topics and not get snarky. Thoughts?

You mean picking a candidate from each party, and reviewing the material on their sites? So each week, we'd have one GOP candidate highlight thread, and one Dem candidate highlight thread? Sounds excellent.

 

I'd suggest we start with some of the minor ones first, since they might drop out by the time we get done.

 

[kapkomet]

You mean picking a candidate from each party, and reviewing the material on their sites? So each week, we'd have one GOP candidate highlight thread, and one Dem candidate highlight thread? Sounds excellent.

 

I'd suggest we start with some of the minor ones first, since they might drop out by the time we get done.

Yea... would it be better to do a compare/contrast or just a straight "impressions" of a Dem site and a GOP site a week (with the stances they are taking...).

 

At least this way, maybe we can all really read up on the stances of folks (unless they don't stand for anything, like Obama... )

 

[BigSqwert]

Yea... would it be better to do a compare/contrast or just a straight "impressions" of a Dem site and a GOP site a week (with the stances they are taking...).

 

At least this way, maybe we can all really read up on the stances of folks (unless they don't stand for anything, like Obama... )

I'd be all for it. Then everyone will know how much I love Kucinich.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'd be all for it. Then everyone will know how much I love Kucinich.

Yeah, because we don't know that already, bacon boy.

 

 

[Texsox]

Perhaps you have no idea how government works. That threshold will be so low that the only business not qualifying would be a lemonaide stand.

 

If every business has the same cost added, how would that put you at a competitive disadvantage? You would add the costs on, just like your competitors.

[BigSqwert]

Yeah, because we don't know that already, bacon boy.

 

Did the 20' x 45' "Kucinich 2008" banner on the side of my condo give it away?

[EvilMonkey]

If every business has the same cost added, how would that put you at a competitive disadvantage? You would add the costs on, just like your competitors.

OK, we all raise prices en mass, then the people just end up paying for their healthcare thru higher prices. How much extra would I need to generate to cover the 'charges'? $200 per employee? $400? $50? If I had to add another $2000+ per month to cover this so-called 'free health care', I would have to add about $16 per invoice to cover it (at a $2000 cost). That would be about a 5% increase, just for that program. not to mention that all of MY costs are goign to go up as well from whatever suppliers of mine have to pay the fee, so my prices have to go up even more. Figure at least another 5%, probably closer to 8%. This would also be an overnote jump once the plan is implimented, so we would just end up being like the gas stations, raising our prices dramatically in one day. Those $40 business cards now cost $45. The $350 mailing job now costs almost $400. And not just me, the corner convenience store raises the Pepsi price from $1.35 to $1.50. That .99 hot dog special now costs $1.12. The new tires for your car just went from $400 to $440. Someone has to pay for it. Eventually it will be consumers, but the government is just trying to use business as the tax collector.

[southsider2k5]

No talk about Mike Huckabee's second place finish in the strawpoll or his stupid ass "fair tax" program?

[Rex Kickass]

His stupid ass "far tax" program is what got him second place.

 

Fairtax.org paid for and packed 30 buses to vote for him IIRC.

 

I believe Romney paid some of his supporters to attend - beyond the usual "covering the cost of the ticket to vote" scheme.

[kapkomet]

This "fair tax" thing is the stupidest, most insane pile of s*** I've seen for a while, and there's some nice turd piles laying around this election. Does ANYONE of these people know how our markets really work and what causes our economic prosperity? (Hint: you don't allow the government to gain control of ANYTHING it wasn't designed to).

 

[Texsox]

OK, we all raise prices en mass, then the people just end up paying for their healthcare thru higher prices. How much extra would I need to generate to cover the 'charges'? $200 per employee? $400? $50? If I had to add another $2000+ per month to cover this so-called 'free health care', I would have to add about $16 per invoice to cover it (at a $2000 cost). That would be about a 5% increase, just for that program. not to mention that all of MY costs are goign to go up as well from whatever suppliers of mine have to pay the fee, so my prices have to go up even more. Figure at least another 5%, probably closer to 8%. This would also be an overnote jump once the plan is implimented, so we would just end up being like the gas stations, raising our prices dramatically in one day. Those $40 business cards now cost $45. The $350 mailing job now costs almost $400. And not just me, the corner convenience store raises the Pepsi price from $1.35 to $1.50. That .99 hot dog special now costs $1.12. The new tires for your car just went from $400 to $440. Someone has to pay for it. Eventually it will be consumers, but the government is just trying to use business as the tax collector.

Instead we are paying tax money for health benefits through Medicaid, CHiPs, and other health care for the working poor programs. Tell me, if one of your employees found out he had a tumor that needed to be removed, who should pay for it and do they have the resources?

[kapkomet]

Instead we are paying tax money for health benefits through Medicaid, CHiPs, and other health care for the working poor programs. Tell me, if one of your employees found out he had a tumor that needed to be removed, who should pay for it and do they have the resources?

According to you, we all should. The government should say where we get treated, when we get treated, and who treats us. I'm sorry... not in my country. I would rather keep that choice, thank you.

 

Oh wait, now I will hear that most people don't get a choice. I personally think there are ALWAYS choices. It's what you choose to do ultimately.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Instead we are paying tax money for health benefits through Medicaid, CHiPs, and other health care for the working poor programs. Tell me, if one of your employees found out he had a tumor that needed to be removed, who should pay for it and do they have the resources?

How about, not me? Right now, all my peeps have insurance thru their respective spouses. I have had one guy work for me the last 15 years who didn't, and for him I purchased a catastrophic insurance policy with a high deductible. He breaks a wrist, he is stuck. Gets in a car wreck and is in the hospital for weeks, he is covered. Cost ME about $500 a month.

[kapkomet]

How about, not me? Right now, all my peeps have insurance thru their respective spouses. I have had one guy work for me the last 15 years who didn't, and for him I purchased a catastrophic insurance policy with a high deductible. He breaks a wrist, he is stuck. Gets in a car wreck and is in the hospital for weeks, he is covered. Cost ME about $500 a month.

That's something that should be looked at is "catastrophic" health insurance. As opposed to going to the doctor for every little sniffle, and charging it to insurance, that could be an alternative to drive health insurance costs down (that and tort reform).

 

I know I'm extremely blessed on my health benefits, as I probably have the best package I've ever seen where I'm at (and I've seen a lot of packages). However, some of the shift should be on the individual and a way to fix the system... not have our government do it for us.

 

 

 

[Texsox]

According to you, we all should. The government should say where we get treated, when we get treated, and who treats us. I'm sorry... not in my country. I would rather keep that choice, thank you.

 

Oh wait, now I will hear that most people don't get a choice. I personally think there are ALWAYS choices. It's what you choose to do ultimately.

Whaaaat? Where did you get that idea?

 

The taxpayers are all paying now for uninsured, the working poor, the indigent, the workers whose employers will not offer that benefit. I'd like to see a better system. So far in this thread there is one proposal, making employers responsible and your snarky comments assuming my views.

[Texsox]

Cost ME about $500 a month.

 

Which many employees do not understand. That is about $3 an hour benefit. Probably is about 20% or more of his cost to you.