You didn build that !

One other thing.
I do not agree with you on politics, Skicat, but that is not the defining facet of a person. You have shown a great deal of courage to share your health struggles with us. Thank you for being so open and candid about your experiences, I don't believe that many here would do what you did. I hope to meet you sometime. Since you have had to give up your boat, I hope you have a "ski buddy" to take you out in theirs when you are better.

GlassSeeker wrote: Why is it working so well in MA? I guess when it comes down to it, you have the truth and you have republicans but the two shall never meet.

Its not, between half and two-thirds of those uninsured before the plan was implemented remained so in 2008. That’s a far cry from universal coverage. Originally, the plan was projected to cost $1.8 billion in 2008, it exceeded those estimates by $150 million. Over the following 10 years, projections suggest that Romney Care will cost about $2 billion more than was budgeted.

TX Wind wrote: skicat2001 wrote: The democrats never think about where is the money come from first. Just stamp it and we will figure it out is not a real great model for America. I do believe that it was Clinton that balanced a budget. He insisted on it. Wouldn't let congress chop Medicare up to do it or rob SSI. We went to 3 emergency budgets over it. The president proposes the budget to congress and signs off on it in the end. So he is the start and finish of that buck. You see....as much as they would like to, the Republicans can not take credit for balancing the budget. THEY FOUGHT IT LIKE CATS AND DOGS! And who took us right back to deficit with his first budget? Oh yeah, that was George Bush...a Republican. And now that he's handed a freight train out of control over to Obama it's suddenly Obama's fault. But like Joe pointed out, Obama's deficits in his budget proposals are getting smaller not larger. That's in contrast to Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Seems to me that it's the Republicans wanting to print it now and sort it out later. Look it up. Then tell me some arbitrary statement of fallacy like that.

I love how you guys revise history. Clinton was forced to the middle buy Gingrich and the republican lead house in his second term. Only then did he agree to the balanced budget.

OverMyHead wrote: JoeinNY wrote: I still dont understand do we need a small government to get out of businesses way, or do we need a big strong government that can control the price of gas? Joe, What says we are limited to only those two options. How about a small government that stays out of our way and does not block its citizens from the use of their natural resources?

He was being sarcastic, saying that Republicans can't make up their minds. They are either trying to create one or the other.

LOL...and if you really think that tapping our country out would fix it, you're deluded. We don't have enough here to make a dent. What's more, there's a certain amount of national security concern that goes with that.

Most of the people I know that are voting for Obama are doing so because he is a democrat. That's it. They say they always vote democrat. They don't know or care about the issues. They vote democrat. That is there only reason, and that is pretty sad.

john b wrote: L skicat2001 wrote: Then, you will be free to pursue your own self interests without any artificial constraints on your way of thinking. And that is a sure recipe for hell. The devil is only too happy for people to make up their own moral codes based on what they “feel” is right. I am just making a point, I thought you would understand. I know you need the assistance and you contributed and earned it. Everyone makes mistakes and, with any luck, learns from them. As I said before, we must all have hopes and dreams, and I really do hope you can save something for them. Medical care is such a basic need that it is amazing some really want to take what small progress we have made. It sounds like you have the support of your family, and that is a big help to anyone. Your response demonstrated my point. When I said you were on the dole, you gave me a very quick and stern rebuke explaining that you paid for your benefits. You were also very quick to previously point out that that it is just about impossible to live on your benefits, and that you can't wait to get back to work. This is how most view accepting benefits. I have seen so many people criticize others for being on food stamps and being overweight, or having cable, or a tv, or a car or this or that, but most of them can't wait to get through their hard times, just like you. I would like to see more compassion for others problems. I saw so many sad stories like yours during my working career. Good luck on your recovery. I hope you are skiing soon. Never lose the dream or forget where your benefits come from.

TX Wind wrote: OverMyHead wrote: GlassSeeker wrote: Giving tax breaks to the rich has never helped the middle class, it's been proven to fail over and over, we're not going to try it again. Romney is toast. Andy, Do you remember Regan? His trickle down economics brought down unemployment from 10% to 7.5 in his first 4 years and down to 5.5% after his second term. That had a major positive impact on the middle class. He left office with a 63% approval rating. That is also hard to get without the help of the middle class. Kennedy did it with success also. Along with a few others. Socialism has failed all over the world again and again. That would be incorrect. Check the U.S. Bureau of Statistics. It was 7.5 when Reagan took over, peaked at 10.8 in his first term and averaged 7.5 over the 8 years. In other words...he didn't have a hell of a lot of impact.

Reagan was the best president in my life time. And yalls facts are wrong. Reagan inherted 12% unemployment rate and dropped to 10.4% during the war. His second term it went to 5.00%. And used it by lowering taxes. You folks I cant beleive you dont understand by taxing the people over 250,000, you cripple the job creators of this world. Small business etc. They can not and will not hire anyone, and by more taxes and OBAMACARE , small business will lay more people off. They need tax releif. BAD!! Then all these crappy federal regulation cripples them too. It is a states job not the federal goverment.
Now you should wonder why companies are doing business are overseas. High ass corporate tax rates. If tax rates where 15% in one country and 40% here in America, well guess where I am going. OVERSEAS!! I dont blame them one bit. You are in business to stay in business.

Obama's 90 billion dollars on green energy is one example. AND THEY ALL WENT BANKRUPT.   

The numbers seem to be turning in Romney's favor, Gallup 51%:45%, jobless claims up and Obamas record isn't good despite legitimate reasons why it may be so poor. It's going to be a close race, but Romney could very well be our next President.

So what's in store for us? If Obama wins, more of the same for at least the next year and maybe further, but if Romney wins what will we see? Business rebounding at least in the short term due to perceived optimism with a Rep in office?, higher interest rates?, firing Bernake which I think could cause big problems at least short term?

Romney being elected would help business? Not likely considering all real growth in the stock market over the last 80 years has happened under democratic presidents. Under Obama corporate profits are at an all time highs and the stock market has fully recovered. Businesses react badly to any change and only those that stand to receive direct handouts from a Romney presidency will experience any sort of bump, ie defense, financial, and oil. The rest of business leaders will do what we have been doing all summer -wait and see what happens with the new wildcard in the game.. no unnecessary hiring and no unnecessary investment till 6 months minimum into the Romney agenda.   Until then record car sales… fall off, housing recovery… put on hold, 401ks moved from stocks into savings causing a ten percent drop in value is my estimate.

Long term not much difference after 4 years except Romney will increase the debt and deficit much more than Obama would and we will get another 4 years away from controlling health care costs, fixing Medicare, and addressing our nations crumbling infrastructure. Well not much difference unless you or a family member is in the military cause there is no way Mitt won’t put soldiers on the ground the first chance he gets, that’s why he wants all those illegals to join the army.

So if he wins (doubtful considering the small chance mitt has of taking ohio), when all this happens I don’t want to hear from all those who voted from him how it is all Obama’s fault.

As for people voting for Obama just because he is a democrat and that being an equal phenomenon, well that is just factually wrong. Not that there aren’t people who do that certainly there are, but that it is an equal occurrence with republican voters is a complete lie. The amount of republicans who do not vote party line is a tiny fraction of the amount of democrats who do not vote party line.   For example reagan democrats are relatively common, however Obama republicans are a truly rare beast.   (which is odd considering Obamas actual and proposed tax rates are so much lower than Reagans were) Were this not the case democrats would never lose a national election as they far outnumber republicans.

Riley wrote: Joe, do you think interates will rise if Romney fires Bernake like he said he would do a couple weeks ago? Housing is just starting a slow turnaround at these incredibly low rates. If rates rise, housing will decline. Three weeks out and Romney seems to be gaining ground even in Ohio. I used to have a neighbor, an old Irish guy from NY that said to me "deaf, dumb or dead, if they're democrat, I vote for them".

You hear that stuff in NY, but certainly not in the rural areas very often, however like I said it happens on both sides, . Conversely there are entire states in the south that the republican primary is the only race that matters.

We have heard our good friend from texas Lee proudly make similar statements about the republicans in every language possible...

If interest rates go up to historically normal levels rapidly there would certainly be a double dip recession due to housing sales declines (and the associated consumer demand created by those furnishing new houses and with cash in their pockets due to refinanced morgages), and servicing the national debt would greatly increase the deficit. I don’t see anyone taking over that office attempting to do anything beyond slowly bringing up rates over 4-5 years starting in 2014, certainly not anyone that could be confirmed by the senate as being qualified to hold the office. No doubt Romney will once again become a believer in the power of loose Monetary policy the second he is sworn in.

As for Romneys gains of late there hasnt been a post debate poll yet so I am not moving my money out of the stock market yet

harddock wrote: Once again Joe... You write alot of words and say nothing!

Joe, I think he has your number... Best to hang up the phone. Please call back in 20 years and tell me if you are better off.....Boat dr

" if given enough money a rock can be made to fly "

Joe makes perfect sense, thats why you guys can't understand a word he says.

GlassSeeker wrote: Joe makes perfect sense, thats why you guys can't understand a word he says.

Its more like the story of the king with no clothes. The left likes a popular story even when goes against logic. The right trust their own eyes and look for some substance.

It's like the old biblical saying....."Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach the man to fish, and he can feed himself for a lifetime".

The left gets their power from doling out a little bit of govt cheese every month, and trapping the poor into a lifetime of dependency on the govt. It is very obvious Obama very much wants this model to flourish, and unfortunately, the nation seems to be at a tipping point where people that want this out number people that don't want it....ie....more people riding in the cart than pulling it.

The right believes in limited govt and allowing business conditions to develop so people can work, become self sufficient and take care of themselves and their families.

How has LBJ's "War on Poverty" worked over the past 50 years?? Not well!! Trillions of government spending, and the poverty rate is virtually the same as in 1964.

The government's safety net has become a hammock for too many people.

JoeinNY wrote:     Several of our members seem to suffer from an acute case of foxification - a condition where they cannot comprehend/tolerate any statements longer than one sentence, don't rhyme, that require the acceptance of reality, belief in science, knowledge of history, or in any way use math.

This begs the age old question....I am like this because I watch Fox News, or, do I watch Fox News because I am like this?!?!