Do you want a bigger, socialized government? That's what you're signing up for if you go with Obama. Our government, the most inefficient, wasteful spender running our healthcare system, as will be the path he will take, seems ridiculous to me. Government can't run jack properly, but somehow it can do the healthcare business properly. Riiiight.

Yes we can, I fully support a tax based health care system (tho Obamas really trying to drive down costs). But I am a progressive..lol;^]

bigger, more socialized government...... you're starting to scare me... Yeah, i think that's why i liked Ron Paul so much. Haven't heard too many other candidates preach about cutting back on government control/socialization/interference, and actually attempting to make things less complicated. But i knew congress wouldn't stand for it. Since when has the government actually made things better by taking more control?

Oh, so you support punishing the successful with much higher taxation to pay for the costs of this mandated healthcare system. Obama stated that all uninsured MUST have healthcare, and thus be forced to pay for it, be it directly from the purse of the successful so be it.

Punishing the successful with higher taxation is disasterous and will lead to higher unemployment, for who do you think hires the working class? The poor? No, middle and high income. Tax them higher and they can't afford as many workers and can't afford them at the wages, thus they either fire or cut wages.

Europe is a fine example of this.

lol.. the mandate is actualy Hillary. We're already paying for healthcare, it's stolen through ear marks and pork barrel spending. Cut most of these & we don't need higher taxes;^]

yeah she scares me too....

"Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan."

Look how he says a national plan and how employers are forced to pay for the 'national plan'. It's the underlying words of his statements that are interesting for they shed like how far stretching and mandating this 'national plan' will be.

Like Obama is going to shut off his fellow Democrats from pork after he has been getting the direct support from those who love to use it, like Harry Reid. Bold claims.

This is ridicules. Do you know how many Billions Bill Gates would have If they took 50% of his money? Do you think Bill goes around pinching penny's. The rich will not be hurt one bit by higher taxes. They do not even have to think about the money they pay out now for anything. If Paris Hilton can't buy herself another Gold plated Dog chain for her Chwawa. Too bad.

Yeah, making corperations look after their employees is such a bad thing..lol. Pork spending knows no political party, republicans do it too, pork spending under a republican congress was just as bad. Obama has shown he can stand the middle, he fully has my support;^]

Oh by the way I think I am glad that all you have is this silly false claim that has been proven wrong long ago. It was used and wasted in the primaries and now when the real elections come at least 75% of the population will know the truth. That means all the swing voters will finally see what kind of lies the right pumps out.

Why stop at 50%? Let's take 75% of his success and have the government use it as it feels is necessary. Let's take 50% of those making $30,000 too, why not? With the government running everything they can live off $15,000. Heck, why don't we just turn all the money over to the government and they can provide everything we need in life?

This is exactly my point.You Republicans always want to tax the guy making $30,000 because you can't stand to think of the rich guy not having two Rolex's. Well we're in a war and your going to have to tighten your belt poor little rich boy, only one Rolex for you and the other one will be used to make sure all kids have health care in America. Guess what. Since it is money from you rich guys I don't give an F%^* that it is not stream lined. (however since it won't need to make a profit the whole thing will be cheaper) If it is good with you I say we do not tax anyone under $75,000 and we take all the rest from the people who make more. That sounds fair to me. After all the police protect at lot more at the rich mans house then he does for the guy in an apartment, the fire department is going to be saving many more dollars when he puts out the fire at the rich mans house, the airport that are built on the taxes of the middle class are much more likely to be used by the rich also. So lets get them paying a fair share. They can afforded.

My point is this is the billionth freaking f*ck Obama topic in these forums.

From you rich guys? lol

Poor little rich boy? lol

First of all, I'm a registered Democrat, second of all I'm a grad student barely able to pay my way without amassing student loan debts...lol.

I was using the $30,000 as an example. Let's boost it to $100,000, why not take 75% of it? 50% isn't good enough, the government can surely use the money better anyways, right?

I don't see the merit in punishing those who have become successful through hard work and ingenuity with insane taxation of their success. I'd rather welcome the rich to become more rich through the advancement of society by providing services, goods, and technology and thus supporting the betterment of society by boosting wages and employment as profits increase, which allows them to contribute back into the economy through vast spending of their wealth.

couldnt agree more....

Where do you think these wealthy people are cutting back now??

The Hiltons are not going around deciding how much they will spend based on the the amount of tax they pay. They buy whatever they want whenever they want. No matter what you do with their taxes it will not effect their spending.

Trickle down. AKA Voodoo economics. I'd also like to point something out about tax rates. Because someone's top bracket is 38% or whatever the figure is, it does not mean that they are taxed at 38% on ALL of their income. Just the amount above wherever that bracket starts.

Also, regarding government policy in general. I agree with you to an extent, Star. I agree with the statement that "the government that governs least governs best". There is a corollary to that, however, that I also believe. I belive in "as little government as possible, but as much as is necessary". If only the free market always produced results acceptable to society. Government is "We The People" stepping in when the free market fails. For instance, without government intervention, our country would be one seriously polluted and unhealthy place. Polluting businesses would never comply with clean air and water standards voluntarily. That's just one example. Does government have it's nose in places it doesn't belong? Of course. There will always be debates about how much regulation is too much. And that's what we as a society have to decide. Where to draw the line.

Bottom line as I see it. The free market does not always work like we want it to, so hence, some regulation is necessary.

You want to know the short and sweet truth about obama. He is not black, he is half arabic and half hawian. His father was a radical muslim with anti-american views. His father drilled these same princables into his head for the first several years of his life. He was muslim untill recently renouncing it for chritiantiy due to public presure. All this info was obtained from cnn through his oficial biography. ( sorry about the spelling im in a hurry)

actually Obama is obviously the least qualified candidate among McCain, Obama and Clinton to be president. he will have the most difficulty in affecting positive policy if elected. his main campaign promise of "change" is a weak empty nothingness. his campaign supporters claims that he is like the reincarnation of JFK/MLK as a speaker are merely self-serving and make them all look silly. his ties to the powerful and sleazy are as strong as those of McCain or Clinton. he does have some personal charisma but not anywhere near the level of JFK or MLK. despite my comments above, i don't dislike Obama particularly - i am just disappointed in the candidate selection in general and (perhaps somewhat cynically) i see Obama as inexperienced and disingenuous...so it just looks bad to me...

it is a weird primary year all the way around. the best speaker (and candidate) on the tour is probably still Bill Clinton!