Michelle Obama rumor- October surprise

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by BabyPiNK_FL

Had to chime in on that South Park episode:

Diddy: I like it when you vote B****/Shake them ti***es when you vote B****!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hilarious!

And yeah, given the choice between douche and turd sandwhich, I think I'm going for Cynthia McKinney.

Wow. The only thing likely to be worse than a douche or a turd sandwich. She is seriously crazy. Have you followed her long?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

As a teacher, I don't think you're in the top 1% of the income earners in this country (I know, it's a big let down, but your pay isn't that great, really). He says that he would only increase taxes for those in the top 1% and would actually make the tax breaks larger for those in our tax bracket. And, if we weren't paying for Iraq every day, we'd be saving a lot of $$ too.

But, that is my biggest concern with him too.

How do you reconcile the top 1% of income with the 75,000 dollar income threshold that Obama has mentioned previously?

Do you really think he's going to be able to get out quick in Iraq? Quick enough that we'd be talking about substantial cost savings? Even if we could do it, I don't think it's be the right thing to do, but I really don't see it happening even if he is elected. What do you think?

ETA: I find Obama pretty likable and I think I'd like to have him as a professor, but I just don't want the government trying to do more for us since what they do already they do relatively poorly.

[shinerbock]

Cynthia McKinney is perhaps the most disgusting human on the planet. The 15 seconds I spent with her on a capitol elevator were among the worst in my life.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

How do you reconcile the top 1% of income with the 75,000 dollar income threshold that Obama has mentioned previously?

Do you really think he's going to be able to get out quick in Iraq? Quick enough that we'd be talking about substantial cost savings? Even if we could do it, I don't think it's be the right thing to do, but I really don't see it happening even if he is elected. What do you think?

ETA: I find Obama pretty likable and I think I'd like to have him as a professor, but I just don't want the government trying to do more for us since what they do already they do relatively poorly.

I haven't read all of his documents in a while but I thought it was tax cuts for those under $75K, tax increases for the top 1%. Don't quote me on that though. As I said, I have real concerns about how it's all going to be paid for. Then again, most of what candidates promise don't happen because they find out what they're up against when they actually get into office.

I think we need to have a plan for when we're getting out of Iraq and stick to it. The Iraqi government will lean on us forever rather than take responsibility, if we let them. If they know we're getting out and we actually follow our plan, I think it will be fine. In fact, I think violence in Iraq will decrease because the insurgents are insurging against US more than against their own government.

None of these plans are going to be implemented the day the guy is elected. And, as I said, baby steps toward the ultimate goal are what is realistic. I don't think 4 years is enough time to make a significant difference in our country.

The key issues that I want to see addressed are health care, social security, the economy and the war. Those are my 4 biggies. I would also like to retain as many personal freedoms as possible. Each individual has their own hot button issues though.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I haven't read all of his documents in a while but I thought it was tax cuts for those under $75K, tax increases for the top 1%. Don't quote me on that though. As I said, I have real concerns about how it's all going to be paid for. Then again, most of what candidates promise don't happen because they find out what they're up against when they actually get into office.

I think we need to have a plan for when we're getting out of Iraq and stick to it. The Iraqi government will lean on us forever rather than take responsibility, if we let them. If they know we're getting out and we actually follow our plan, I think it will be fine. In fact, I think violence in Iraq will decrease because the insurgents are insurging against US more than against their own government.

None of these plans are going to be implemented the day the guy is elected. And, as I said, baby steps toward the ultimate goal are what is realistic. I don't think 4 years is enough time to make a significant difference in our country.

The key issues that I want to see addressed are health care, social security, the economy and the war. Those are my 4 biggies. I would also like to retain as many personal freedoms as possible. Each individual has their own hot button issues though.

I think a lot of people would disagree with that.

But I think you're right about what Barack has said on taxation. Cuts for people under 75k, no new cuts for people over 75k, and increases for the top 1%.

Regarding personal freedoms, are you pointing toward patriot act stuff, or a host of things? A lot of liberals assert similar concerns, but aren't bothered by personal freedom infringement when it comes to the 1st amendment (campaign finance), 2nd amendment (increased gun control), mandatory health care, decreased financial autonomy (taxation), etc.

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

You two are the only ones on GreekChat that I can't read posts from in the "News & Politics" section!

Really? Hmm, and I don't think I'm even that liberal.

I'm now determined to find some common ground with you. Maybe I'd have more luck in the Entertainment forum.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I think a lot of people would disagree with that.

But I think you're right about what Barack has said on taxation. Cuts for people under 75k, no new cuts for people over 75k, and increases for the top 1%.

Regarding personal freedoms, are you pointing toward patriot act stuff, or a host of things? A lot of liberals assert similar concerns, but aren't bothered by personal freedom infringement when it comes to the 1st amendment (campaign finance), 2nd amendment (increased gun control), mandatory health care, decreased financial autonomy (taxation), etc.

By personal freedoms, it's somewhat the patriot act, but moreso the legislating of values... abortion, gay marriage, the whole moral majority type of thing.

I don't see how ensuring that everybody has access to affordable health care is infringing on personal freedom. In fact, I see it as quite the opposite.

Doesn't it make you a little sick when you hear how much money is spent on financing these campaigns when there are people who can't afford their chemotherapy medications, food, housing, etc? The health care system I work for is giving away more than $100 million annually in care to the indigent and who ends up paying? The employees who don't get raises, who get laid off because there are no funds, whose corporate offices run out of trash bags and toilet paper because the funds are so tight. They've removed half the light bulbs from our light fixtures and shut off our escalator to save every penny they can. I'm very thankful to have a job, but the working conditions are getting pretty scary. They can't cut things like that at the hospitals, but they are cutting costs everywhere they can trying to keep their heads above water as more and more people need care but don't have insurance.

But, as I said, the personal freedoms have more to do with legislating morality/values that have nothing to do with "harm to others" or "infringing on others rights", especially when the reasons behind it are religious. I do think McCain is less dangerous with this stuff than some of the other candidates were.

I guess we won't know for sure about Iraq until we're actually gone.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I haven't read all of his documents in a while but I thought it was tax cuts for those under $75K, tax increases for the top 1%. Don't quote me on that though. As I said, I have real concerns about how it's all going to be paid for. Then again, most of what candidates promise don't happen because they find out what they're up against when they actually get into office.

Taxes

Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.

Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The “Making Work Pay” tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing payas-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than what they were in 2001 and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.

Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government’s high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.

End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.

Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient

End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350
billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.

Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.

Source: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama...tForChange.pdf

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by AGDee

By personal freedoms, it's somewhat the patriot act, but moreso the legislating of values... abortion, gay marriage, the whole moral majority type of thing.

I don't see how ensuring that everybody has access to affordable health care is infringing on personal freedom. In fact, I see it as quite the opposite.

Doesn't it make you a little sick when you hear how much money is spent on financing these campaigns when there are people who can't afford their chemotherapy medications, food, housing, etc? The health care system I work for is giving away more than $100 million annually in care to the indigent and who ends up paying? The employees who don't get raises, who get laid off because there are no funds, whose corporate offices run out of trash bags and toilet paper because the funds are so tight. They've removed half the light bulbs from our light fixtures and shut off our escalator to save every penny they can. I'm very thankful to have a job, but the working conditions are getting pretty scary. They can't cut things like that at the hospitals, but they are cutting costs everywhere they can trying to keep their heads above water as more and more people need care but don't have insurance.

But, as I said, the personal freedoms have more to do with legislating morality/values that have nothing to do with "harm to others" or "infringing on others rights", especially when the reasons behind it are religious. I do think McCain is less dangerous with this stuff than some of the other candidates were.

I guess we won't know for sure about Iraq until we're actually gone.

I agree, I'm not in favor of telling gay people they can't be gay. However, I am in favor of telling women they can't get an abortion in most situations, as the massive majority of abortions in America are used for birth control. I think it affects another life, and thus, no, it isn't merely a personal decision.

As for healthcare, I think telling Americans that they have to subscribe to a particular healthcare plan is absolutely an infringement. How is it not? They take your earned income and buy something for you that you could purchase on your own.

Sure it makes me a little sick. A lot of things do. That doesn't mean I'm interested in the government taking it over because they know "whats best" to do with those resources. That, to me, is much more frightening.

[UGAalum94]

Doesn't gay marriage legislate morality; it's just a different kind of morality? The government still remains in the business of sanctioning sexual unions. I think the gov't just ought to get out of the marriage game all together. Civil union benefits could exist for couples with children and everything else could be set up with separate contracts. I don't know for sure this is really necessary, but it seems flawed to view expansion of marriage as somehow a value neutral proposition which respects individual rights.

I agree with Shinerbock that I think abortion is a more complicated issue than just a political right for the woman because at some point in the pregnancy you have a second person there. I don't think most people really believe that this happens at conception (look at what we're into as far as fertility treatments) in regards to protecting that new "life", but I don't think that some of the reforms particularly that addressed procedures in the third trimester really can be classified neatly as wrongly restricting the mother's individual freedoms. Sure, banning them may restrict what she wants to do, but we'd recognize and accept that after birth she faces similar restrictions. I don't think the average American really believes that legally protected life begins at birth anymore than I really believe this average American believes legally protected life starts at conception.

I think that because we may rightly need to view the being in the womb as a legal person sometime before birth, there's no clean case to be made about deferring to the legal rights of the mother simply as a matter of principle or again as a clear matter of respecting individual rights.

And I think anyone who is presently insured will lose personal freedom with many of the potential solutions to the health care issue. Sure it will address the issue of who shoulders the cost of the uninsured, but it's going to come at a price to someone else. If you contrast systems of health care internationally, the cost of universal coverage is often choice and control over treatment.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't think the average American really believes that legally protected life begins at birth anymore than I really believe this average American believes legally protected life starts at conception.

It would be nice if we could decide what we want to do though. Other nations have set a limit. Personally, I believe that life begins at the moment of conception. However, I do not believe that life at an early stage is self-sustaining (obviously). I think abortion is murder at any stage, but I will always vote to allow abortion up to the end of the 19th week. From week 20 to delivery, I think that labor should be induced and the child given the opportunity to live. If it dies, at least it wasn't because its skull was crushed and body torn apart. Why not give the child the hint of a chance?

I've personally had to make the abortion choice twice in my life and elected against it both times. I would rather die myself than murder my child.

[RU OX Alum]

I think that life starts with breath. If you can't breathe for yourself, you can't live for yourself.

I say this as someone with asthma/severe allergies. It's the Breath of Life, not the "ultrasound which I think I can see the hands" of life.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

I think that life starts with breath. If you can't breathe for yourself, you can't live for yourself.

I say this as someone with asthma/severe allergies. It's the Breath of Life, not the "ultrasound which I think I can see the hands" of life.

When might that take place? The lungs are the last body part to be prepared for birth.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

When might that take place? The lungs are the last body part to be prepared for birth.

I'm not exactly sure, but whenever it happens, then the person/thing/whatever you call it (baby) has life.

I feel this way about death. My lungs have closed up before to the point where I thought I was checking out. Luckily I had my inhaler. I would not want to be put on any form of breathing machine at the hospital, especially if I couldn't speak/communicate on my own. It's scary to not be able to breath, because we need breath. You can for about 12 days or so with no food, about 2 or 3 with no water and only at most 2 minutes without oxygen/air (breath). So to me, it just makes sense to start life with breath.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

When might that take place? The lungs are the last body part to be prepared for birth.

If one accepts the breath=life correlation, wouldn't it begin when the child starts to breath on its own, or is capable of doing so?