@michael: not only that, but he gets angry and insults you for not buying what he is peddling! Good riddance!

St Swithin should be banned from posting due to his woeful ignorance.

H.E. Pennypacker needs to come up with a better riposte than that to be taken seriously!

The only point I would add to St. Swithin's post is that review panels exist right now at every major insurance company. They decide who gets treated, who gets the cheaper, less effective meds instead of state-of-the-art treatments, and who dies, all based on their bottom line. Who thought allowing a middleman to get involved in people's health care was a good idea? Doctors don't get paid, people cut back on medications and services, and patients can't afford enormous premium payments and the co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pocket expenses on top.

Privatizing Medicare helped no one except the for-profit insurance companies. Medicare was enacted because seniors couldn't get affordable private health insurance. Why on earth would we want to roll back to the bad old days?

And who on earth would even think up such a harebrained idea? Someone who is a millionaire and has a sweet Congressional health care plan to retire on. Like his atheist philosophical idol Ayn Rand, Collectivism is bad for you and me, not them.

Pennypacker, Alfred, and all the rest of his sock accounts should be banned from posting until s/he/it can provide intelligent commentary and arguments rather than simple attacks.

@Bren -

Once again spreading propagandist LIES!

Who forces anyone to buy and/or use health insurance? You can pay direct, cash out of pocket, as you utilize services, as Hoffa ALWAYS does, and maintain a policy solely for catastrophic care, as insurance was originally intended to be used.

Where is it in Romney's 57 point plan to privatize Medicare? Hoffa can't find that anywhere.

Ryan's plan doesn't privatize Medicare - it merely reforms the benefit outlay of the program and gives people greater control over their healthcare decisions, instead of vesting more control in the hands of big government.

And again, Ryan has the same Medicare as everyone else. If Congressional members have a supplemental plan that's included in their compensation package, how is that Ryan's fault? Many employers offer their retirees supplemental coverage in retirement - it's part of the overall compensation package.

Mr. Hoffa, you always accuse me of doing the things you yourself do! It's just unworthy of a fellow kdrama fan (looking forward to this fall's new sageuks btw).

You apparently represent one of the happy few who can afford to fund your own (praying it never happens) cancer, degenerative disease or major accident recovery. As I understand it, even catastrophic policies place a cap on catastrophy.

Now, Paul Ryan claims that he is not destroying Medicare, and the actual fact is that he is not changing the word "Medicare." But how it works, and how it helps aged Americans achieve a dignified retirement, does. No one is blaming Ryan for his sweetheart Congressional package, not even those who denigrate teachers and public workers for having a pension.

I do appreciate the irony of atheist passport bride adultress B-Novelist B-philosopher Ayn Rand taking advantage of evil Collectivist products like Social Security and Medicare when it suited her to do so, and that her wide-eyed prodigy Paul Ryan stands to do the same.

Thanks, I'll cast my vote to preserve our social investments and make strategic cuts to reduce the deficit without hurting ordinary Americans. 파이팅! ; )

Bren:

What is this 'sweetheart congressional package' you keep referring to? Many members of congress receive Medicare...

McCain is a big government guy and yes he would have tried stimulus. It would have failed also. Although it would be hard to find worse spending ideas than Obama.

3. Oil will run out many years from now, but Obama policies lead to more dependence on middle east, while wasting money on useless projects like Solyndra. We could go after our own energy resources and strengthen our economy. Does anyone really think we will be making solar panels here without subsidies? We need a short and medium term energy plans that use practical sources. Solar is along way from being practical.

Romney's plan does reduce rates but my point is he is not proposing increasing taxes on middle class that is the lie.

5. The Ryan plan is a premium support plan that gives people a choice of gauranteed coverage, like many have at work. The choice is leave medicare as is for those over 55, and reform for those of us under 55 or have a panel that will choose what services to deny current and future retires. Most would rather have the choice themselves rather than leave to government.

6. The first two years filibusters were the only way to have input. After Obama was elected and GOP brought ideas for his stimulus he said " elections have consequences and we won". There were so many moderate GOP Senators that if he was not so extreme it would have been easy to get some GOP support. Bottom line what they stopped was good for the country. He was not blocked on anything that would have made the economy or jobs better. The only so called jobs bill they topped was another ridiculous stimulus repeat he proposed last year.

@Bren -

As Hoffa stated, he has the catastrophic care policy to provide for any contingent, uncertain catastrophes, such as the ones you listed. Hoffa's cat care policy is capped at up to $5M in coverage and even supplements the injury care in his auto policy if the max limit on that policy is reached in an auto related injury.

While Hoffa loves both kdrama and jdrama, he actually prefers jdrama television and kdrama films. Hoffa's current jdrama addiction is 'Watashi Ga Renai Dekinai Riyuu.' Although familiar with its popularity, Hoffa has not personally seen an episode of 'sageuks,' but will check it out based on your recommend!

As Hoffa has explained many times before, Medicare is currently paying out more in benefits than the 'investment' that people make into the system. Obviously, this is unsustainable and the system will eventually go bankrupt under the status quo. Dem plans are to funnel $700M out of Medicare and into Obamacare and impose a bureaucratic and unelected panel to decide what kind of care is appropriate and under what conditions its deemed appropriate to implement such care, instead of leaving such decisions to the traditional doctor/patient relationship. Remember even under the Dem plan, the CBO projects that Medicare will become insolvent by 2024.

What the Dems refuse to say publicly is that in order to maintain Medicare, even under their reforms, and SS to the status quo, payroll taxes would need to be increased to near 20%. OUCH!!!

That means that under Dem policy, the average middle/working class family would see about 62% of their annual earned income consumed by government (federal, state, local) taxes! Would you be OK with only being able to keep $.38 of every $1 that you earn over the course of a year?

Ryan's plan reduces the benefit outlay to prevent insolvency and doesn't require an increase in payroll taxes - thus people can save and invest more of their own money into supplemental coverage plans or do what Hoffa's been doing for the last decade! And it keeps medical decisions in the province of the doctor/patient relationship!

Personally, Hoffa finds this to be a no-brainer!

As far as Rand and Ryan using SS and Medicare - it's not collectivist to use something that they were forced to pay for! If the government didn't take their money by force, via taxation, to fund those programs, then they wouldn't receive any benefits. In all reality, those programs should have been made opt-in from their inception.

Remember the intent/function of those programs was to eventually pay people back only what they paid into the system, with a little bit a interest to boot. In reality, the benefits paid out have far outpaced what people actually paid in.

And the ideology behind those programs is to treat adults like children - it's big government saying 'we don't trust you to spend, save, and invest your own money wisely, so we're going to forcibly take a portion of it from you, hang on to it, invest it, and pay it back to you under conditions that we decide, because we know better than you.'

It's insulting to anyone with half a brain! Government should treat adults like adults - not like little babies! Not to mention that the government's proven to be horrible stewards of our money! They raid the funds for other programs/spending endeavors, the way they 'invest' the money really just means us paying even more in taxes for the same benefits - it's just an all around catastrophe!!!

Let the people manage their own money! Those who are responsible will do just fine. And those who aren't won't be able to retire or might not be able to afford medical care - but it's a choice that they at least were able to make for themselves!

Isn't that what America is really all about - freedom of choice???

Or reform the programs to an opt-in system, as Hoffa suggests. Those who want big government can have it and those who don't won't be burdened by it - the best of both worlds!

St. Swithin- What moonbeam did you ride in on?
1. Under Obama, this has been the worst recovery under any President (including Carter). http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/080612-621175-obama-recovery-is-worst-in-postwar-history.htm?p=full
2. There is plenty of money in education. It is just poorly spent. Ex. A $10 million new central office in Racine and per pupil spending rising 15% since Obama took office nationally. In case you live in a cave, infrastructure spending has risen to all time highs. Just look at the Wisconsin Interstate system and you see plenty of infrastructure spending. This President has had no problem spending (the real term for investment).
3. Energy- That tired ole line that coal and oil will run out has been the Dems mantra since the 70's. And I think you miss the point that we have enough resources for carbon fuels in the U.S. and Canada if the wackos just let us drill it instead of worrying if some spider is going to go extinct. And sorry about the pollution, which just get rid of cows as they produce more methane and carbon pollution than all of the man-made carbon and methane polluters combined. At best, wind and solar will only be supplements to carbon based energy.
4. Romney doesn't want to punish anyone through the tax code. Read...
5 Where is your proof?
6. It's the Senate stupid. The House keeps passing bills...Budget, Reid is the problem!

@Brian Dey
Getting your research from PRI? The cover group for Exxon to deny climate change? Here's where the article you linked to deliberately skews data -
1. They omit the length of the recessions, focusing on a 3-year window of the recoveries for GDP growth while not telling you what those dates are.
2. For unemployment they suddenly switch to an 11-month window and they use an 'employment-population' ratio instead of just employment numbers.
3. They totally ignore the Great Depression.
If you want a true comparison of recoveries try this site: http://tinyurl.com/6gs6xrk

All the boos mean is that the AARP propagandists have been effective in spreading their lies--remember the push granny off the cliff advertisement?

Cow, who can support a plan that's going to make health care unaffordable for many seniors? This question never seems to get an answer: what happens to the person whose savings, like so many others, has been decimated by the recession and can't afford an additional $6,000 in medical expenses per year (Ryan's plan)? Do they wait until they collapse and then taxpayers get to spend even more money taking care of more urgent health issues? Should they just die, then? What's the plan? That's the push granny off the cliff question.

Sorry, I've been investing in Medicare and Social Security for years and I want what I paid for, and so do a lot of other folks, based on the polls.

The prospect of being handed a voucher and told to find private insurance while making up the difference myself, especially when my retirement portfolio is less than it ought to be after two significant losses during the Bush years, fills me with dread. Yes, I know we folks over the age of 55 are supposed to be exempt, but I doubt that will last very long as further savings will be required in the years to come -- right around the time I'm very elderly and expensive to insure.

Not to mention, the plan is unfair to folks like Bren and my son.

Randy, according to what I read your pharma prices would go up almost immediately. Romney has said/changed his mind about repealing ACA/parts of ACA so that could mean the Medicare doughnut-hole could reopen. The only ones who will benefit from the "inhumane" Ryan budget plan are the middleman insurance companies.

Please explain how the plan is going to make healthcare unaffordable?

If the voucher doesn't cover a private insurance plan (or even if it does), people can always choose to stay with medicare.

@Bren -- No, not unless the changes made all prescription drugs more expensive for everyone. I'm not currently old enough for Medicare, and what few prescriptions I have I pay for out of pocket. My mother, on the other hand, who is inform and reliant enough upon prescriptions to hit the donut hole, will be hit hard by the reinstatement.

Don't worry Randy1949, you will get your Obama free stuff, enjoy your Obama phone too.

@Pennypacker -- I reiterate, I pay for my own medicines and I pay for my own damn phone. Who was it who 'mandated' that seniors carry a drug plan that costs a tidy amount in premiums and leaves them poorly covered?

You also don't seem to be aware of which President created the program to provide low-income people with phone service. It wasn't Barack Obama.

@Bren -

"Sorry, I've been investing in Medicare and Social Security for years and I want what I paid for, and so do a lot of other folks, based on the polls."

Ummm... no, you don't - you apparently want more than what you paid for.

Medicare and SS are currently paying out more in benefits than people have paid into the system. This is unsustainable. Obviously, if you're paying out more in benefits than what people paid in, you're going to run out of money to pay out - and that's exactly what's happening as Hoffa types this! What are you going to do? The Dems answer is to reduce Medicare funding even further by funneling $700B out of Medicare and into Obamacare. How does that help the sustainability of the program? To the contrary, wouldn't that make the program go bankrupt even faster?

The only real solutions, which the Dems won't admit to, is to either raise payroll taxes significantly, thereby taking a good chuck of money out of middle/working class paychecks, OR reduce the amount of benefits paid out by the program and allow people to save up their own money for their older aged needs, as Ryan has suggested.

To properly fund Medicare and SS under current and projected status quo benefit outlays, payroll taxes would have to be increased to nearly 20%. So, between federal, state, and local level taxation, that means that most middle/working class families would be paying 60% of their yearly income into the governments.

Is that what you want?

@Hoffa -- I have two bundles of shingles to lay today, so I'm reluctant to start in on this, but you don't seem to grasp how that $718 shift from Medicare to the ACA works. It lowers the payments to Medicare providers, partly by shifting to outcome-based compensation, in return for the extra income to the hospitals for the newly insured patients with ACA-based health insurance. That's money that the hospitals won't have to write off for ER visits, etc. This is the sort of deal private insurance makes with providers all the time -- lower compensation in return for more business.

@Randy1949 -

So, what you're saying is that there will be just as many Medicare patients as there were before, but health care providers are going to be encouraged to perform less tests and spend less time with them, especially those with difficult to diagnose conditions, because of this "outcome based compensation." Sounds great!

And there are going to be even more younger people using subsidized health care because of Obamacare. So doctors will have many more patients, requiring a lot more work, but are going to settle for less compensation???

Weren't you just backing the Chicago teachers' strike that was essentially over more compensation for a longer work day? And yet, now you're saying that doctors need to work harder and longer for less compensation???

Man, you liberals and your spin - you're making Hoffa really dizzy.

What happens if doctors unionize and strike over the expectations and demands that Obamacare places upon them? Then no one gets treatment - sounds wonderful to Hoffa!

Well gee, what a surprise Romney wants to be president. I would never guess Obama doesn't want to be. Speaking of flip-flops, the media just covers up for the flipping hopping POTUS.

No, Hoffa, I'm saying that most of these younger patients showed up in the ER really sick and couldn't pay their bills. The hospital treated them anyway, but had to write off the debt. Now they'll have insurance. Roughly the same amount of patients seeking care, less bad debt. Perhaps more people seeking preventive care but less in the way of acute illnesses from neglect. Is that so hard to understand?

Bren wrote: "Cow, who can support a plan that's going to make health care unaffordable for many seniors?"

Bren, apparently you can. Obamacare did NOTHING that will curtail the rising costs of healthcare. NOTHING! What it do was force costs onto all of us by eliminating pre-existing conditions and lifetime limits. While these are great things to have, it will take alot of money to support them.

What we need to do is reasonable deregulation that will open up competition among health care insurers and providers.

@Randy1949 -

Has the reality of Romneycare in Mass played out the way that you're predicting Obamacare will play out nationally?

Hoffa thinks NOT!

Really Bren? With an oversampling of Democrats by as high as 17% and and undersampling of independents, Obama still can only get a 5% lead on average. Even top Democratic strategists are debunking polls like Gallup that use this methodology. And boy, the great communicator (Obama) sure is running away from the debates by trotting out the lemming surrogates to suggest that the almighty speaker Obama, isn't so much at debates.

Obam has shown what we can do for the economy. If he had done nothing, the recovery would have been better. But with a second term, we are looking at another long recession. And put back food and energy in the inflation equation like it was in Carter's days, and we would see a 27% inflation rate. We need more Tea folks in Congress to reign in the ridiculous, out of control spending going on in Congress. (Wow and you really have an obsession with the Koch Bros. Want their number?).

And we have seen his debacle of an apology tour backfire in the Middle East. Syria under fire, Egypt ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya out of control. Mark this prediction down; If Obama gets reelected, we will suffer an attack that will make Sept. 11, 2001 look like a playground fight. This guy has no clue of anything. His qualifications prior to his first term couldn't make him a bagger at Pick n Save. They are only worse now that we've seen him in in-action...

@JRH -- How well is the current national system working? Health insurance through an employer, or not, at the employer's discretion. Private plans affordable only for the young and healthy (and reasonably affluent). Uninsured people putting off preventive care and timely intervention in illnesses, showing up in ERs or unable to pay for catastrophic illnesses. Bad debts being passed on to paying patients in the form of higher hospital cost and insurance premiums. We spend twice as much percapita as other developed nations and have worse health.

Forget Massachusetts -- how about Hawaii? I hear positive things about their health coverage there.

The Emergency Room visits account for 2-4% of all dollars spent on healthcare nationally. About 1/5(20%) of all ER visits are un-insured. So, un-insured ER visits are in the range of 1/2 of 1% to 1% of the total dollars spent of healthcare in the USA.

@Jay Sykes -- But I wasn't talking about ER visits only. And FYI, we have always paid for our ER visits even while uninsured. They are expensive and I try to avoid them, but when it's your child . . .

The real problems come from the uninsured and underinsured who have severe illnesses and long hospital stays. They can't pay, so everyone else does. It would make much more sense to cover everyone and encourage timely intervention so that flu doesn't turn into pneumonia that requires two weeks in the ICU and the diabetes can be diagnosed and controlled before it causes blindness, heart attacks and amputations.

@Randy... Do you have any studies that indicate that the people of Massachusetts or Hawaii take better care of themselves and this has has translated into lower healthcare costs?

They say having diabetes is about 4/5ths a function of being over-weight. Weight related health care costs have been studied/measured and are calculated to be about 1/3 of all dollars spent on healthcare. Since the advent of their respective health insurance schemes, have the fine people of Massachusetts or Hawaii lowered their average BMI?

FYI: I think allowing individuals with catastrophic health issues on the current Medicaid/Medicare plan would be a good idea.

@Randy1949 -

The current system of pay as you go, cash out of pocket, at fair and negotiated rates, with a supplemental catastrophic care only policy has worked great for Hoffa until Obamacare came about - Hoffa's premium rates on his catastrophic care policy more than doubled since Obamacare was signed into law!

Where do you get the idea I'm "mooching off of the tax payers." I'm a taxpayer, I help pay for Paul Ryan' nice health care plan and pension. I also helped support Mitt Romney's $78,000 hobby tax deduction for the $2 million dressage horse. I'm supporting the salary of Todd Akin, who is transforming our understanding of female biology.

So, not a moocher. And not an enabler because I research my candidates and have a low tolerance for b.s.

@Bren -- Pennypacker/Alfred has limited imagination and an even more limited supply of insults. If you're not 'mooching' off the taxpayers, you're dependent on 'goobermint cheese' or a limp-wristed panty-waist. I strongly suggest he suffers from a bad case of projection.

I pay taxes -- federal, state, property-tax, and sales tax. If it weren't for 'moochers' like Mitt and Anne, deducting their dressage horse and their required tithe to their church, I might actually be able to pay a little less of my subsistence income in total taxation.

@Bren -

The taxpayer's did NOT help to support Mitt Romney's tax deduction for his dressage horse! It was a legal tax deduction, thus the money never belonged to the government!

And as far as Congressional pensions and supplemental health care plans are concerned, why aren't you calling upon or holding Democrats accountable for that just as much as Republicans? Another hypocritical Bren double standard!

And Hoffa is supporting the compensation packages of lefty nut jobs that he doesn't agree with such as Tammy Baldwin, Gwen Moore, Nancy Pelosi, etc! What's your point with this?

For having such a low tolerance for bs, you sure do sling A LOT yourself!

@Bren and Randy1949 -

If you guys are so upset about Mitt legally deducting his dressage horse and tithing to his church, then Hoffa guesses that you'll both be voting for Mitt, as he's the candidate that has proposed eliminating such deductions from wealthy Americans - Obama hasn't.

ROMNEY/RYAN/THOMPSON 2012!!!

He's also considering trimming the standard deduction and personal exemptions. At least it seems that way, because he's kind of vague on which 'loopholes' he's going to eliminate.

He also seems to be relying on lower taxes to create more jobs and federal revenue, and we know how well that went when it was tried before.

Mr. Hoffa, our tax dollars support the structure. Can't speak for anyone else and I'm not sharing for brownie points, but I don't report charitable giving on my tax return because that's not what my giving is about. I also don't have a problem paying taxes because that's part of what responsible, patriotic citizenship is about. I could write off some hobby expenses too, but I guess I'm not as "cheap" as Mr. Entitlement.

You're sort of getting my point about what taxes pay for--some we like, some we don't. And b.s. isn't just what you don't like, for the record.

Randy, it doesn't really seem clear on what Romney plans to do, does it? Seems like every audience gets a different conversation.

I remember a quote from a past Republican president, Abraham Lincoln: "No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar."

And that was in the days before smart phones!

@Randy1949 -

All we can do is look at what the candidates are saying and their records.

Romney has stated time and again that he will not take away any exemptions or deductions for those earning less than $200k/year in income. Either you believe this or you don't.

In 2008, Obama made a lot of promises - like closing Gitmo, renegotiating NAFTA, halfing the deficit, ending the wars on day 1, shovel ready jobs, unemployment below 8%, no mandate in his healthcare law, WH meetings will be broadcast on C-SPAN 3, etc. And he LIED about all these things and more.

Given the record and character of both men, Hoffa trusts Romney to tell the truth way more than Obama to tell the truth!

@Bren -

If you're claiming that you pay more in taxes than you legally need to, you're going to have to prove it by posting a copy of your last return with the personal info redacted, as Hoffa just doesn't buy that on mere face value!

Not a chance, Mr. Hoffa. ; )

@Randy1949 & @Bren -

The math adds up. If Romney's plan creates the kind of job growth that he's projecting, 12M new private sector jobs, we'll have12M more people paying into the system. With 12M more people working, they won't be draining from the system any longer either - so we'll actually be able to cut spending. With the combination of additional revenues and decreased spending, it will be possible to lower the marginal rates, without affecting middle/working class exemptions and deductions, and experience revenue neutrality - not that we necessarily need revenue neutrality, as Romney/Ryan plan to cut a lot more spending from the federal budget.

It works. Why Ryan couldn't explain it this way when being interviewed by Chris Wallace on Sunday is beyond Hoffa - maybe Ryan was just having an off day.

Granted, Hoffa prefers his proposed federal tax plan over Romney's, it's definitely better than the alternative of higher taxes across the board that is being offered by Obama and the Dems!

@JRH -- You say the math adds up IF Romney's plan creates the kind of job growth he projects. That is a very big 'if'. The Bush tax cuts did not create significant job growth, nor have Romney's business practices with Bain -- eliminating jobs, sending them overseas, and restructuring those jobs left behind to pay less. You ask us to have faith that something that has not worked in the past will magically begin to work now. I'm not buying it.

@Randy1949 -

You trusted Obama's projections that the stimulus would create 8M new jobs and lower national unemployment to below 8% - how's that working out for us? And where is outsourcing in Mitt's platform exactly?

You ask Hoffa to "have faith that something that has not worked in the past will magically begin to work now. [Hoffa's] not buying it."

@JRH -- I didn't trust any projections, actually. I just took a look at both candidates and decided it was a choice between another Hoover and another FDR at best, Carter at worst. So far, Obama has fallen between the two extremes. The stock market is almost back, jobs are recovering. It could have been so much worse.

@Randy1949 -

How exactly do Romney's proposed policy positions compare to Hoover's enacted policies?

Night and day difference there Randy! Not a very fair comparison at all.

@JRH --"How exactly do Romney's proposed policy positions compare to Hoover's enacted policies?

Night and day difference there Randy! Not a very fair comparison at all."

I have no idea how Romney's policies compare to Hoover's. If you'll recall, you asked me why I voted for Obama in 2008, not this election, so we're talking about McCain.

As an engineer I rely on facts, not emotions, to make my decisions. The Democratic party is the party of emotions and hurt feelings. I understood exactly what Romney was talking about with his "47%" comment, he told it like it is and it hurt some feelings. Maybe with a new president the country will become prosperous and we will be able to afford feelings again.

St Swithin
Engineers use logic and common sense to resolve problems, not finger pointing, drum banging, and irrational emotions. Save that for liberals and women with pms.

I think most engineers lean right, as do most other productive intelligent independent people.

@Swithwin... Per your above #6:"The GOP-controlled House set a record for filibusters under Obama." ------- The Senate has a filibuster rule, not the House. You must have a great memory [ and be very old ;-) ], as the house has not had a filibuster since 1842 (before the civil war).

@Jay Sykes replies with an actual fact! Thank you Jay. I acknowledge my mistake, but stand by the greater point, which is that both the Senate and the House have engaged in a record number of blocking tactics under Obama, whether that be closure votes, filibusters, et al.
@Hershel and @oak creek - You claim to support facts and logic, but can't actually respond to my statements like Jay did. '47%' is not a valid number in this debate and has little basis in fact. "Maybe with a new president the country will become prosperous" is a wish, not a fact. Clap harder, Hershel. Oak Creek's statement "I think most engineers..." is also wishful thinking with no basis in fact. You might have had a provable statement if you just left it at engineers, but you had to expand the statement to "most other productive...". Also note there is a difference between 'lean right' and 'rabidly believes everything a political party tells you'. That is my problem with Bryant.

Fact-
As an engineer I rely on facts, not emotions, to make my decisions.
Fact-
The Democratic party is the party of emotions and hurt feelings.
Fact-
I understood exactly what Romney was talking about with his "47%" comment
Fact-
he told it like it is and it hurt some feelings.
Opinion-
Maybe with a new president the country will become prosperous and we will be able to afford feelings again.

"Fact-
The Democratic party is the party of emotions and hurt feelings."

No, Herschal, that's an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. It makes me wonder why you can't tell your own . . . opinion from a fact.

Mitt did not tell it like it is. The percentage of people dependent on government is far lower than the 47% who use legitimate deductions and exemptions to owe no federal income tax. Soldiers, seniors, the working poor and lower middle-class who take no government handouts at all.

Or maybe senior citizens, folks who don't make enough to pay income tax but pay payroll tax, etc., aren't moochers at all but can't afford $50,000/plate to listen to Mr. Entitlement. It "hurt my feelings" to think that Mr. Romney seems to feel that almost half the country are write-offs. What happened to the old GOP ideal of empowering people?

@Randy1949 Wake up! Every time they mention spending cuts on TV they always have a Democrat appear to whine about 'victims' and suffering. This scare tactic is effective- that is the main reason why Obama is leading in the polls.

I am awake, McCluskey. I woke up around 1992, but 2011 really got my attention.

Yeah -- one side has victims and the other has those 'moochers' who don't pay their fair share. The thing is, when you lose your house or go bankrupt because you can't afford health insurance, it does hurt. Anne Romney having to pay for her own horse feed, maybe not so much 'hurt'.

Studies prove that individuals who are predominantly "left brain" have "conservative" mindsets. Studies also show that these individuals also tend to have enlarged amygdalae, the part of the brain that triggers the brain (faster than conscious thought). So Hershal, a statement that the Democratic Party is the party of emotion is factually--and grammatically--incorrect.

You are welcome to review my past comment history for links to some interesting articles on this subject or summon the Google powers for enlightenment. It's quite compelling and provides some rationale for some of the behavior we see from the Tea/GOP (Our Last Shred of Freedom!), etc.

It seems I hurt some feelings with a simple fact. Democrats....

@Randy1949 You have a good point, but I feel that the Democratic Party's tactic of playing on people's fears in order to get votes is devious and downright rotten. People have enough to worry about without a nationwide campaign that plays on everyone's vulnerabilities. Heck, there are those who have it real bad, but this crusade is certainly not helping.

@Bren and @Randy1949 -

Mitt didn't write off any Americans. The 47% comment was made in the context of a question pertaining to campaign targeting strategy.

But, if you're going to hold it against Mitt out-of-context, then you have to hold Obama's in-context and out-of-context actions against him if you're going to be consistent.

Obama gave a speech about his African Americans for Obama campaign targeting strategy, remember:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdjoHA5ocwU

Hoffa has looked and looked but can't find any speech from Obama about a White Americans for Obama, Asian Americans for Obama, Native Americans for Obama etc. campaign targeting strategy.

Thus, using Bren's and Randy1949's logic, Obama has written off all White American, Latin Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Indian Americans, or basically anyone who isn't African American.

Obama = racist POS!!!

ROMNEY/RYAN/THOMPSON 2012!!!

Don't forget, that 47% is spread out over all 57 states.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Hey Swithin, You drive a train? Whoo Whooo

@Hoffa -- I never said Mitt had written us off. What he said was both condescending, arrogant and incorrect. I suppose it never occurred to him that among that 47% might be those who work hard for little, take their rightful tax deductions and credits, manage to avoid the need for any government assistance because of that, and might well believe Mitt would improve the economy for them.

I understood the context -- he was telling people that there was a group that would never vote for him under any circumstances, but his reasoning and his attitude reeked.

I'm thinking that someone is posting under Randy's name in an attempt to misrepresent.

The last two posts seem to be made by different people even though both are under the same username...

...note that the 'second Randy' has only 1 post in his comment history, while the 'real Randy' has many.

Dammit -- This is the fourth or fifth time that someone has used my name and done this. Whoever you are (and I have a good idea) you are only proving your utter inability to contribute to a discussion on your own merit, plus your lack of any ethics.

Thank you, CowDung for pointing out that Mr. Fakeroo, above, could not be me.

Glad to do it Randy--there's no reason do resort to such dirty tactics.

I flagged 'his' comment--I hope the powers that be at Patch can block the person's IP address or something.

So far my imitators have only had their accounts deleted. I'm not sure Patch mods have the ability to IP block. I've gotten tired of running to the editors every time this happens, so if i say anything out of character, please check the account.

One thing is for certain -- I must be hitting a nerve to be getting trolled so frequently.

@Randy1949 -

So, let Hoffa get this straight - Romney was upfront, straight-forward, and brutally honest about his targeted campaign strategy, and yet you find him to be "condescending."

Meanwhile, Obama launches, with a grandiose speech, a race based targeted campaign strategy towards African Americans, but won't come out and be honest with the American people and admit that he's being racist - and yet you're OK with this?!?!

Even liberal MSNBC pundit Ed Schultz admitted that Obama likes to play the race card:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AedYE_WNlv8

But Obama won't come clean with the people and admit to it!!!

So, you prefer a guy who clearly plays the race card but denies doing so to the American people (a LIE), vs a guy who's straight-forward, upfront, and brutally honest, even if albeit he's a little "condescending."

COME ON!!!

So you prefer a LIAR over a straight-shooter - at least you admit to it!

@Randy1949, @CowDung, the imposter has once again been suspended – that's twice before and five more times this evening, the number of additional accounts he had created under different addresses. I regret that this parasitic maggot continues to infest the Patch, and I thank you both for your patience. I will bring this to the attention of Patch Support and, if there is a way to trace, identify and permanently suspend this poltroon, I will see that it is done. In the meantime, please do continue to bring any repetitions of the offense to my attention.

@Pennypacker, knowing that he can't argue the facts, continues to try attacking me personally, but manages to get that wrong too. So sad...

Divellbiss buys into a lot of questionable causes: Romney, Ryan, Thompson, Prophet Joseph Smith, etc. The kind of person that the government tries to protect from scam artists.

This Divellbiss statement is of interest, "'He will again make the claim he is for an 'all of the above energy policy.' Translation: we need to waste more money on green energy scams and use the EPA to effectively implement Cap & Trade so our Energy prices will 'Necessarily Skyrocket.'"

Why interesting? Because Cap & Trade and the EPA were both GOP constructs: Reagan/Bush 41 on C&T and Richard Nixon implemented the EPA.

It's difficult to understand the platform of the Republican Party because it flops and changes so much.

Like Cap & Trade/don't like
Like EPA/don't like
7 debt ceiling increases under GWB/debt ceiling increases bad
Filibusters bad/filibusters good

The old Federalist Party migrated so far from its core ideals that it marginalized itself.

Bren:

Is it really such a hard concept to think that the platform of a political party might evolve over the past 40 years or so since Nixon was in office, or that certain conditions might make something necessary while under other conditions, it would be avoided?

What you call "evolving" I consider doing a 180 degree turn. A person could get dizzy from the imbalance.

Cowdung, Bren can't fathom a political party evolving since he has been stuck in his party of ever-failing policies.

Nuitari, are you projecting? I don't have a formal party affiliation. Fathom this, if you will: I'm a moderate independent, I'm all about balance, and less about public discourse about lady parts and presidential candidates who write off almost half of constituents.

A 180 degrees change over 40+ years makes you dizzy, while you support the guy who evolved his stance on gay marriage over the past couple of years and made a 180 degree flip?

@Bren -

Obama wrote off everyone who's not African American - so how can you support him?

@Bren -

Just about as many flip flops as Obama:

Gitmo bad/Gitmo good
deficits bad/deficits good
debt bad/debt good
raising debt ceiling bad/raising debt ceiling good
shovel ready jobs/not as shovel ready as expected
above 8% unemployment bad/above 8% unemployment turning the corner
mandate in healthcare law bad/mandate in healthcare law good
NAFTA bad/NAFTA good
lobbyists not allowed in the WH/lobbyists for Solyndra have several WH meetings
TARP bad/TARP good
Korea/Colombian/Panamanian FTAs bad/Korea/Colombian/Panamanian FTAs good
buying made in USA good/buying buses made in Canada with tax dollars good
gay marriage bad/gay marriage good
inflation bad/inflation expected
WH meetings will be on C-SPAN 3/no WH meetings ever on C-SPAN 3
ambassador killed over YouTube video outrage/ambassador killed because of terrorist attack

This could quite literally go on forever!

Cow, that was a personal revision of opinion, not a party platform volte-face.

Mr. Hoffa, your comparisons appear to be mostly opinion-driven? Am I incorrect on any of the GOP platform switches that I mentioned? I know about these from reading about them in the media.

@Bren -

Yes, you're incorrect on most of them in fact!

Cap & Trade - The GOP still likes the concept (as opposed to a straight up carbon tax), just not the implementation and regulations that would be imposed by the Dems.

EPA - The GOP still believes in the EPA. They just believe that the EPA has overstepped its authority, is rifled in bureaucratic red tape, and many times imposes regulations that don't actually lead to the desired results. The GOP would like to make the EPA more effective and efficient - bring it back to what it was originally intended to be. You'd know this if you actually read the Party platform instead of merely relying upon Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow.

Debt ceiling increases - Throughout our history as nation, it has been common for President's to put wars on the credit card (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, etc). Bush was fighting wars. Obama promised that he'd end the wars on day 1 - take it to the bank. No wars, no need to use the credit card. Hoffa will admit that there is some hypocrisy within the party on this issue, so he'll actually give you full credit for this one ;-)

Filibusters - Used by both parties when ever gaining super majority control. What's your point about this? That's all a part of the political process, as opposed to the legislative process.

And Hoffa's comparisons are certainly not opinion driven - they are all FACT. Hoffa has provided more than substantial proof on these points in the past! If you don't believe Hoffa, do some research on your own - only try primary sources instead of your usual third party secondary sources!

BTW - Why won't you respond to the FACT that Obama is a racist, dismissing white people, asian people, native people, etc, under your asserted logic?

@Dirk -

There you go with your religious bigotry again! If Obama or Romney were a Muslim, would you be questioning the legitimacy of the Prophet Muhammad?

Here's some more detail on that poll from a legitimate news source (Washington Post). 63% of those polled believe Obama will win the election, 54% believe Obama is better trusted to handle women's issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/obama-holds-advantage-issues-romney-remains/2012/10/01/a1c09e72-0bb6-11e2-97a7-45c05ef136b2_page.html

@Bren The Washington Post already admitted that they did not do a background check on Obama in 2008 because they wanted him to win. Some legitimate news source!

Your point, mau? Will the insurance coverage at Case change because of the ACA? Are there no co-pays in Case's plan? The ACA means that people will have differing insurance plans, just like now.

But where is your concern for the parents who currently have no insurance if something like this happens? Where is your concern for the little girl, who will most likely have a pre-existing condition when she grows up? How could she afford health insurance without the ACA? How could her parents afford to insure themselves and her if Case lays off the working parent?

After re-reading the article (and I admit I missed that they were not married and had another child) my thought was does Case's insurance even cover the pregnancy as the couple was not married and they were not a gay couple. Or did the mother's employer provide insurance?

I fully realize that this baby will have life long medical issues. But not necessarily as my cousin had a tiny premie who survived and now has children of her own. Which brings me back to the point, with all these issues, will couples in this situation be forced to abort the baby or let it die under Obamacare?

50 or more years ago the baby would have been born and then left to survive on it's own or die. Or the hospital may have eaten the expense if the parents had no insurance. So will the taxpayer now be footing the bill through Obamacare or will there be conditions of what expense there can be to save the baby?

Obamacare is writing the guidelines that all insurance plans will have to abide by.

@mau -- 'Obamacare' as you insist on calling it, requires that all insurance plans cover certain things, including obstetrical coverage, which some plans were able to deny before. Nowhere does it limit what coverage may be purchased.

As for taxpayers footing the bill, taxpayers foot the bill for babies like this whose parents are on Medicaid. People with insurance policies foot the bill through their premiums. Under the ACA, we will either be eligible for Medicaid, have premium support for purchasing private health coverage, or be insured through employers.

Are you honestly suggesting that the ACA will insist that premature infants not be treated?

Even Barack refers to it as Obamacare.
http://www.barackobama.com/i-like-obamacare

Let's see what the future holds for Obamacare as the rules are still being written.

There will never be enough money to pay for everyone's medical care. We now have a society who wants to live at any expense. And the technology to try to make that happen. But the technology comes at a tremendous expense.

Let's see what happens.

Randy: Regarding Obstetric coverage: Birth controll is not required to be covered unless the employer changes health insurance companies. The old company can keep the current method of zero coverage, and new company bidding for the work is required to cover it at 100%. Sounds like a payoff was involved here.

"As for taxpayers footing the bill, taxpayers foot the bill for babies like this whose parents are on Medicaid. People with insurance policies foot the bill through their premiums. Under the ACA, we will either be eligible for Medicaid, have premium support for purchasing private health coverage, or be insured through employers."
There is no such thing as a free lunch, Randy. Someone has to pay for it somehow. The part that bothers me the most is we know who is going to be paying for it- the middle class. Well damn it, I can't afford to provide for my own medical care much less some illegal immigrant, can you?

@Craig -- Who do you think pays for your medical care when you get sick? The other people who pay premiums. And the other people who pay the extra cost of the goods and services built into the cost of employer-provided coverage. That's how it works, Craig -- the healthy people subsidize the sick ones. So don't give me a lecture about free lunch.

Randy: Great avoidance of the main subject matter there.
BC pills are only covered if the employer changes companies.
If you want to cover illegal immigrants, I am sure there are plenty who will take a check from you to pay the cost of insurance. I don't want to pay for them, I have enough to pay my own damn way.

@Craig -- I meant actual obstectrical care -- all things associated with pregnancy and childbirth was at one time considered to be 'voluntary and not covered under some health insurance plans. Contraceptives are more properly gynecological care.

And I'm sure you don't want to pay for someone else's contraception, but I don't want to pay for someone else's pregnancies and children, and now we're back at square one.

@mau -- "There will never be enough money to pay for everyone's medical care. We now have a society who wants to live at any expense. And the technology to try to make that happen. But the technology comes at a tremendous expense."

So what kind of system are you comfortable with? The kind where people forgo care because they can't afford it? That's going to leave some of those little premature babies out in the cold, because saving them is very expensive. You say there's not enough for all, but some people get quite a lot while others get nothing. Is your conscience all right with that?

A childbirth is over $10,000, so I don't want to pay for that either. Those who squirt them out like litters of kittens should pay for them on their own.

I want our medical system to return to the days when you went to the doctor and got treated for the medical condition you had. Not a system where the doctor knows that the government and insurance companies will pay for every unnecessary test and medication. Medications that are making patients sicker rather than better and keeps them on the endless roller coaster of doctor visits and prescriptions.

@Craig, I knew way too many pregnant women who got all pumped up with epidurals because they didn't want to feel the pain of childbirth. Or who had c-sections because it was easier and they could plan it. Both of these procedures are much more expensive than delivering naturally.

@Mau:
After a few years of ObongoCare and all the skyrocketing costs....eventually women will be told to suck it up and bear the pain. Maybe ObongoCare will cover an extra strength Tylenol. Anyone who thinks ObongoCare is going to solve the growing cost of medical care is delusional. Keeping insurance companies in the health care system while having the Gvt. be the payer only allows the costs to grow faster without people's knowledge. The costs will bankrupt us. A true NHC system would be more cost effective than what Barry has shoved down our throats. Ross Perot even came out yesterday after remaining silent for years, warning the National Debt will make the US a target for takeover.

@Craig -- Don't you comprehend that what you call 'ObongoCare' is just the requirement that people purchase private health coverage? It is not some 'one size fits all' that everyone is limited to. If you can afford insurance that covers anesthesia during childbirth, then you'll have it.

Randy: I understand that it is a requirement to buy insurance, or pay a "tax". Many small employers, and larger ones, will see the benefit to the bottom dollar by paying a penalty tax because it is less expensive than the actual premiums for health insurance. Where will this leave us? With the Gvt paying premiums for most of the people, and the "tax" will not be sufficient to cover the costs. Use yourself as an example. YOUR premium is significantly higher than the penalty tax, of course it sounds good. Don't you think there are millions of others who will do the same?
How the hell can we afford THAT?
Ross Perot came out yesterday, warning about the US debt issue- we are primed for a hostile takeover. A Country with a developing economy will become our saviour, and Lord knows what will happen.
I would rather die from no health care.

@Craig -- "Many small employers, and larger ones, will see the benefit to the bottom dollar by paying a penalty tax because it is less expensive than the actual premiums for health insurance."

And employers have not already seen the benefit to bottom line of offering 'junk' coverage or no coverage at all? And are not the costs of people left uncovered than passed on to everyone else?

Frankly, I would have favored single-payer rather than what we ended up with. And no, I would not rather have no health-care at all. Because at some point, I will be hauled off to a hospital to die, and I don't want to leave my family bankrupt. The current ACA plan, with premium supports for low-income people and health insurance exchanges is very much like the system that is supposed to reform Medicare under Ryan's plan. Why is that all right for older people but not younger ones who still have the potential to increase their incomes?

Randy: So why is Ryan an evil man for ending medicare as we know it?
You yourself just said it is better than nothing, which I do not agree with....

@Adam -

Scary, isn't it? But that's the Obama/Democratic Party way!

This may sound crazy but it appeals to the latino population= votes for Obummer.

In the mean time, Barack Hussein Obama's team is claiming that Mitt Romney is going to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for tax cuts for his rich friends. Where are they getting this from? This is what is posted on Romney's campaign site:

Individual Taxes:
Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes:
Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
Switch to a territorial tax system
Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Now where does it say to raise taxes on the middle class?

IT DOESN'T!!!!

The fact is that Romney's plan will improve the economy. And if it doesn't, in four years we fire him!

Watching a debate does not change the lies. What happened to the promises of governmental transparency, of ending the wars, of no lobbyists, of racial unity, of a balanced budget, etc., etc.? All one has to do is listen to the teleprompters - why blame Fox News? Although, to be fair, Obama did speak the truth when he promised to shutter the coal plants. How are those solar panels and wind turbines working out for the country's energy needs?

Watts so Fox News won't air the debates?

Fool.

@Oak Creek

I have a feeling that anybody who actually followed the logic will recognize who the fool is. I never said anything about Fox not airing the debates. I pointed out that the author started by stating that he was indifferent to actually watching the debates (obviously; whether broadcast by Fox or not). My specific reference to FauxNews spoon feeding him his political knowledge was because his article was a direct regurgitation of their talking points. So if he was not interested in watching the debates, where he may actually have to hear some facts that could contradict the reality that he has built, then the point was that he appears to be fully satisfied being spoon-fed the Fox sound bites, from which to construct his reality.

I couldn't stand listening to Bill Clinton and more so this POTUS.

I am an Obama supporter and await in eagar anticipation what Romney will say, as well as what his apologists say after he sticks his silver foot in his mouth. Always the suspense, waiting for the next stupendous blunder from Romney.

It's the anti-Randy again!

Yes, that was indeed the Bizarro-Randy.

~signed, the one and only Real-Deal (TM) Randy

There have been recessions since Carter, including during Reagan He cut taxes, then reversed course when trouble ensued. He also increased debt. There was also a downturn around 2004. One expects ebbs and flows, but there's a reason this stinker is dubbed The Great Recession.

His profile does warn us that we should 'Accept no substitutes!'...

Ask for the Original, by name......(hrmph)

Actually, maybe it should be "Often duplicated, never imitated", since the name's the same but the personality is something else entirely.

@Dirk Gutzmiller -- It's called 'cloning' and depending on the rules of a site it can get interesting. It has happened to me before, both here and in other places. It's done to embarrass the original.

All I can deduce is that someone really doesn't like me, and I should be flattered. But I warn that person, my good behavior will last only so long, and I can defend myself.

You mean, where's your reaganphone. He's the one who came up with the program.

Brian Day - Don't get your camo hunting vest in a bunch. The sterling Randy1949 is correct. But it’s the right that are ending up looking like the ignorant fools. What Limbaugh and worshiping minions, like you Dey, don't know is that these “Obama Phones” are actually a creation of their beloved Ronald Reagan, who began the program in 1984.
Actually called the “Lifeline program,” the legislation permits some households to receive a free landline under Congress’s rationale that "telephone service provides a vital link to emergency services, government services and surrounding communities."
That idea dates back to 1934, under the Communications Act, but Reagan was the first to actually implement the legislation. Reagan was a moderate.

@Dirk -- What about the cell-phones then? I have to admit, I narrow my eyes a bit at the TV ads about free cell service, since this is something I don't have and can't afford. That said, a free cell-phone account is far more practical than a free land-line for people who move a lot.

Randy1949 - People were suffering and dying because they did not have basic phone service, particularly in case of a health emergency. Cell phones became eligible for "Lifeline" in the Bush Administration. The program is not funded by taxpayers, it is funded by the "universal service fee" which may be found on phone bills. Very basic cell phone service is cheaper than land lines.

People die because they drive old cars with bad brakes and tires, should we buy them shiny new ones too?

Craig - No.

Does anyone know what service 'plan' is included with the 'free' cell phone?

All cell phones are required by law to be able to make free 911 calls. One does not need to have an 'activated' phone;just a charged battery.

Jay: The free phone comes with 400 minutes each month and free text messaging.
Perfect plan for a drug dealer, as that income is unreported and not taxed.
Meanwhile, you and I are paying for it.

When is a tax not a tax? When it's a Universal Service Fee.

I gots to get my Obama phone you know. I sign up, you know. Romney sucks....bad. Obama Girl 2012!

Hoffa really wishes that you guys would get your facts straight.

'Universal service fees,' a federal government imposed service fee collected by service providers to spend as the federal government directs them to via regulation, were started under the Communications Act of 1934, signed into law by FDR as a part of his "social equity" ideology. The primary use of the fees during this time were to equalize the costs of service for those who lived in rural and isolated areas, who would pay the same rates as urban customers despite their service costing the service providers significantly more in overhead costs and expenses because of long wire runs, etc. This was done under the theory that an affordable for all connected nation was in everyone's best interest.

Under Reagan, the telecom industry was deregulated and the the Lifeline Program arose as a compromise with Congressional Democrats. The goal of the program was to provide subsidized phone service to low income individuals, but it never gave out completely free phones and service plans. The typical discount/government subsidy provided to low income individuals under Reagan was around $10 off their regular monthly bill.

Free phones and service plans started under Clinton in 1996, with the signing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the establishment of the Universal Service Fund. That law, which provided for changes in technology, required Bush to expand the free phone program into cell phones.

It gets worse though - the Universal Service Reform Act of 2010, signed into law by President Obama will transition money out of the USF and into the new Connect America Fund, which also imposes a new fee on internet connection services, in order to provide low income individuals with free internet service starting sometime around 2016.

So not only will people be getting the free phone, but the free phones will actually be smart phones with internet service, all paid for by the non-low income telecom users! All thanks to Obama - isn't he wonderful?!?!

In the third quarter of 2012, the USF fee equaled 15.7 percent of a telecom company's interstate and end-user revenues. Under the new CAF, that amount is expected to increase to about 24%.

Translation - Get ready for a higher phone/internet bill because Obama wants you to pay so that low income and welfare recipients can get a free smart phone with internet access plans!

Just another reason to support and vote for ROMNEY/RYAN/THOMPSON/VOS 2012!!!

Hoffa: Thanks for the information!
So us middle class people who are just scraping by would be better off quitting our jobs and letting big gvt. supply us with cell phones and internet. At least we can download movies for free while we do nothing but wait for our food stamps to come.
Have heat assistance and not worry about paying bills on time.
It sounds good to some people I suppose.
Dreams of Obama and his father are not the dreams of America's middle class.

@Craig -- I can see that you have never tried to download anything with a very basic internet plan. Besides, downloading movies costs money over and above the price of the internet service. That's why I don't even bother to have Netflix -- it's a waste of money to pay for something when large downloads take me an hour.

Randy I had dial up service until a few years ago. I know the speed sucks. This is why the governemnt will provide high speed for the poor. It would be an unfair advantage for us wealthy people to have high speed and the poor have slower service. Kids will be using the net more and more for school. So we will be paying for it even if we don't use it. There has also been a push to make large cities wi-fi enabled.

@Craig -- you know for a fact that the 'free' internet will be the highest speed? I upgraded to DSL, finally, two years ago, and my basic AT&T still doesn't allow for the non-buffered viewing of any video. My monthly cost has doubled since then too.

Why shouldn't everyone have access to technology? Technology is fully integrated into my life. Now, I pay a lot of money for instant access to the web, email, wherever I am. That's my choice and I'm content to pay for it. But it's nearly impossible to network, job hunt, apply for jobs, etc., without access to the internet. Not making this technology accessible would only keep low income people at a serious disadvantage. That cheats the entire community.

Randy: The post above by Bren makes the point. Everyone is entitled to everything. Maybe slower speed is acceptable to people with a job, but apparently those living off the gvt need the best of everything handed to them as a right. Giving slower speed DSL to someone on assistance would be just plain mean, they can't be expected to find a job without the high speed version.
You and I do not think that way, but Bren makes it perfectly clear.
Obaba Nation= Give everyone the best so they have no desire to work. This is one way to calm the masses.

@Bren -

If you can't afford your own internet service, there are several ways that you can still access the internet for free. Public libraries, NetZero, Public/Community computer labs, etc.

The government should not be providing people with free individual access plans - that's absurd!

By 2016, 24% of your phone/internet bill is going to go for providing low income/welfare recipients with free individual access plans and equipment. 15.7% of your monthly bill already does. And the telecoms and ISPs aren't going to give up their profit margins, so that means higher prices for those who can afford to pay. How many people are going to pushed into the free programs just because of the higher prices?

That's not right and it's totally messed up!

Taxpayers are already providing free internet service to those who can't afford it. It's at the library.

►That's not right and it's totally messed up!◄

It's liberalism

I find it funny that as I am trying to make a point to Randy, in walks Bren with his social agenda demanding high speed for everyone because it is only fair and just.

@Craig -- Where in Bren's post did you see a demand for high-speed? It just said that people needed access to the technology to compete for jobs.

@McBride, I know people can access the internet at libraries, but wasn't there a discussion a month or so back about limiting funding to public libraries that provided this service, among other things?

Perhaps in light of budget constraints, public libraries should be more like internet cafes and less like 'free' bookstores...

A lot of jobs need degrees. We should just give those away for free, no work needed to receive one and make everyone else that is currently paying for a degree cover the charge.

Luckily as a 1% non road building white business owner, I can just pass on these taxes on to you, the common customer. You have no control and no means to pass it on. Ask your boss for a raise to cover the fees if you don't believe me.

Randy: The part where she states: "Not making this technology accessible would only keep low income people at a serious disadvantage."
If we offer slow dial up to those disatvantaged, then it is not giving them the same fair shake.
A good liberal will scream foul if buffering occurs while their child is watching a movie for homework. (I used that example because it happened in my home.)

In this entire debate, I find a recurring theme very disturbing. It is the assumption the poor and working poor are, by thier very nature, lazy and entitiled. The claim is they really don't want to get a head or succeed. They just want everything handed to them. To mooch. To be everything Romney accusses them of in the now infamous fund raiser. No poor or working poor has ambition. None have personal responsibility. Though the cards are stacked against them, they are too lazy to work to get ahead. What a depressing testament to our neighbors. With budget contraints, it is brought up libraries become more like internet cafes. That is something to think about but it is yet another cost added to all of us. WIth wages for all but executives stagnant, yet another cost is a killer. Never mind the cost of getting from point A to B. With bus fair, an internet cafe model makes all access all but impossible to those who most need it.

I used to be working poor. There is no worse feeling than to work 40-50 hours a week and know you need another job. To know you are not providing for your kids. To fear the mail box every day for the inevitable bill that is there & you have no clue how to pay for it. To trust on over the counter meds and gumption because you have no sick days and can't afford the co-pay. The whole premise the entire working poor population are lazy moochers is quite insulting. We, as a country, should be better than this. An Atheist thinks this. Where are all the Christians to agree with me? Isn't taking care of the poor part of your gig?

@JRH, even I don't have smart phone with internet access. It's too expensive and I don't need it. In fact most don't need it. It's another toy. And when did this become a critical item that poor people need.

@Randy, downloading movies is not an additional fee with a dsl internet service provider. Our total cost for the highest dsl speed from Miilwaukee PC and the $8 for Netflix, is between $40-50/month including all the fees and taxes. We do not and never have had cable. We watch many cable programs through a computer hooked up to our tv. No buffering problems at all with Netflix. Occasionally with the internet but that depends on time of day and which source we are accessing the programming through.

Troy:

People that are truly in need deserve a helping hand, but it seems that many choose to just take advantage of that help instead of taking action to try to improve their lot in life.

For too long, we have had a welfare system that penalized those who tried to provide their own income--if someone found a job, their welfare benefits got cut. That sort of system makes it very difficult to make the transition from welfare to work.

I'd love to see a welfare system that provides a way to acquire additional job skills and use the public internet resources that are available rather than just handing out smartphones, high speed internets and foodstamps to the poor...

Y'know CowDung - I can actually get on board with what you are saying. It is very difficult to transition. I am not saying impossible. I agree that welfare should be more of a suppliment than a source (leaving exeptions for circumstances). If there is an available job someone can work - they should and welfare can make up the difference to what ever their level of aid that was established.

So something else you said intrigues me. I agree the state of the present economy where there are available jobs, but a lack of a qualified work force is not acceptable. Do you think that part of the welfare program should be trade or technical educationt to qualify them for the job? I think maybe part time maintenance work should/could be included in the program for those who qualify. You know, something to offset the cost and not make it like folks are going to school for free - that they need to work for it, too.

Do you think that may help the transition issues?

Yes, I think that training/education at a tech school or the like should be part of an effective welfare system. Perhaps an apprenticeship type program where they work to pay for their training while they live on welfare benefits. Depending on the type of education and their performance/grades, low interest student loans and/or grants might be appropriate as well.

Another aspect that should be considered is childcare. Perhaps we need a system that pays a portion of childcare costs while the person is working or going to school.

FreeThoughtTroy: I too have been part of the working poor. Even as a kid, my family struggled to feed us kids and pay the bills. My dad never took a handout saying if he made it, he can feed it. I can remember a neighbor who had a well paying job, but lied to get free lunch for their kids at school. When I asked my dad why it upset him so much he told me, "People will never try to do better for themselves if the gvt. gives them everything."
At one time poor people did not have heat in winter, no indoor plumbing or running water. They did not have a TV, and if they wanted to cook they had to work to build a fire to cook it on.
Fast forward 40 years.
We now have people getting assistance who have cell phones with the ability to surf the web. Microwaves to cook the convienience food they buy with food stamps. Cable TV with pay channels, and several TVs, a refrigerator, computers, cars, the list goes on..
The point I am trying to make is if we give hard working people everything, what is the point of them working? I know we can't make a janitor into a rocket scientist, but we need to have some way to retrain these people who want to work and better their life. Please don't get me wrong- I do not want to see anyone go hungry, but I think those who work hard to have the little that they do have should not feel like: "Why bother working when the Government will give more to those who don't try?"

Y'know, CowDung. I think those are really great ideas. I could get on board with pretty much everything in this discussion. And this is after less than a day of discussion.

Wouldn't it be really nice if Congress could actually sit down and complete the exercise we just accomplished?

Ahhh - to dream. If any message is sent this November, I would like this to be one of them - if not THE message. We, as a nation, are ready for a calm and rational discussion from all sides to really address and solve our problems.

I stand corrected....250 minutes not 400.

Redistribution will make a weaker citizen. There are always hurdles. Learning how to jump over them makes a stronger person and country. If you would like to give out free phones please post a pic of your cashed check made out to "Obama's redistribution plan, LLC"

@ Dirk: Could anyone really function today without a photo ID? Don't you need one to get the free cell phone?

I guess the follow-up question(s) would be: Do they function now that they have a fo? Or: What is the definition of function?

Or a government subsidy or tax break... ; )

It's not your money, it's all Obama's we are just borrowing it ~ Bren

I am trying to find the Romney/Ryan stand on the free phone issue for poor people. Is it any surprise that I cannot find anything? I want to listen to Romney on this. No one here has any real alternate ideas, just hate talk..I want to listen. Can someone speak for the Republicans position at the moment (not historically), should all free phone service be taken away?

Free phones should still be given out in the suburbs well outside of the inner city. We need to teach poor suburb residents how to talk and what to wear so they can get a job. We need to give suburb residents free phones and need to build them more roads so they have a better chance at getting a job. The inner city has been favored way too long, they have too many roads, too many phones, too many jobs, and too much food.

Steve ® - I am looking for a sincere answer, not the usual demented visions from your alternate reality universe.

This is Obama's universe. Just switch around inner city with suburb and it's words from your boy.

@Adam Zapple Tyranny of the masses has been feared for ions. Even Socrates feared the rule of the ignorant.

Try rereading the comments under the news stories concerning the Walker or Darling polls. It wasn't those on the right claiming 'biased' polls...

So that exuses all the comments concerning swing state polls favoring the President?

"Democrats to it, too - so we can?"

Hey, Walker won. It pains me. I whined and cried and stomped my feet and still think the election was bought - twice. That doesn't change facts. Gov. Walker beat the recall. I still need to call him Gov. I don't like it, but I live with it. It is reality.

It's beyond time Tea Party Republicans join me in reality.

Just pointing out that what you are criticizing the Republicans for should be applied to those on both sides of the aisle...

Ok - I agree both sides do it.

There are many occassions the Left goes over the top. I love Ed Schultz. There are many-MANY occassions I have watched his show and found him talking out of his back side. The way he frames questions, the interupting, the constant pontificating. I love the guy and his heart, but consider him less than credible.

I have named names and admitted obvious bias on the left.

Will anyone from the Right join me and admit the same failings on Fox News?

It's no secret that the editorialists on Fox News Channel are indeed biased. They (O'Reilley, Hannity, et al) don't claim to be anything other...

Thank you for the kind words Troy. These are the types of discussions that I enjoy having on this site. While we may never agree on many of the issues, I'm happy that we can at least have a mutual respect for each other.

See? I can apologize. Why not Conservatives?

KIDDING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm kidding.

C'mon, that was a little funny.

Conservatives never apologize because we are never wrong...

;-)

Touche!

That was nice! I bow to your skill.

Hoffa always apologizes when proven wrong - granted it doesn't happen very often ;-)