Medical (Health) benefit is a RIGHT that all must have - according to Senator Barak Obama

During the October 7, 2008 debate between Senator Barak Obama and Senator John McCain one of the most glaring differences - and about the only time Senator Obama actually made a concise statement - was when he declared that any American MUST / SHALL / IS ENTITLED / REQUIRED to get is any and all medical care (subtext: all for "free").

Under Sen. Obama's concept, all Americans are entitled to this. Now, as we have seen in many court rulings over the years in other "rights" now being granted to ANYONE who lives in the USA - like all people MUST be given an free education until they are 18 - regardless if they are here legally or not, MUST be given any type of benefits - again, regardless of whether they are here legally or not, and it is the law (primarily due to the very LIBERAL rulings of the 9th Circuit Court judges - aka California, and refused to be reviewed, or affirmed to be true based on California law) basically that no matter what, if you are on American soil you are entitled to every single benefit of being an American without having to be one or pay for it.

Now, Senator Obama's idea is that all medical care is the "right" of all people - and it would be forced upon everyone to ensure that is is given to everyone. Under any "progressive" model of how the government is to pay for these benefits it comes down to that if you earn no money, or very little you get the benefits - and if you earn more than anyone below you, you now have the "patriotic duty" (per Senator Joe Biden) to pay for those people who earn less than you do, including those do not want to pay, cannot (okay, some people are truly incapable of working and these people should get a "bye"), but it also includes people who should NOT be entitled to these medical "rights" just by being on USA soil - but he WILL grant them full medical care to these people also. And the more you earn, the more you are required to pay to support OTHER people no matter what.

He stated that taxes will only be going up on people / businesses who make more than 200,000 a year - but - as always in any Sen. Obama's statement he leaves out REALLY IMPORTANT DETAILS - he did not state if this was NET income or GROSS income. And as any person who earns money knows, ALL taxes for individuals or businesses is ALWAYS based on GROSS income - which means every small business in America will pay higher taxes to implement this "right" to medical care to everyone in the USA - or for the many, many, many, MANY other benefits he (aka Democrat party) wants to "give" (bribe?) to any person who lives in the USA (but not if you are successful on your own and have money, you get nothing.)

Now considering that there are 318 million or so people in the USA as of October 2008, and at any one time roughly 1/2 of the population is below 18, that means there are only 150 million people possible to pay for everything. Of course of those 150 million about 1/3 are not working (by choice or by being out of work) that leaves 100 million people to pay for themselves AND 200 million other people for education, medical, "public transportation", and a myriad of other "social services" to people who are not making any money at all.

How this old school Chicago Senator can state that medical care is a "right" of people to receive per the Constitution ("entitled to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness", he is taking the word "entitled to life" and making it a RIGHT to medical care - and that is NOT what that phrase or the word "entitled" is about) is a simple and standard thought of "progressive" thinkers - actually more like the communist precepts - with an United Nations style of twist: that everyone gets treated equally, but if you are rich you get treated less equally and that is your own darn fault for being a successful capitalist.

All tax ideas of "progressives" have the underlying implication that you had to have robbed the "poor" or exploited them to become rich. Sorry, it is really hard to rob the poor - they have NO MONEY.

If you are poor, or if your household earns less an than $100,000 a year, Obama has loads of benefits for you - earn more than that and you will start paying no less than 20% of your gross income into Federal taxes, and it will surely go up even for those people. It will likely go back to around 33% to 50% of your income and especially once you get above $200,000  it will get to 33% - NO exceptions. if you are an individual or run a business that is in your name, you WILL get to 33% or more. Corporations will get pay more too, but there are SO many tax rules created for them over the past 50 years, they will likely stay the same rate through various deduction methods - but their workers will pick up the slack in their individual taxes. (Which is one reason why the Republicans cut the CORPORATE rate, they knew that the individuals would earn more, thus pay more in taxes, than what a corporation would because the tax laws STILL would allow those corporations to shirk the taxes - but individuals have a harder time thus more taxes would still be collected. A $10 Million bonus to a CEO, even with HIS tax loopholes, would still pay a million in taxes while a corporation could easily write off the books via paper losses using "generally accepted accounting principals" - all legal - and pay no money on that same $10 million.)

So a vote for Obama is a vote for higher taxes on everyone who makes more money than you (and YOU) - there is no way around it.

 

 

 

 

A Tale of Two Bracelets

Two bracelets - two VERY different reasons for wearing them.

During the first Presidential debate on September 25, both Senator John McCain and Senator Barak Obama stated - and explained - why they were wearing bracelets with the name of a soldier killed in Iraq - but not a SINGLE commentator picked up on the vastly different reasons they were wearing it.

After Senator McCain stated that he was asked to wear one in memory and honor of a Sgt killed outside Baghdad in August 2006 at a campaign stop in 2007. He stated he would be honored to wear it with and with pride. Senator Obama also stated that he too has one (Me too! Me too!) but the reason HE wears it is NOT to honor the memory of sacrifice of the soldier - but to wear it to remind people that the war and that this and other soldiers death was a "waste" (my words) and showcase the grief of the MOTHER,  and to remind people that the war was wrong and that all the US personnel send to Iraq who have been killed and wounded was wrong - and to indirectly state that he would never send soldiers to any country no matter what that country is doing to its people or other nations unless that country is DIRECTLY threatening the US. And NO nation has ever "directly" threatened the US since Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. Not even the Soviet Union DIRECTLY threatened the USA - it was always via proxies and those countries never stated they would attack the USA - just denounced us and stated that we were always wrong in helping ANY nation anywhere in the world.

Thus, Senator Obama is in essence trying to take the USA toward the UN goal is just talk and never helping any nation at all (not counting our treaty obligations of defending against overt aggression - so we would go over and defend England if Liberia tried to mount a naval invasion - but only after we talk it over at the UN and try to work out an agreement first.) But if two adjacent nations got into a war with each other and no defense treaty with either of them, then we would stand on the sidelines and do nothing even if the war would indirectly affect us.

So if another Balkans conflict erupted - we would stand on the sidelines under a Barak Presidency and do nothing - since those countries are not attacking us and we have no NATO treaty tying us to them.

Which type of bracelet wearing person do you want leading the USA?