[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Not too much rhetoric in the article, just reasonable predictions of what will likely happen.

Are we reading the same article?

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

From the article..ooops, op-ed: "According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement." This is similar to a program the state of Hawaii just cancelled where people who had insurance were dropping it to pick up the "freebie" from the government.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't take my health care for granted and pay a good amount each year for it. I'm willing to make that sacrifice for my family, why should I be penalized by higher taxes or worse coverage administered by the government, because others don't care to make the same sacrifice. Also there are other government programs available for people with low incomes to access health care. [/quote]
Everyone talks about the costs of the program, but few point out that we are already paying for it. The costs of the uninsured are paid for by the insured - in my opinion, it's better to be proactive than reactive, even if there is a marginal total cost increase. However, once you include non-medical costs resulting from preventable or treatable injuries and afflictions (unemployment, workers comp, welfare, crime, etc.), I'm not so sure the cost actually increases by much.
Uninsured add $900 to health premiums - Health care - MSNBC.com
The Cost of Care for the Uninsured:* What Do We Spend, Who Pays, and What Would Full Coverage Add to Medical Spending? - Kaiser Family Foundation
NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

There are/were unintended negatives to Sarbanes Oxley (as with most government programs)

Does Sarbanes-Oxley Hurt Shareholders and Hide Poor Management? - Knowledge@Wharton

There are definitely unintended consequences (including affecting smaller business, which can't afford to implement the measures required). That suggests it needs to be retooled, not revoked. Big business believes it is beholden to its investors before the law. The laws need to be revised (and have, with SarbOx) to make it clear that this is not the case.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I don't believe that for a second. Obama voted for tax increases on single filers making $ 42K and families making $ 90K. Of course he'll come to the center to win the election but if he wins, all bets are off especially with a liberal supermajority. Even if what he says is true, the top 1% already pay approximately 34% of the taxes in the U.S. 40% of the U.S. households pay no federal income tax. Not to mention the capital gains increases Obama has proposed, up to 28% I believe. Tax increases will only slow the economy, not help it. Who creates the jobs in the U.S., the top 2%. Tax them more and they'll cut jobs and not increase their business production, hurting the economy and the very people Obama and the dems claim to be helping. Also lifting the cap on SS & Medicare will affect folks making over $ 102K, if I'm correct.

Dude, that was part of a budget resolution, not a comprehensive tax plan:
FactCheck.org: The $32,000 Question

You can take it out of context, but don't expect it to carry much weight.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

No conservative that I've heard has talked about restricting access to the polls, but election day voter registration makes the opportunity for fraud very easy. IMO this is a very serious and important argument. How would you verify the identities of the Dallas Cowboys when they're registering to vote with the local McDonalds as their address.

lol - I'll grant you that! But only Cowgirl felons should be barred, IMO.

Seriously, though, I don't have an opinion on felons voting, but your point is about fraud, not the right to vote. There is virtually zero chance that voter fraud can influence a federal election, or any statewide election. The numbers are just too high. Does this increase the possibility that an overly motivated group could influence a mayoral race in a small town? Maybe, but I still doubt it. Access to the polls is imperative to the legitimacy of the process (as is reducing fraud - I grant you that). The benefits outweigh the risks here. And, yes, the underprivileged tend to skew Democratic, since that is the party that supports the social programs that enable many of them to survive.