Someone in a friend's blog (who is pro-Obama) asked "Why is the country in chaos?" - and quite simply, because we are at war. A fact that didn't change just because we elected a new president. I think people wanted to forget about the war, and carry on as if it wasn't a priority. And the way Health Care Reform was being crammed through seemed more like a "distraction" to the war - Look! Over here -->
And while I'm on THAT subject, I think when most Americans wanted Health Care Reform, they thought of other nation's programs like Canada and England. And what we got was a pile of shit. FEDERAL PRISON and a $15K FINE if you don't BUY health insurance? I don't think THAT was the health care Americans really wanted. They can do better than that.
All of this should have been so much easier for a president with his own party controlling both houses - so what went wrong? Did people expect too much from a person? from a position?
And something else that chafes me - the entire election was fueled by hatred against Bush (and to a lesser degree, Republicans). But imagine if, instead of hate, people were motivated to vote by pride and patriotism. The position only carries so much power - eventually people need to take personal responsibility for the world they've created. It wasn't all one person's fault, and it won't all be fixed by one person.
For what it's worth, I did vote for Obama out of pride and patriotism. An articulate, educated, thoughtful, calm candidate -- who was a minority, no less, so a nice step forward (not the end of the battle) in equal rights.
OK, also hatred of Bush. I would have voted for anyone not a Republican. BUT I was pleased when it turned out to be a candidate I was excited about.
My point was based more on the stats - how voter turn-out hadn't been that high since the 1960s (before I was born!) - so yeah, the highest voter turn-out in my lifetime. So what if all those people had voted in the previous elections, too?
I know the Canadian will agree with me on this point. What if WE had 76% voter turn-out?
Our own 2008 election was within a month of the election in the United States, and American turnout (64.1%, almost a record high) beat Canadian turnout (59.1%, definitely a record low) in those elections on a percentage basis.
I totally agree that our democracies are better off when more people are involved, and I hope that will be the case in future elections, but that goes to the other point I made--more people came out to vote than usual because they were inspired to vote for a candidate and not just against one. If the latter were all it took, we'd all be talking about the Kerry Administration.
Although (as fellow Texan amysisson admits) some of it was fuelled by hatred of Bush, I don't think you can lay "the entire election" on that.
For one thing, I don't think there would've been the same high turnout you mention below if Hillary Clinton had been the Democratic candidate--and I'm not sure she could've won the 2008 election, even though she would've had the full force of hate-voting on her side.
Pride and patriotism definitely played a role in Obama's election (as Amy and other commenters here also note in explaining their votes).
FEDERAL PRISON and a $15K FINE if you don't BUY health insurance? I don't think THAT was the health care Americans really wanted.
I tried to find a source for your "federal prison" claim, but I could only find similar claims on other sites, without any of them quoting directly from whatever bill(s) that's supposed to be in, so it seems a little sketchy--kind of like the earlier "death panel" claim. Could you provide a primary source?
They can do better than that.
I definitely agree with that--I imagine most Americans thought this would head towards the kind of healthcare enjoyed in the countries you mentioned, not a system imposing more requirements that people take part.
All of this should have been so much easier for a president with his own party controlling both houses - so what went wrong? Did people expect too much from a person? from a position?
To be frank, I think that in some respects, President Obama is too interested in being bipartisan on significant issues. If he were acting more like the previous administration (
( ... )
• Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year. Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”
Okay, I followed your link to Dave Camp's press release, and by following his links in the release to the Sections you just quoted, I saw that those are just parts of the existing Internal Revenue Code referring to any "willful failure to pay" income taxes.
In other words, you can go to jail for tax evasion.
I don't think this is news, and it's disingenuous of Congressman Camp (or anyone else) to imply that those are part of the healthcare bill, since they aren't.
Camp is also quoted as saying that this "is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15 000 premium [Speaker Pelosi's] plan creates," but even the letter he links to (basically an interpretation of tax law as it would apply to the healthcare bill) notes that "[t]he additional tax does not apply if the maintenance of acceptable coverage would result in a hardship to the individual or if the person's income is below the threshold for filing a Federal income tax return," so he's just making that part up.
That's just it--it's not in the healthcare bill at all.
The real part of the bill that Camp et al. don't like is the proposed tax for people who don't have an insurance plan. Camp apparently wrote a letter asking about the consequences of not paying that tax, and got a letter back saying what the consequences of deliberate income tax evasion are
( ... )
And while I'm on THAT subject, I think when most Americans wanted Health Care Reform, they thought of other nation's programs like Canada and England. And what we got was a pile of shit. FEDERAL PRISON and a $15K FINE if you don't BUY health insurance? I don't think THAT was the health care Americans really wanted. They can do better than that.
All of this should have been so much easier for a president with his own party controlling both houses - so what went wrong? Did people expect too much from a person? from a position?
Reply
Reply
OK, also hatred of Bush. I would have voted for anyone not a Republican. BUT I was pleased when it turned out to be a candidate I was excited about.
Reply
I know the Canadian will agree with me on this point. What if WE had 76% voter turn-out?
Reply
Our own 2008 election was within a month of the election in the United States, and American turnout (64.1%, almost a record high) beat Canadian turnout (59.1%, definitely a record low) in those elections on a percentage basis.
I totally agree that our democracies are better off when more people are involved, and I hope that will be the case in future elections, but that goes to the other point I made--more people came out to vote than usual because they were inspired to vote for a candidate and not just against one. If the latter were all it took, we'd all be talking about the Kerry Administration.
Reply
For one thing, I don't think there would've been the same high turnout you mention below if Hillary Clinton had been the Democratic candidate--and I'm not sure she could've won the 2008 election, even though she would've had the full force of hate-voting on her side.
Pride and patriotism definitely played a role in Obama's election (as Amy and other commenters here also note in explaining their votes).
Reply
I tried to find a source for your "federal prison" claim, but I could only find similar claims on other sites, without any of them quoting directly from whatever bill(s) that's supposed to be in, so it seems a little sketchy--kind of like the earlier "death panel" claim. Could you provide a primary source?
They can do better than that.
I definitely agree with that--I imagine most Americans thought this would head towards the kind of healthcare enjoyed in the countries you mentioned, not a system imposing more requirements that people take part.
All of this should have been so much easier for a president with his own party controlling both houses - so what went wrong? Did people expect too much from a person? from a position?
To be frank, I think that in some respects, President Obama is too interested in being bipartisan on significant issues. If he were acting more like the previous administration ( ( ... )
Reply
• Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”
Reply
In other words, you can go to jail for tax evasion.
I don't think this is news, and it's disingenuous of Congressman Camp (or anyone else) to imply that those are part of the healthcare bill, since they aren't.
Camp is also quoted as saying that this "is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15 000 premium [Speaker Pelosi's] plan creates," but even the letter he links to (basically an interpretation of tax law as it would apply to the healthcare bill) notes that "[t]he additional tax does not apply if the maintenance of acceptable coverage would result in a hardship to the individual or if the person's income is below the threshold for filing a Federal income tax return," so he's just making that part up.
Reply
Reply
The real part of the bill that Camp et al. don't like is the proposed tax for people who don't have an insurance plan. Camp apparently wrote a letter asking about the consequences of not paying that tax, and got a letter back saying what the consequences of deliberate income tax evasion are ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment