Food for Thought

Rabbits Online Forum

Help Support Rabbits Online Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
For those who watched Senator Obama last night - here is a "fact check" on his speech by the Associated Press....

AP FACT CHECK: Obama Ad Avoids Budget Realities The Associated Press takes a look at the details in Obama's prime-time ad

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are -- beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years -- and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. (Peg inserting a question here - I thought it was $250,000 - did it drop?) Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "
THE FACTS: His proposals -- the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more -- cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged -- although not in his commercial -- that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."
source: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/29/ap-fact-check-obama-ad-avoids-budget-realities/

By the way - one way to fact check BOTH candidates is www.factcheck.org and I'm sure there are other sites out there too.


 
I spent 20 minutes writing a response, but it didn't post.

I got the 72 hour number from an ob/gyn. So there is apparantly some mis-information in the medical community.

"Available without prescription" doesn't mean it's obtainable. Some pharmacies here don't even carry it, while others keep it behind the counter. If the pharmacist is unwilling to hand it to the customer, it's not available, even when it's right there behind the counter. Some will call over a collegue, others will flat out refuse and send you on your way. The stores allow this, but I think this is BS, if the people aren't willing to do the job, find somewhere else to work, I don't go the pharmacy for a sermon.

When I was raped, I did not go to the ER. It was 11pm, I didn't have a car, the nearest hospital was over 5 miles away. Even if I had been up to the walk, I didn't have insurance so I couldn't afford it anyway. Some communities make women pay for their rape kits, with no financial assistance available.


 
On the other hand, what will happen when there are few or no doctors willing to perform abortions? Do a little research and you will find many younger students in medical school and just coming out of school are refusing to learn or do the procedure. In some states, South Dakota for one, there are no doctors who do abortions. From my research I understand it's becoming an issue in other countries as well. Should doctors be forced to learn and perform abortions?


There are some circumstances where abortion is necessary to save the mother's life, and in some of these cases the fetus can't survive on its own anyway. If there is no doctor in the hospital who is willing or able to do the procedure, they are failing the patient. If that was my sister who was left to die, I would be filing a huge lawsuit against the hospital that neglected to perform a life-saving procedure.
 
gentle giants wrote:
That is one of the great things about this country, though. For situations like that, where a woman can't afford the healthcare she needs for herself and her baby, we have things like WIC and the medical card. When my husband and I got pregnant with our twins, we would not have been able to get all the care needed for a high risk pregnancy without help. But that help is there available, basically allyou have to do to be eligible is be pregnant or have a child under three years old.
Really? WIC is so good? I would love someone to explain to a baby that he should drink less formula because he needs to make it last longer.My friends son is a BIG boy. At almost 2months he can drink of to 8oz my friend stops him but if left to it he would keep drinking. If she doesn't give him atleast 8oz he cries. The doctor is ok with this because honestly he is a large baby. My friend asked WIC if she could have more formula. Thats it nothing else and they told her not to feed the baby so much that she had to make it last.


The help only goes so far.

How do you you buy clothes for that child? How do you buy the child the school supplies it needs?If you are already on welfare it won't cover a new child. My friends shouldn't have gotten pregnant. She was taking precautions even though the doctor told her she couldn't. She went through a real rough patch, trying to get out. Now the baby comes and she needs alitte extra. She wants to work during the day (If she finds some she can trust with the baby.) Than go to night school. Thing is that they will only pay for child care (for the older child and baby) for a couple of hours RIGHT after school. So how does she do that?

She went through school has a medical assistant degree. She can't get a job because she lacks experience. So she went for her nurses aid degree but couldn't afford the $90 to take the test.

Did I mention she had her older child when she was 15 (the older one is 10)and up till two years agonever used welfare? That she did this more or less alone? Herfamily isn't much help to her. My mother and I have beentwo of the few she could really count on.

The helponly goes sofar. Yes my friend has chosen this path and we will help her. Not everyonehas the strength or courage she has. Not everyone has people who will help them. Not everyone can survive this.
Of course pregnancy (an unwanted one, at any rate) will take a toll on a woman emotionally. But do you think that an abortion wouldn't? That is something that any woman who has an abortion has to live with for the rest of her life, that she made the decision to end the life of her child, however that child's life came about. I wouldthink personally that would be far more scarring than having to spend nine months carrying it to term.
That is something that most women know and if they are willing to face it than that is their choice.
 
*hugs*

BethM wrote:
I spent 20 minutes writing a response, but it didn't post.

I got the 72 hour number from an ob/gyn. So there is apparantly some mis-information in the medical community.

"Available without prescription" doesn't mean it's obtainable. Some pharmacies here don't even carry it, while others keep it behind the counter. If the pharmacist is unwilling to hand it to the customer, it's not available, even when it's right there behind the counter. Some will call over a collegue, others will flat out refuse and send you on your way. The stores allow this, but I think this is BS, if the people aren't willing to do the job, find somewhere else to work, I don't go the pharmacy for a sermon.

When I was raped, I did not go to the ER. It was 11pm, I didn't have a car, the nearest hospital was over 5 miles away. Even if I had been up to the walk, I didn't have insurance so I couldn't afford it anyway. Some communities make women pay for their rape kits, with no financial assistance available.
 
In the end I think that no matter who goes into office our country is so messed up it would take more than four years to fix our problems.

One thing I keep in mind is sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.
 
I am going to post this, and that will be the lastI say about the abortion issue, anyway.

BethM wrote:
Yes, she sold the official plane, but it was at a *loss* of a half million dollars. If her kids were attending events they didn't need to, fine, but she should have paid for that out of her own pocket.) Personally, I think things like that show her character.
How was it her fault it sold at a loss? That seems to me to be about as logical as blaming her for herpredescessor buying it in the first place. At least she made some of that money back forthe state. I haven't heard anything about her kids attending events, I think that's a little silly. Do you honestly think that every other politician in history hasn't done at least some of that sort of thing?
My personal belief is that life doesn't start until one is able to survive outside of the mother's body.
Yes, except that it is not uncommon for the fetus to survive the abortion.
But don't impede on my right to make decisions about my body and life with the assistance of a docter.
Well, as I have said before,the fact still remains that it's not YOUR life and body you are ending.
 
JadeIcing wrote:
In the end I think that no matter who goes into office our country is so messed up it would take more than four years to fix our problems.

One thing I keep in mind is sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.
You are absolutly right. I think we haven't really seen the worst yet.Just like this whole crisis didn't come about because of the Bush Administration, it's been in the making for a lot of years.
 
gentle giants wrote:


BethM wrote:
My personal belief is that life doesn't start until one is able to survive outside of the mother's body.
Yes, except that it is not uncommon for the fetus to survive the abortion.
But don't impede on my right to make decisions about my body and life with the assistance of a docter.
Well, as I have said before,the fact still remains that it's not YOUR life and body you are ending.
totally agree with you here:)
 
I haven't heard anything about her kids attending events, I think that's a little silly. Do you honestly think that every other politician in history hasn't done at least some of that sort of thing?

Here are links to the story:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/21/politics/main4537742.shtml?source=search_story

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/28/cbsnews_investigates/main4554071.shtml?source=search_story


Just because others do it doesn't make it right. It's not silly, it's unethical.

I find it interesting that people were so up in arms about John Edwards' $400 haircut, but when Sarah Palin spends $150K on clothes, it's 'to be expected,' and silly to make a big deal over it. Hipocrites. The RNC has changed its story about the clothes twice since the story broke, so I don't think donation was always the intent, and, given Palin's track record of unethical practices, I fully expect those clothes to end up in her closet. She's lied before, she'll do it again.
 
LadyBug wrote:
gentle giants wrote: BethM wrote: My personal belief is that life doesn't start until one is able to survive outside of the mother's body. Yes, except that it is not uncommon for the fetus to survive the abortion. But don't impede on my right to make decisions about my body and life with the assistance of a docter. Well, as I have said before, the fact still remains that it's not YOUR life and body you are ending.
totally agree with you here



The First Amendment of the the US Constitution provide for a separation of church and state. The debate over when life begins is a religious matter. Religion has no place in lawmaking.


 
I'm simply sharing this because I thought it was interesting....ok...so it is about Obama...but still yet. If McCain had done the same thing - I'd be sharing it here too...honestly.

Report: Journalists From Three Newspapers Booted From Obama's Plane Reporters from three newspapers that endorsed John McCain have reportedly been told that they can't travel aboard Barack Obama's plane in the final days leading before Election Day. Journalists from three major newspapers that endorsed John McCain have reportedly been booted from Barack Obama's campaign plane for the final leg of the presidential race.The Washington Times reported Friday that it was notified of the Obama campaign's decision Thursday evening -- even though the paper has covered Obama from the start.
Executive Editor John Solomon toldFOXNews.com that the Obama campaign said it didn't have enough seats on the plane, but "I don't think the explanation makes sense to us."
"We've been traveling since 2007 with him. ... We're a relevant newspaper -- every day we break news," Solomon said. "And to suddenly be kicked off the plane for people who haven't covered it as aggressively or thoroughly as we are ... it sort of feels unfair."
He said the newspaper protested but was turned down again by the campaign.
"I can only hope that the candidate who describes himself as wanting to unite the nation doesn't have some sort of litmus test for who he decides gets to cover the campaign," Solomon said, noting that the Obama campaign's decision came just two days after the paper endorsed McCain.
The New York Post and Dallas Morning News also have been kicked off Obama's plane, according to the Web site The Drudge Report.It said the three reporters were told to find alternative transportation by Sunday so that the plane could accommodate "network bigwigs" and reporters from two black magazines, Essence and Jet.
Representatives from the New York Post and Dallas Morning News could not be reached immediately for comment.
Click here to read the story on the Obama campaign's decision in The Washington Times.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/obama-plane-pitches-reporters-mccain-endorsing-papers/

[line]
I mention this because it reminds me of that tv station in Florida that had a tough interview with Joe Biden last week - and then the Obama campaign contacted them and canceled all upcoming interviews and stated that they would be "inaccessible" for the rest of the campaign - or something like that.

 
I just read through this whole thread (yes I'm supposed to revising, but this is more important in day to day life let's be honest;)) and found itvery interesting- although asa bit of a liberal I did get a bit whipped up by some opinions...but I'll just shake those off.;):DWhen it comes to things such as politics, religion and great philosophical debates its best never to take things too much to heart or we'd all end up at each other's throats!:shock::D

Although I'm (obviously:D) not American I'm still taking great interest in this election because America is arguably the most powerful country in the world and whoever becomes President not only affects you guys but the rest of us round the world. That being said, the idea of the republicans coming into power quite scares me to be honest....:?It makes me wish we had some say in the election, although at least I'm 18 in 2 months so able to vote here in the UK when it comes to our next general election!:)

 
:yeahthat: As a Canadian, the US is our largest trading partner, and US policy tends to influence policies around the world.
It is very important to me that you guys elect someone who is focused on becoming a better global system.

No offense, but Dubya has ruined a lot of international treaties and relations between countries with his "US first" approach to everything from trade to the environment.
I think that whomever wins better focus on learning how to co-operate effectively with the rest of the world.
 
NorthernAutumn wrote:
No offense, but Dubya has ruined a lot of international treaties and relations between countries with his "US first" approach to everything from trade to the environment.
Could you list those please? I would like to research that information if you have it available.
 
TinysMom wrote:
I'm simply sharing this because I thought it was interesting....ok...so it is about Obama...but still yet. If McCain had done the same thing - I'd be sharing it here too...honestly.

To be true to my word....

Obama is not the only candidate to play hardball with the press. McCain's campaign has reportedly barred Time columnist Joe Klein and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who have been critical of the Republican candidate, from the Republicancandidate's plane.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/obama-plane-pitches-reporters-mccain-endorsing-papers/
 
Meh. McCain booted the reporters a while back, and I remember other reporters commenting on how much space was in the plain.

In the Washington Times article, Obama's rep did say they ran out of seats due to the high number of reporters wanting in on the last few days of the election (I wouldn't be surprised) and offered seats on Sen. Biden's plane instead. I wouldn't be surprised if they chose based on who the journalists support and how many people read/watch their stuff. If you have to choose somehow, you may as well choose that way.

Either way, I'm was more concerned about how the McCain campaign kept preventing Palin from doing more interviews. People wanted to get to know her and her stances since she was pretty much unknown outside of Alaska, and after one bad interview they just pulled the plug for a while. I know I wanted to know more about her since I was undecided as to who to vote for at the time. It made me feel like they had something to hide, or that she was just so very unprepared for national-level politics.:?

Edit: Seniorcats- I'm sure moving on Iraq without UN approval was a blow to ourdealings with other governments.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top