Obama vs. McCain Round II

[PharmD321]

So its not the rich people that higher taxes hurt, its the middle class. You're right, Oprah, and Angelina Jolie make more money than they know what to do with. That's great that they give so much away.

Wait a moment though. Yes, it may be good that the actors/actress give money away but If you are against more taxing to everyone and everyone should have the same tax rate, then are you saying that the oil company should get taxed the same too? The oil companies are the scum of our society. We should be focusing on renewable energy not degrade our global enviornment. We should tax them a bunch until they stop selling oil and find something else that would help the environment.

The middle class isn't rich, and they will bear the brunt of higher taxes. I personally am very scared of socialism, and I don't think its premature to call Obama's ideas socialistic. He said he wanted to, "spread the wealth," which is pretty close to the definition of socialism. Lets take the money from the upper middle class, and middle class, and give to the poor. Alright, so then we'd have two classes in society, the rich, and the not rich. The whole middle class and poor will be muddled together. The rich will always be rich. There will always be unequality because some people are more equal than others. For those of you who say a doctor shouldn't earn any more than a pharmacist I think you're mislead. That's one of the reasons that I don't want to be a doctor is that the job is all consuming. I really didn't want to donate my life to medicine, no matter how much you got paid. If we go by that philosophy, why should a pharmacist be paid any more than a school teacher? Don't worry, if we keep going this socialistic route they'll tax pharmacists to the point that you make a similar amount as a teacher. If it gets to that point I'm working part time. Seriously, why should I work 40 hours a week if I make the same money after taxation as I would working 20 hours a week. I'm also against big government. The government is a tool for the people to use. At what point do we become cogs in their machine? Anyway, I digress. I suppose my view points also come from experience. I was the kid that worked super hard in everything. I am the adult that works super hard in everything. I am the adult who did nothing fun in undergrad because I had to work to help support myself. The government only gave me $5,500/year in unsubsidized loans. Well that didn't even cover the cost of tuition. They told my dad that on his $100,000 salary before taxes he should be able to afford about $40,000 dollars of college tuition for my sister and I. Well he couldn't afford it, so he gave me $6,000 a year. I had to work hard for the rest. I was bitter that I didn't get much help. I was bitter that while everyone else was having fun in college I had to either study or work. I was in a hard major at a difficult school so that I could get into pharmacy school. Getting into pharmacy school was no accident. I worked hard for many years of my life. Success is no accident. It takes lots of hard work. I'm not saying that everyone who isn't successful doesn't work hard. America is the land of opportunity. We do not guarantee you anything in this country (though it looks like Obama does), but you have the right to earn it. If you don't want to earn success then that's fine, but don't punish me for it. Don't steal even more of the money that I worked so hard for. Spreading the wealth is a nice sounding name for stealing. Don't get me wrong, I believe taxes are necessary, but when taxes become a punitive way of trying to impose equality on society, then I think that is wrong

Let me ask you this simple question, do you think that bill clinton is a socialist and was he one during his term of presidency? Why or Why not?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PharmD321]

To all other post:

Let me ask you this, what did our economy look like during the years of jan 20, 1993 to jan 20, 2001?

What does our economy look like now?

Also, if you want to think more, look and compare what happened in the economy durings the first bush's term and then clinton and then bush's son.

Let me ask you something, which of these presidential terms were the best? Which one did we not go to war? which were democrat and republican? Which one screwed up the most?

Think about it and then you will find out why the electoral college voted for Obama.

 

[PrepharmKID]

Just now catching the tail end of this discussion... I thought I'd throw a few small things into the discussion.

For starters, Doctors do make a lot of money, the more you specialize, the more you make as well. One think people dont think about is malpractice insurance. There is more risk associated with being a doctor than working in a pharmacy. You are dealing directly with the patient and it poses more of a risk.

This info is from an article about malpractice insurance in massachusetts:

Rodwin's team looked at data from 1975 to 2005 provided by ProMutual Group, the insurer for about half of the state's doctors.

Premiums cycled up and down, with the steepest peaks and valleys in three specialties - obstetrics/gynecology, neurological surgery, and orthopedics involving spinal surgery - that account for 4 percent of doctors practicing in the state.

In those specialties, rates rose from an average of $66,220 in 1990 to $95,045 in 2005, when adjusted for inflation.


Another thing I would like to add is that from one president to the next, sometimes it takes a whole term for their effect to be felt. George Bush did a great job at running the country but it wasn't felt until Bill CLintons presidency making him look good. This trend can be seen through much of our country's history.

Just my two cents(sense). haha saw someone write that in a post the other day.

 

[PharmD321]

Just now catching the tail end of this discussion... I thought I'd throw a few small things into the discussion.

For starters, Doctors do make a lot of money, the more you specialize, the more you make as well. One think people dont think about is malpractice insurance. There is more risk associated with being a doctor than working in a pharmacy. You are dealing directly with the patient and it poses more of a risk.

This info is from an article about malpractice insurance in massachusetts:

Rodwin's team looked at data from 1975 to 2005 provided by ProMutual Group, the insurer for about half of the state's doctors.

Premiums cycled up and down, with the steepest peaks and valleys in three specialties - obstetrics/gynecology, neurological surgery, and orthopedics involving spinal surgery - that account for 4 percent of doctors practicing in the state.

In those specialties, rates rose from an average of $66,220 in 1990 to $95,045 in 2005, when adjusted for inflation.


Another thing I would like to add is that from one president to the next, sometimes it takes a whole term for their effect to be felt. George Bush did a great job at running the country but it wasn't felt until Bill CLintons presidency making him look good. This trend can be seen through much of our country's history.

Just my two cents(sense). haha saw someone write that in a post the other day.

Are you kidding me or what?

Seriously, Bush did the crappiest things in congress. Both father and son went to war in the middle east.

Bill Clinton made sure there was peace in the middle east.

Then the housing and land value went up during clinton's term while both bush's made house prices go down and the economy goes into recession because of the wars bushs' like to go in (wars=debt and the economy is going to struggle).

Thank god that bush is finish now. I noticed that Obama's ideas are similar to Clinton's so I am sure that Obama will bring back to what we had back in 1995-1998. That was the best time ever (house market prices goes up, unemployment rates down, wall street making big bucks like warren buffet) until bush's son came in and destroyed it all and made us go into recession because of the war in Iraq.

And please, don't tell me that bush is trying to promote democracy in Iraq. You are being brainwashed because all the bush's ever want is more money from oil companies and when bush protects the oil reserves in iraq and the middle east, oil companies pay him. Also, United States of America trained Osama Bin Laden so he knows how to evade capture from us and he has been evading us for 30 years. Trust me, we will never catch him. The best thing we can do is do what Bin Laden demands: get our troops out of middle east and bring them to protect our borders.

 

[PrepharmKID]

Have you never seen black hawk down? That's based on true events because Clinton Effed up big time. Just one of many events caused by his poor judgement.

We can all express our opinions on here with out degrading other people guy. No need to put others down.

 

[calisoca]

We can all express our opinions on here with out degrading other people guy. No need to put others down.

Agreed. There is no need to jump somebody like that. All this after you posted in dismay because people "were trying to change your beliefs." It seems you are trying harder than anybody to change/put others down for their opinions.

 

[PharmD321]

Have you never seen black hawk down? That's based on true events because Clinton Effed up big time. Just one of many events caused by his poor judgement.

We can all express our opinions on here with out degrading other people guy. No need to put others down.

Let me tell you something. That battle is not called Black Hawk Down. That is a movie name that is about the Battle of Mogadishu. Haven't you notice that clinton only spent 2 days in that war and then it is finished? Seriously how many years are we in Iraq? And where is all the money coming from to fund the war if we are already in debt? The answer is bush and his fellows borrow all the money from China and its 10 billion dollars a month. And why is bush doing all of this? Most Oil reserves are located where? And what did George W. Bush do for a living before he became in politics? He was CEO for his family's oil company. So it is obvious that he and his lobbyist wanted to go to Iraq to protect thier oil reserves from Osama Bin Laden.


Also, we lost 18 soldiers in the Battle of Mogadishu.

How many did Bush loose in the both the persian war and the war in Iraq and even in Afganistan?

And no I am not degrading a person, I am only telling you the truth.

 

[PrepharmKID]

Let me tell you something. That battle is not called Black Hawk Down. That is a movie name that is about the Battle of Mogadishu. Haven't you notice that clinton only spent 2 days in that war and then it is finished? Seriously how many years are we in Iraq? And where is all the money coming from to fund the war if we are already in debt? The answer is China.

You love to argue dont you? I understand you are one of those people just push people around trying to pursuade everyone to believe what you do, but it wont happen with how confrontational you are. That in my opinion is not a favorable attribute.

I guess i have to repeat myself, the move is "BASED" on true events. You are so quick to judge people and put them down you completely missread what I typed. Have a good day. this is no thread i want to be part of anymore.

 

[PharmD321]

You love to argue dont you? I understand you are one of those people just push people around trying to pursuade everyone to believe what you do, but it wont happen with how confrontational you are. That in my opinion is not a favorable attribute.

I guess i have to repeat myself, the move is "BASED" on true events. You are so quick to judge people and put them down you completely missread what I typed. Have a good day. this is no thread i want to be part of anymore.

I did watch the movie but I was only saying that the battle occured only 2 days but had been a planned operation for months (maybe Bush planned on doing that battle? because this occured only 11 months after clinton became president). But that wasn't my point, was it? My point was, how long were we fighting in Iraq and Afganistan? We are spending billions of dollars a month so we can help the oil company. Seriously, if we had more smart people and evidence, Bush would have been impeached a long time ago because what he did was very unethical and made us go into recession.

Even Ron Paul says that the housing market is in a 'depression.'

Seriously, watch this video of what Ron Paul has to say and you will see it yourself that your favorite president (Bush) made our economy go into recession.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKjhNa6PGLk

 

[Texas PharmDoc]

Are you kidding me or what?

Seriously, Bush did the crappiest things in congress. Both father and son went to war in the middle east.

Bill Clinton made sure there was peace in the middle east.

Then the housing and land value went up during clinton's term while both bush's made house prices go down and the economy goes into recession because of the wars bushs' like to go in (wars=debt and the economy is going to struggle).

Thank god that bush is finish now. I noticed that Obama's ideas are similar to Clinton's so I am sure that Obama will bring back to what we had back in 1995-1998. That was the best time ever (house market prices goes up, unemployment rates down, wall street making big bucks like warren buffet) until bush's son came in and destroyed it all and made us go into recession because of the war in Iraq.

And please, don't tell me that bush is trying to promote democracy in Iraq. You are being brainwashed because all the bush's ever want is more money from oil companies and when bush protects the oil reserves in iraq and the middle east, oil companies pay him. Also, United States of America trained Osama Bin Laden so he knows how to evade capture from us and he has been evading us for 30 years. Trust me, we will never catch him. The best thing we can do is do what Bin Laden demands: get our troops out of middle east and bring them to protect our borders.

Wait, I thought you were so against everyone on this thread making alot of money and against doctor's salaries being as "high" as they are?

 

[Sparda29]

I hope that the new administration gets rid of the ability of people to sue medical professionals.

 

[evilolive]

I actually care a lot more about things than money. If I was that concerned about money I wouldn't have been a pharmacist. There are probably easier ways to earn money than pharmacy. I got married to a man for love, and it had nothing to do with money. Actually by the time I get out of pharmacy school I'll be making more than double his salary ^_^' I really do care about healthcare because my mom has had quite a few physical ailments, and I've had a few myself. I saw how doctors treated her, and it was like they really didn't care about her at all. I tell you what though, I have a really good expensive endocrinologist that treats me very well. I actually pay for that endocrinologist out of pocket because he treats my condition better than any other doctor I've been too. He doesn't take insurance. He probably makes quite a bit of money too. Each appointment of mine is $400, and I have a few of them a year. He has patients lined up, and out the door too. Just because he makes a lot of money doesn't mean he wishes autoimmune disorders on people, or that he's busy thinking about how much money he's making during each appointment. In my experience I've found that some of the most expensive doctors are actually the best.

Its not even the money thing, its about principles. I'm sorry your dad treated you so badly, but that doesn't mean that every one that makes money is out to exploit the proletariat. Its great if you want to give all your money away, or a large portion of it. I think we need more people like you in that regard. However, its wrong if someone steals the money from you to give to other people. Here are three scenarios. Scenario A: I'm a student and I have a $800 laptop computer. Person X is a single mom with two kids, and she doesn't have enough money for a laptop computer. The government comes in and says, "you know what, its not fair that you have a laptop and Person X doesn't so we're going to take yours and give it to her. Just go out and buy another one." Scenario B: Everything else is the same, but I decide out of the goodness of my heart to give my laptop to Person X, and I go out and by another one. Scenario C: Everything else is the same, but Person X decides to steal my laptop because she doesn't have one. I go out and buy another one. In our current society, Scenario C is morally wrong, but how is it that much different than Scenario A? In Scenario A the government is stealing, and in Scenario C the individual is stealing. It doesn't matter who is stealing from me, I don't like it. Did I really need that extra $800? Maybe, and maybe not. Truth be told if someone stole my laptop I would be financially okay, but that doesn't make it right. Scenario B is perfectly fine. If I felt like giving my stuff away, then more power to me.

I just turned 24, but I've read quite a few books about government myself. Ayn Rand's, "Atlas Shrugged," "We the Living," "Anthem." George Orwell's, "1984," "Animal Farm." Kurt Vonnegut's, "Slaughterhouse 5." Ray Bradbury's, "Farenheit 451." Karl Marx's, "Communist Manifesto." Michael Savage's, "Savage Nation." Plato's, "The Republic." Most of these I read while in high school. It made me very wary of both socialism, and big government. See punitive taxation isn't just about helping people, its about punishing those who have more. I haven't read Obama's book because quite frankly I don't think I could stomach it. I was against socialism before I even made money. I'm not saying that Obama is going to turn America into a dystopia, but the rate that government is growing certainly scares me.

In addition to this, more spending and social programs don't necessarily help people. California has one of the highest state taxes in America and its about to get worse with the possible addition of a 1.5% sales tax hike. Our state is in a horrible budget deficit, and we've had to cut back on many things including our public schools. We don't have enough money, and we never will with the way California's liberal legislature keeps spending. . .

Let me begin with saying that no one likes paying more taxes, but they are an investment so that we can continue to prosper. (duh )

My only complaint with the free market idea is that there are so few checks and balances for those who succeed. I don't think that there will be radical redistribution of wealth for everyone, only those who can afford it. As health care professionals, we've been charged with taking care of patients. The system also rewards us with salaries that are proportionally within the top oh, say 5% of the nation. I think that if we were penalized a little - and we're on the lower end of the upper middle class - for the sake of the economy and social programs improving in quality, I think that's a decent sacrifice to be asked of us. The social infrastructure we live in is supported by the lower class. We need them much as much as they need us as their social guardians of health. It may not be fair from a pure "let's count how many toys you have" perspective, but indirectly, they support our ability to advance in the socioeconomic ladder.

I know I'm speaking in terms of generalizations, but I don't think that privatization can solve problems unless there is an incentive for most of the market forces to begin solving problems. That's where the government can come in. However, efficiency begets progress, and it's got to start somewhere. Yes, government can become laden with red tape and cumbersome approaches, but I don't see too many Warren Buffets of the world strategizing about how they can help the low income households keep their mortgage payments and advancing in society when times were good in the 90s. The business sector cannot be trusted with trying to help out the people, nor should they be. I think it's not too much to be asked of us to give back in order to support the general infrastructure so educational reform and the like can progress. At the end of the day we may be richer, but if everything else falls apart, it doesn't really mean much does it?

 

[SHC1984]

Me and one of my old classmates from Columbia dental school were talking about Obama being the president. This guy is very brillant and proberly has the highest grade in the class....here is his opinion (in BOLD) on Obama.

I'm really not worried. For starters, American is a fundamentally strong nation; it will take a LOT to bring her down. Even the Great Depression only lasted about 14 years and it is unlikely that so many factors against us will ever line up simultaneously like that ever again. Another Great Depression would be terrible, but we'd survive.

As for more specifics, I'm still not worried. Quite simply, there is no money to implement the plans proposed by both Obama and the Congressional Democrats. Obama and his staff recognize this. They glossed over it and made only passing reference to it for political purposes, but they are aware of this problem. Raising taxes during a recession is a sure-fire way to turn a recession into a depression and a sure-fire way to guarantee a single term. No action will be taken on tax increases until the economy improves.

That means no new revenue. Deficit spending can't increase by much, because we currently have a credit problem. If the government jacks up the deficit even more, it'll soak up more loanable funds and make the recent banking crisis even worse. Don't expect to see any big expensive changes in Obama's first year. After a year or two, the excitement will wear off and the base won't be pushing so hard for dangerously radical change. Long story short: medicine will NOT be socialized under President Obama. Reform will happen, but it will be cautious and evidence based. Dentistry will never be socialized ahead of medicine since it is viewed as "elective."

The economy will eventually improve, though, giving political cover to raise taxes. On the campaign trail, Obama proposed raising the top federal marginal tax rate to 39.6%. He also wants to lift the Social Security cap, tacking an extra 12.4% combined on top of that, bring us up to 52%. Add on state and local income taxes and you are looking at a top marginal rate of well over 60%.

What will happen? Established dentists who don't have to pay off their loans will probably decide to cut back their hours. Bring the taxes up high enough and it is no longer worth it for them to work longer. I mean, if you can work 4 days a week and live a really nice life, or work 5 days a week and work only a slightly better life (since almost 2/3rds of your earnings on that last day is being taken in taxes), most dentists will probably take that extra day off. Dentistry is hard, stressful work. For me, if I've met my basic financial needs, I'd rather protect my health and get more time to spend with my future kids rather than put more strain on my back and increase my stress but hardly get anything in return. Most people would respond the same.

So, established dentists will cut their hours. Some will retire earlier than they otherwise would have (deciding that with these higher taxes, extra free time is worth more than the reduced extra incoming they might get). But no dentist is going to starve. Maybe we'll make $200k instead of $250k or whatever. That's still WAY above the national median household income of about $40k (before taxes).

The problem, really, becomes everybody else. If a dentist cuts back his hours by 20%, he might be stuck only buying a new BMW every 8 years instead of every 5 years (ha! I'm a creature of habit; I don't plan on replacing any of my future cars until they die, but I'm unusual in that regard). BUT... if he cuts his hours by 20%, his assistants get their hours cut by 20%. As do his hygienists. His office staff. The community will see a 20% reduction in time slots to see a dentist, increasing the shortage and causing prices to rise.

You really can't "soak the rich" since you'll destroy the working class long before you make a meaningful impact. Coming from a working class family, THAT'S what worries me the most about the next four years. Personally, though, I'll be fine.

 

[SHC1984]

I personally still believe healthcare is a right! However I also see what other people in this thread are saying about how useless some government programs are.

And yes, medicaid fraud is verrry wrong.

 

[PharmD321]

Wait, I thought you were so against everyone on this thread making alot of money and against doctor's salaries being as "high" as they are?

Did I ever say that I am against salaries? No, I never said that. I am mad at my dad for not paying his taxes and when a person makes a lot of money per year, he should be able pay his own taxes. He even lied to court saying that he made $40,000 a year and the judge told him in his face that was a lie. I believe in the end, he had to pay.

Anyways, I basically said that the economy was better during 1995-2000 because Clinton's administration did the same tax cut that Obama is thinking about doing (Warren Buffett even endorsed Obama because he said that he was getting a low percentage tax [19 percent] than his own employees [33 percent] in Bush's administration).

Clinton also created more jobs which made the unemployment rates go down (Have you notice that Bush doesn't even care about unemployment rates or something? Last time I saw was 6.5 percent and it is the highest number since 1993.

Read this: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-jobs8-2008nov08,0,7272359.story

I believe that Obama is going to do the same thing as Clinton did in his administration so its not like the economy is going to be back up by tomorrow but Obama will make our economy better in the near future (I bet around 2-4 years until the economy gets better if there is no war).

I hope that the new administration gets rid of the ability of people to sue medical professionals.

So you basically saying that if the medical professionals accidently cut your intestine, then you can't sue the doctors that did it?


Evilolive:

Let me begin with saying that no one likes paying more taxes, but they are an investment so that we can continue to prosper. (duh )

Exactly!

My only complaint with the free market idea is that there are so few checks and balances for those who succeed. I don't think that there will be radical redistribution of wealth for everyone, only those who can afford it. As health care professionals, we've been charged with taking care of patients. The system also rewards us with salaries that are proportionally within the top oh, say 5% of the nation. I think that if we were penalized a little - and we're on the lower end of the upper middle class - for the sake of the economy and social programs improving in quality, I think that's a decent sacrifice to be asked of us. The social infrastructure we live in is supported by the lower class. We need them much as much as they need us as their social guardians of health. It may not be fair from a pure "let's count how many toys you have" perspective, but indirectly, they support our ability to advance in the socioeconomic ladder.

Remember, it is not a penalty being rich. Taxes rise and it will help our economy, schools, buses, lightrails, new highways, anything else to help the people.

I know I'm speaking in terms of generalizations, but I don't think that privatization can solve problems unless there is an incentive for most of the market forces to begin solving problems. That's where the government can come in. However, efficiency begets progress, and it's got to start somewhere. Yes, government can become laden with red tape and cumbersome approaches, but I don't see too many Warren Buffets of the world strategizing about how they can help the low income households keep their mortgage payments and advancing in society when times were good in the 90s. The business sector cannot be trusted with trying to help out the people, nor should they be. I think it's not too much to be asked of us to give back in order to support the general infrastructure so educational reform and the like can progress. At the end of the day we may be richer, but if everything else falls apart, it doesn't really mean much does it?[/quote]

Obviously you remember the 90's very well (economy was so good, wasn't it?). Exactly my point! Yes, there are not too many Warren Buffetts to help explain to the government why the housing market is going down, but don't forget, Obama and Warren Buffett and a bunch of people had meetings already to figure out what exactly are they going to do for this economy.

Read this: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a7DPfV6wZrwY&refer=home

Me and one of my old classmates from Columbia dental school were talking about Obama being the president. This guy is brilliant and probably has the highest grade in the class....here is his opinion (in BOLD) on Obama.

I'm really not worried. For starters, American is a fundamentally strong nation; it will take a LOT to bring her down. Even the Great Depression only lasted about 14 years and it is unlikely that so many factors against us will ever line up simultaneously like that ever again. Another Great Depression would be terrible, but we'd survive.

As for more specifics, I'm still not worried. Quite simply, there is no money to implement the plans proposed by both Obama and the Congressional Democrats. Obama and his staff recognize this. They glossed over it and made only passing reference to it for political purposes, but they are aware of this problem. Raising taxes during a recession is a sure-fire way to turn a recession into a depression and a sure-fire way to guarantee a single term. No action will be taken on tax increases until the economy improves.

That means no new revenue. Deficit spending can't increase by much, because we currently have a credit problem. If the government jacks up the deficit even more, it'll soak up more loanable funds and make the recent banking crisis even worse. Don't expect to see any big expensive changes in Obama's first year. After a year or two, the excitement will wear off and the base won't be pushing so hard for dangerously radical change. Long story short: medicine will NOT be socialized under President Obama. Reform will happen, but it will be cautious and evidence based. Dentistry will never be socialized ahead of medicine since it is viewed as "elective."

The economy will eventually improve, though, giving political cover to raise taxes. On the campaign trail, Obama proposed raising the top federal marginal tax rate to 39.6%. He also wants to lift the Social Security cap, tacking an extra 12.4% combined on top of that, bring us up to 52%. Add on state and local income taxes and you are looking at a top marginal rate of well over 60%.

What will happen? Established dentists who don't have to pay off their loans will probably decide to cut back their hours. Bring the taxes up high enough and it is no longer worth it for them to work longer. I mean, if you can work 4 days a week and live a really nice life, or work 5 days a week and work only a slightly better life (since almost 2/3rds of your earnings on that last day is being taken in taxes), most dentists will probably take that extra day off. Dentistry is hard, stressful work. For me, if I've met my basic financial needs, I'd rather protect my health and get more time to spend with my future kids rather than put more strain on my back and increase my stress but hardly get anything in return. Most people would respond the same.

So, established dentists will cut their hours. Some will retire earlier than they otherwise would have (deciding that with these higher taxes, extra free time is worth more than the reduced extra incoming they might get). But no dentist is going to starve. Maybe we'll make $200k instead of $250k or whatever. That's still WAY above the national median household income of about $40k (before taxes).

The problem, really, becomes everybody else. If a dentist cuts back his hours by 20%, he might be stuck only buying a new BMW every 8 years instead of every 5 years (ha! I'm a creature of habit; I don't plan on replacing any of my future cars until they die, but I'm unusual in that regard). BUT... if he cuts his hours by 20%, his assistants get their hours cut by 20%. As do his hygienists. His office staff. The community will see a 20% reduction in time slots to see a dentist, increasing the shortage and causing prices to rise.

You really can't "soak the rich" since you'll destroy the working class long before you make a meaningful impact. Coming from a working class family, THAT'S what worries me the most about the next four years. Personally, though, I'll be fine.

Well said! He really does know what he is talking about!

I personally still believe healthcare is right! However I also see what other people in this thread are saying about how useless some government programs are.

And yes, medicaid fraud is verrry wrong.

So, are you saying that government should make programs like help the people get health care and get jobs too? I agree too. I had a russian friend that moved here from Russia and his parents can't afford to get healthcare insurance during the Bush Administration. I believe that Obama is going to reform healthcare which is a great step into making our economy prosper in the near future.

 

[koercive]

I just turned 24, but I've read quite a few books about government myself. Ayn Rand's, "Atlas Shrugged," "We the Living," "Anthem." George Orwell's, "1984," "Animal Farm." Kurt Vonnegut's, "Slaughterhouse 5." Ray Bradbury's, "Farenheit 451." Karl Marx's, "Communist Manifesto." Michael Savage's, "Savage Nation." Plato's, "The Republic." Most of these I read while in high school. It made me very wary of both socialism, and big government. See punitive taxation isn't just about helping people, its about punishing those who have more. I haven't read Obama's book because quite frankly I don't think I could stomach it. I was against socialism before I even made money. I'm not saying that Obama is going to turn America into a dystopia, but the rate that government is growing certainly scares me.

Look, there is nothing to be afraid of the government. The programs were all created by us (public transportation created by who? public schools, public universities, anything with the word 'public' means that we bought that with our tax money.) The congress and the president only signs the bill into law and make sure our system is following the rules that the founding fathers made (this happened 232 years ago so actually the country we live in is doing great except that we need to end the iraq war!!!). Also, don't you remember that communism and socialism means that there is only one class of people, the 'working people' (the government is only the top rank but those people are like invisible, you would never see them like North Korea and Kim Jong is probably in his mansion with his nukes). It means that everyone works and wont get rich or poor while making nukes for their dictator. This doesn't sound like America nor will it become when Obama is president (I know you said that obama wont). Seriously though, you need to think outside the box and read obama's book. The book, dreams of my father, even makes me cry because he is a inspirational person and likes to help people. It's mainly about his life so not too much about the politics (audacity of hope is when obama explains his political views).
/QUOTE]



I am not a supporter of Obama nor Mccain. I think that Obama has good intentions, but I do not like his voting history. He voted for wiretapping (decreasing our civil liberties), and I don't think that he's the "peace candidate" that he paints himself to be.

Like you told the other guy to be open-minded to read Obama's book, I ask you to check out Ron Paul's: The Revolution A Manifesto. I have to disagree with you on the benefits of a growing government presence. The way things are going today reminds me of the book 1984. Many of the policies and the way things go today from both parties would make the founding fathers roll in their graves. The majority of the candidates (including Obama and McCain) from both sides don't seem to interpret or respect the constitution the way the founding fathers laid out.


http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Ma...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226095124&sr=8-1

 

[PharmD321]

I am not a supporter of Obama nor Mccain. I think that Obama has good intentions, but I do not like his voting history. He voted for wiretapping (decreasing our civil liberties), and I don't think that he's the "peace candidate" that he paints himself to be.

Like you told the other guy to be open-minded to read Obama's book, I ask you to check out Ron Paul's: The Revolution A Manifesto. I have to disagree with you on the benefits of a growing government presence. The way things are going today reminds me of the book 1984. Many of the policies and the way things go today from both parties would make the founding fathers roll in their graves. The majority of the candidates (including Obama and McCain) from both sides don't seem to interpret or respect the constitution the way the founding fathers laid out.


http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Ma...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226095124&sr=8-1

You need to read the first page of this forum. I already read this book! I already know! I would have voted for Ron Paul if McCain wasn't the nominee! You can look for it yourself that the last time I updated that post was in 10-08-08.

By the way, the reason why I am not a republican now is that the war in Iraq is a waste of money and McCain thinks its the best thing that happened. I strongly disagree with McBush administration. I believe that Ron Paul is one of the smartest person because he wants to end the war in iraq and bring our troops back home to protect our borders. This man has common sense and acts like an adult.

I totally agree with this. The washington that we knew in the history books are long gone. I actually was all for ron paul (loved his book: The Revolution) at first but then he lost his nomination and then McCain got nominated. McCain is sketch so I went for hillary but then she lost the nomination. I am still researching on Obama and currently reading the Audacity of Hope....

the point I was trying to make earlier is that we only have 2 choices that the electoral college want to vote and I would go for obama all the way because I would rather have someone that was accepted and educated from Harvard, than someone that was in a horrible ranking in a navy school.

By the way, the 'helping' the community part I was saying like Obama helped the church to make programs such as: job training, college prep tutoring for everyone (poor and/or middle class) in chicago. I think that this is a great person and does want to help with the health insurance crisis, so he has my vote.

 

[PrepharmKID]

Let's just say laws change and those with the most money, including private business owners, get taxed an even higher amount. What do you think is going to happen to those employees? Many will lose their jobs, if not all of them. Those jobs go oversees. We are seeing more and more business go to other countries because of taxes they have to pay. These business want to make as much as they can and they have every right. There isn't much incentive to stay here and if taxes get hiked up more i can see an even larger amount of business going elsewhere.

Remember one thing, our government was created to work for us, not to control us.

If you are for "spreading" the wealth, there are many countries I can suggest you move. They will have universal health care, but dont forget the long waits, sometimes years to have surgery. You could die while just waiting. Taxes are straight across the board so everyone takes home half of what they should, so much for going to school for 6-10 years for medical professionals. There are no pro's for living in a country like that and I pray to God that will never happen here. EVerything this country stands for will have gone out the window.

 

[PharmD321]

Let's just say laws change and those with the most money, including private business owners, get taxed an even higher amount. What do you think is going to happen to those employees? Many will lose their jobs, if not all of them. Those jobs go oversees. We are seeing more and more business go to other countries because of taxes they have to pay. These business want to make as much as they can and they have every right. There isn't much incentive to stay here and if taxes get hiked up more i can see an even larger amount of business going elsewhere.

Remember one thing, our government was created to work for us, not to control us.

If you are for "spreading" the wealth, there are many countries I can suggest you move. They will have universal health care, but dont forget the long waits, sometimes years to have surgery. You could die while just waiting. Taxes are straight across the board so everyone takes home half of what they should, so much for going to school for 6-10 years for medical professionals. There are no pro's for living in a country like that and I pray to God that will never happen here. EVerything this country stands for will have gone out the window.

There is only one tax law and that tax law is going to change this January, won't it? dude why you complaining? just lie down low and see what Obama does. Obama already got elected and if you watch this video Barack tells you that he is going to give tax credit to those companies that hire more employees.

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

By the way, you act like Obama's tax cut is making a rich person become making the same amount as a school teacher. That is false. If you do make $250,000 a year without taxes, then you will make $150,000 a year (which is a 40 percent tax). This is still good money, isn't it? You won't be living in poverty like the slums in Brazil. Even if you make under $250,000 (which you will as a pharmacist), Obama says you will get tax cut so it will not effect you. Just watch the movie.

EDIT: Also, how are the jobs going to ship overseas if obama gives you tax credit for hiring employees?

 

[Sparda29]

For anyone who doesn't know the main difference between the Obama and McCain health care plans, Obama's plan is based on the idea that "Healthcare is a right", while McCain's plan is based on the idea that "Healthcare is a privilege".

As health care professionals, patients come first, therefore in our eyes, healthcare should be a right.

 

[calisoca]

. If you do make $250,000 a year without taxes, then you will make $150,000 a year (which is a 40 percent tax). This is still good money, isn't it? You won't be living in poverty like the slums in Brazil. Even if you make under $250,000 (which you will as a pharmacist), Obama says you will get tax cut so it will not effect you. Just watch the movie.

We have come full circle now and are wasting each others' time.

This thread needs to be locked, pronto. Fenixtl, Farmercist, or whatever/whoever please put an end to this thread. The site should be constructive, not destructive, and the opinions that have come to be are nothing but the latter. It was fun to read the Freshman's views for a while but it has reached a point where we are all tired of hearing all the second hand babble from text books, websites, and teachers.

This thread has deviated far from it's original intention and I think we should get back to a road of providing advice and opinion on the road of positivity.

 

[Texas PharmDoc]

We have come full circle now and are wasting each others' time.

This thread needs to be locked, pronto. Fenixtl, Farmercist, or whatever/whoever please put an end to this thread. The site should be constructive, not destructive, and the opinions that have come to be are nothing but the latter. It was fun to read the Freshman's views for a while but it has reached a point where we are all tired of hearing all the second hand babble from text books, websites, and teachers.

This thread has deviated far from it's original intention and I think we should get back to a road of providing advice and opinion on the road of positivity.

Amen.

 

[goinkhead]

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but wait!! I want to say something bad about democrats!!!!....

Lemme just take a quick glance at michelle malkins website!!!

we have come full circle now and are wasting each others' time.

This thread needs to be locked, pronto. Fenixtl, farmercist, or whatever/whoever please put an end to this thread. The site should be constructive, not destructive, and the opinions that have come to be are nothing but the latter. It was fun to read the freshman's views for a while but it has reached a point where we are all tired of hearing all the second hand babble from text books, websites, and teachers.

This thread has deviated far from it's original intention and i think we should get back to a road of providing advice and opinion on the road of positivity.

 

[PrePharmD]

We have come full circle now and are wasting each others' time.

This thread needs to be locked, pronto. Fenixtl, Farmercist, or whatever/whoever please put an end to this thread. The site should be constructive, not destructive, and the opinions that have come to be are nothing but the latter. It was fun to read the Freshman's views for a while but it has reached a point where we are all tired of hearing all the second hand babble from text books, websites, and teachers.

This thread has deviated far from it's original intention and I think we should get back to a road of providing advice and opinion on the road of positivity.

Are you kidding me? I think the mods are democratic. Only on this thread would somebody get away with that much name calling and personal attacks. Some people should have been banned a long time ago...

 

[goinkhead]

online posts shouldnt be considered "personal attacks." people need to build thick skin, it'll serve them well.

Are you kidding me? I think the mods are democratic. Only on this thread would somebody get away with that much name calling and personal attacks. Some people should have been banned a long time ago...

 

[PharmD321]

online posts shouldnt be considered "personal attacks." people need to build thick skin, it'll serve them well.

I agree!

 

[koercive]

You need to read the first page of this forum. I already read this book! I already know! I would have voted for Ron Paul if McCain wasn't the nominee! You can look for it yourself that the last time I updated that post was in 10-08-08.

By the way, the reason why I am not a republican now is that the war in Iraq is a waste of money and McCain thinks its the best thing that happened. I strongly disagree with McBush administration. I believe that Ron Paul is one of the smartest person because he wants to end the war in iraq and bring our troops back home to protect our borders. This man has common sense and acts like an adult.

O nevermind then. I usually stay away from politics threads, but I looked at the last few pages of this one.

I'm on the same boat.. I used to be a registered Republican, but with the way things are going now, it is definitely not a party I will support. I'm worried because the Democrats aren't really addressing our exponentially growing deficit nor the devaluing dollar.

The GOP needs a major overhaul to get back the trust of the American people. I'm hoping for Ron Paul to run again in '12 (I'm thinking this time around the media won't censor him as much - he was on the news recently for predicting the current crisis decades ago). What do you think of his chances of running again and not being ignored by the media?



Also, can someone please explain to me Obama's affiliation with the Chicago Socialist party that came up. what's that all about?

 

[PrepharmKID]

Hey Hey, I haven't bought my plane ticket to ditch Obama and the U S of A quite yet. No choice but to stick it out. And yeah, we willl see what types of changes occur during his presidency. I do honestly hope things improve, not for his sake but because I freaking live here!!!! I do hope for the best in all sincerity, I enjoy my right to vote, attend school where I choose, say and do as I please(aside from illegal acts), and I would say social security for retirement, but as we all know, our retirement is now in our own hands.

 

[PharmD321]

O nevermind then. I usually stay away from politics threads, but I looked at the last few pages of this one.

I'm on the same boat.. I used to be a registered Republican, but with the way things are going now, it is definitely not a party I will support. I'm worried because the Democrats aren't really addressing our exponentially growing deficit nor the devaluing dollar.

The GOP needs a major overhaul to get back the trust of the American people. I'm hoping for Ron Paul to run again in '12 (I'm thinking this time around the media won't censor him as much - he was on the news recently for predicting the current crisis decades ago). What do you think of his chances of running again and not being ignored by the media?



Also, can someone please explain to me Obama's affiliation with the Chicago Socialist party that came up. what's that all about?

I have no idea about ron paul's next chance. I know that mccain basically stole the nomination. That one debate I showed you guys that happened in South Carolina back in January and Ron Paul had 35 percent support and McCain only 7 percent. I believe the oil companies in the GOP side favor McCain because he is like the most conservative member in the group and will help the oil companies (also he supported off shore drilling which means more money for oil companies). In the other hand, I noticed that Ron Paul cares about his own people and their freedoms. Now, that is what I like, the word freedom.

I guess no one else wants more freedom because the american people think that abortion is 'bad' (if abortion is illegal it could make the mother do alternative things that might hurt or even kill her) and drugs are 'bad' (drugs are illegal, thus, making more gangs or cartels to sell the drugs, Ron Paul specifically stated in his book that if we legalize drugs, drugs dealers will vanish and then violence and crime will be reduced for drug related crimes). Ron Paul obviously knows the solution for America and we lost that chance. Who knows if he will run again or even if the GOP will let him run again (isn't palin planning on running for president next time?).

 

[chibipinkbunny]

I have no idea about ron paul's next chance. I know that mccain basically stole the nomination. That one debate I showed you guys that happened in South Carolina back in January and Ron Paul had 35 percent support and McCain only 7 percent. I believe the oil companies in the GOP side favor McCain because he is like the most conservative member in the group and will help the oil companies (also he supported off shore drilling which means more money for oil companies). In the other hand, I noticed that Ron Paul cares about his own people and their freedoms. Now, that is what I like, the word freedom.

I guess no one else wants more freedom because the american people think that abortion is 'bad' (if abortion is illegal it could make the mother do alternative things that might hurt or even kill her) and drugs are 'bad' (drugs are illegal, thus, making more gangs or cartels to sell the drugs, Ron Paul specifically stated in his book that if we legalize drugs, drugs dealers will vanish and then violence and crime will be reduced for drug related crimes). Ron Paul obviously knows the solution for America and we lost that chance. Who knows if he will run again or even if the GOP will let him run again (isn't palin planning on running for president next time?).

I was going to refute your arguments, but then I realized it was pointless. I may or may not in a few days, but unfortunately I've had exams every week, and two of them this week. Anyway, I find it ironic when Republicans vote for Obama, but so be it. It looks like Ron Paul is a Republican/Libertarian. I actually don't know that much about him, but he's definately for less government, which works for me. You do realize Obama's platform was about increasing the government, while Ron Paul is adamantly opposed to big government. Ron Paul is also pro-life, and anti-gun regulation too. The cross-overs between libertarians and Republican are far greater than for liberals; I consider myself a Conservative/Libertarian. The term Republican isn't what it used to mean anymore, and it has come to represent something far more liberal than the Conservative base. John McCain was a moderate more so than a Republican, or at least every Conservative I knew felt that way. For everything that the liberal media said about Sarah Palin, most conservatives really liked her. In fact, she was the only reason I was excited about the McCain/Palin ticket. So in addition to the possibility of Palin for the next election, conservatives are talking about the Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal. http://www.nilacharal.com/enter/celeb/Bobby-Jindal.asp He's a very young (37), conservative, Indian-American, Christian, highly-educated man. He turned down admissions to medical and law schools at both Harvard and Yale, so yeah he's smart too. I already like him

 

[PrePharmD]

online posts shouldnt be considered "personal attacks." people need to build thick skin, it'll serve them well.

Name calling is a personal attack and calling someone ignorant is name calling so...

 

[AngelaCL]

It's an issue of fairness. It's not fair that people who make over 100,000 take home the same amount as those who make 50,000.

This never, ever happens. People who make more money get taxed at a higher rate, but it's NOT the case that someone who makes 50k gets taxed, say, 10%, and someone who makes 100k gets taxed 60%. It does not happen and it WILL not happen.

If you end up making $250,000, you will get taxed 3% extra on any money OVER $250,000. If you make $251,000, you will get taxed an extra 30 bucks. You will never make LESS net money for moving up a tax bracket.

 

[cdhoward]

To all other post:

Let me ask you this, what did our economy look like during the years of jan 20, 1993 to jan 20, 2001?

What does our economy look like now?

Also, if you want to think more, look and compare what happened in the economy durings the first bush's term and then clinton and then bush's son.

Let me ask you something, which of these presidential terms were the best? Which one did we not go to war? which were democrat and republican? Which one screwed up the most?

Think about it and then you will find out why the electoral college voted for Obama.

Spoken like a 1st semester econ student with a "D" average in the course. Come back to us after you have taken 2 semesters of economics with an "A" in both courses.

I'll go ahead and give you a preview:

Effects from any type of economic stimulus will not be seen for years.

You must spend your way out of a recession. Sitting on your money or having it taxed away will further intensify the effects of a recession.

A benefit of war, economically speaking, is that it will pull us out of a recession. For all but one of the recessions America has faced, a war has ended that recession by the increased spending of our government. Every dollar spent is a dollar of income for someone else.

 

[Sparda29]

Spoken like a 1st semester econ student with a "D" average in the course. Come back to us after you have taken 2 semesters of economics with an "A" in both courses.

I'll go ahead and give you a preview:

Effects from any type of economic stimulus will not be seen for years.

You must spend your way out of a recession. Sitting on your money or having it taxed away will further intensify the effects of a recession.

A benefit of war, economically speaking, is that it will pull us out of a recession. For all but one of the recessions America has faced, a war has ended that recession by the increased spending of our government. Every dollar spent is a dollar of income for someone else.

While you have to spend to get out of a recession, spending without taxing also leads to a recession.

 

[PrePharmD]

Spoken like a 1st semester econ student with a "D" average in the course. Come back to us after you have taken 2 semesters of economics with an "A" in both courses.

I'll go ahead and give you a preview:

Effects from any type of economic stimulus will not be seen for years.

You must spend your way out of a recession. Sitting on your money or having it taxed away will further intensify the effects of a recession.

A benefit of war, economically speaking, is that it will pull us out of a recession. For all but one of the recessions America has faced, a war has ended that recession by the increased spending of our government. Every dollar spent is a dollar of income for someone else.

You are SO right. That was my point when I asked if economics was a prereq for most pharmacy schools and somebody didn't understand why I was asking that. Well, if you've taken economics, you should have known why I was asking that.

 

[PharmD321]

Spoken like a 1st semester econ student with a "D" average in the course. Come back to us after you have taken 2 semesters of economics with an "A" in both courses.

I'll go ahead and give you a preview:

Effects from any type of economic stimulus will not be seen for years.

You must spend your way out of a recession. Sitting on your money or having it taxed away will further intensify the effects of a recession.

A benefit of war, economically speaking, is that it will pull us out of a recession. For all but one of the recessions America has faced, a war has ended that recession by the increased spending of our government. Every dollar spent is a dollar of income for someone else.

You are SO right. That was my point when I asked if economics was a prereq for most pharmacy schools and somebody didn't understand why I was asking that. Well, if you've taken economics, you should have known why I was asking that.

Actually, maybe your didn't read my post well enough. I didn't say anything about what I thought about those years. I just said to picture what the economy looked like in the past 3 presidential terms and tell me which economic times do you think were the best (like which presidential term had the lowest unemployment rates) and show me proof what that president did and explain how that policy made our economy better.

Also, to tell you the truth, I never took economics in college. I took it in High School and got a B in it. But does grades really matter? Remember that experience always counts!

 

[Texas PharmDoc]

Actually, maybe your didn't read my post well enough. I didn't say anything about what I thought about those years. I just said to picture what the economy looked like in the past 3 presidential terms and tell me which economic times do you think were the best (like which presidential term had the lowest unemployment rates) and show me proof what that president did and explain how that policy made our economy better.

Also, to tell you the truth, I never took economics in college. I took it in High School and got a B in it. But does grades really matter? Experience always counts!

We try to read your posts but most of the time they either don't make sense or go way off topic making it very hard to follow. It's a "picture this" followed by basically a repeat of the same line, followed by some long story.

And you claim you didn't say anything about what you though either Bush or Clinton, but you have gone on and on about how Clinton was better than Bush. So what was your point of asking us to picture the terms?

 

[PharmD321]

We try to read your posts but most of the time they either don't make sense or go way off topic making it very hard to follow. It's a "picture this" followed by basically a repeat of the same line, followed by some long story.

And you claim you didn't say anything about what you though either Bush or Clinton, but you have gone on and on about how Clinton was better than Bush. So what was your point of asking us to picture the terms?

Dude keep it simple, here was my question:

Tell me which economic times do you think were the best (like which presidential term had the lowest unemployment rates) and show me proof what that president did and explain how that policy made our economy better.

 

[cdhoward]

Actually, maybe your didn't read my post well enough. I didn't say anything about what I thought about those years. I just said to picture what the economy looked like in the past 3 presidential terms and tell me which economic times do you think were the best (like which presidential term had the lowest unemployment rates) and show me proof what that president did and explain how that policy made our economy better.

Also, to tell you the truth, I never took economics in college. I took it in High School and got a B in it. But does grades really matter? Experience always counts!

You didn't say it in the post I originally quoted. You said it in another post. See below...

Are you kidding me or what?

Seriously, Bush did the crappiest things in congress. Both father and son went to war in the middle east.

Bill Clinton made sure there was peace in the middle east.

Then the housing and land value went up during clinton's term while both bush's made house prices go down and the economy goes into recession because of the wars bushs' like to go in (wars=debt and the economy is going to struggle).

Thank god that bush is finish now. I noticed that Obama's ideas are similar to Clinton's so I am sure that Obama will bring back to what we had back in 1995-1998. That was the best time ever (house market prices goes up, unemployment rates down, wall street making big bucks like warren buffet) until bush's son came in and destroyed it all and made us go into recession because of the war in Iraq.

And please, don't tell me that bush is trying to promote democracy in Iraq. You are being brainwashed because all the bush's ever want is more money from oil companies and when bush protects the oil reserves in iraq and the middle east, oil companies pay him. Also, United States of America trained Osama Bin Laden so he knows how to evade capture from us and he has been evading us for 30 years. Trust me, we will never catch him. The best thing we can do is do what Bin Laden demands: get our troops out of middle east and bring them to protect our borders.

You truly know very little about economics. You will learn once you take a course or two. Most pharmacy schools require at least 3 hours. I will not hold it against you, but you are very strong in your beliefs and it comes across as someone just spouting off uneducated comments that you heard on CNN. CNN and other news networks have agendas. They do not always report the complete truth. They sometimes try to lead you to believe things that couldn't be further from the truth.

And as far as your bin Laden comments go... We should have had him several times. You appear to like reading books. Read this one...

http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Bin-Laden-Clintons-Unleashed/dp/0895260743

 

[Texas PharmDoc]

Has anyone heard some of the stuff or read anything that Louis Farrakhan has been spewing?....I mean this guy thinks Obama is the Messiah before he even steps foot inside the Whitehouse.

I didn't vote for Obama and I don't think the country will be better off following all the policies he has been proposing. I've heard stories of him already faltering on his tax plan. Hmm, who would have seen that coming?

That being said, he was elected so I'll try to support him in his initial shake at it.

But with people like Farrakhan saying the stuff he does, you really don't have to wonder why their are racial tensions in this country to begin with. This guy is a nut.

 

[PharmD321]

You didn't say it in the post I originally quoted. You said it in another post. See below...



You truly know very little about economics. You will learn once you take a course or two. Most pharmacy schools require at least 3 hours. I will not hold it against you, but you are very strong in your beliefs and it comes across as someone just spouting off uneducated comments that you heard on CNN. CNN and other news networks have agendas. They do not always report the complete truth. They sometimes try to lead you to believe things that couldn't be further from the truth.

And as far as your bin Laden comments go... We should have had him several times. You appear to like reading books. Read this one...

http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Bin-Laden-Clintons-Unleashed/dp/0895260743

Wow, that book looks very veryy interesting! Thank you! I might just buy it now! I feel like a book nerd

 

[Texas PharmDoc]

Dude keep it simple, here was my question:

There is no point in answering any of your questions. I have never written a book, so you will not have much thought or quote anything I think anyways.

I'm sure Audacity of Hope has all your answers. Read that and your Ron Paul book and run in 2012 as Ron Obama. I don't see how you can live your life by both their views at once.

 

[calisoca]

We try to read your posts but most of the time they either don't make sense or go way off topic making it very hard to follow. It's a "picture this" followed by basically a repeat of the same line, followed by some long story.

Since the thread still isn't locked, I'll join back in by saying I completely agree with the quote above.

To be entirely honest, it's kinda fun seeing rational adults stomp out irrational, incorrect, and naive second hand ideas with their OWN experiences... over, and over, and over again.

 

[PharmD321]

Since the thread still isn't locked, I'll join back in by saying I completely agree with the quote above.

To be entirely honest, it's kinda fun seeing rational adults stomp out irrational, incorrect, and naive second hand ideas with their OWN experiences... over, and over, and over again.

I don't know, I learn a lot in this thread. It shouldn't be locked. I like when people are more helpful like what cd howard said (my point is he gave me a great book that I never heard of and I am going to read it very soon):

You didn't say it in the post I originally quoted. You said it in another post. See below...

You truly know very little about economics. You will learn once you take a course or two. Most pharmacy schools require at least 3 hours. I will not hold it against you, but you are very strong in your beliefs and it comes across as someone just spouting off uneducated comments that you heard on CNN. CNN and other news networks have agendas. They do not always report the complete truth. They sometimes try to lead you to believe things that couldn't be further from the truth.

And as far as your bin Laden comments go... We should have had him several times. You appear to like reading books. Read this one...

[URL="http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Bin-Laden-Clintons-Unleashed/dp/0895260743"]http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Bin-Laden-Clintons-Unleashed/dp/0895260743[/URL]

 

[Texas PharmDoc]

I don't know, I learn a lot in this thread. It shouldn't be locked. I like when people are more helpful like what cd howard said (my point is he gave me a great book that I never heard of and I am going to read it very soon):

Be sure to rivet us with your analysis.

 

[calisoca]

I don't know, I learn a lot in this thread. It shouldn't be locked. I like when people are more helpful like what cd howard said (my point is he gave me a great book that I never heard of and I am going to read it very soon):

Well as long as you are learning, then post away. It just seems most of the time you are opposing great first-hand information from others (ie: calling them ignorant, which is by the way, incredibly ironic of you to say with all things considered).

 

[IrishOats]

Be sure to rivet us with your analysis.

Brilliant.

I must say, although I think I'll choose not to jump in the ball pit, I am finding this thread quite entertaining.
To calisoca, cdhoward and Texas Pharm Doc: keep up the good work.

 

[phar2013]

I hope change will come. I watched CNN today and there will be a 6% increase on college cost every where. This is scary!!

 

[calisoca]

but but but Obama said he was going to make education more affordable for our children! He said it on TV so how could it not be true!? lol

 

[naseuy]

but but but Obama said he was going to make education more affordable for our children! He said it on TV so how could it not be true!? lol

He's not even in office yet. The cost of education has nothing to do with Obama...yet.