d-bone20917

I agree with some of what you said. The rich lost the most because they had the most to lose. They also gain the most when things are going well. But I believe both parties are at fault for that. I agree that taxing the rich isn't the answer either. Regardless of who is elected, there may be some tax increases as a compromise to avoid sequestration. But remember, the congress sets the tax policy. However, I don't agree that Republicans support hunters and Democrats do not. Have you seen Paul Ryan's proposed budget to sell off public lands and cut wildlife conservation funding? That doesn't sound pro hunter to me.

I was just going by what you said which is factually inaccurate. It is currently at 9.79%. I see a few times after Carter where it was clearly over 10%. So anyone that presents facts is a liberal croney?

How's this for a non Wikipedia source. http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbyPresident.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)

Which Party Has a Better Misery Index Record? With all the talk about the misery index in politics it begs the question: Which party has performed better? Simply looking at the chart it is possible for both parties to say they have done better, each party has had it’s good times and bad times. Looking at the overall numbers however, Democratic Presidents have done slightly better with an average overall misery index of 9.16% while Republicans have had an average overall misery index of 9.75%. But if we look only at more recent history i.e. Carter through Obama we get the opposite picture. Here we see Democrats with an average of 10.64% and Republicans at 10.25%. Also since Congress actually makes the laws, it may be more accurate to include the political make up of congress to get a more accurate indication. Or perhaps looking at the last 3 years of each presidency would be more representative of a particular president’s policies.

Actually it was higher under Bush 1 and Reagan, but don't let facts get in the way of you making your point. Carry on.

It happens. Keep your head up and get right back out there.

So what point are you trying to make? Obviously that will never happen in any business and his business won't last long unless he continues to invest in it. I'm just surprised people can't see that this is obviously a bluff to try and get his employees to vote for Romney. This is the same guy that takes credit for getting Bush elected in 2000 using similar tactics and look how well that turned out for him.

It looks to me that the rich have done very well in this country over the last 4 years. Do you have examples to show otherwise? Or are you just a parrot that likes to throw out terms like "class warfare" without really having any facts? As a republican myself, if they keep being the party that only supports rich white people, they are going to have problems in the future.

So you think he would just mothball all of his resorts and walk away? Just close the doors and not do anything with them? Even if he wanted to walk away, he would sell the assets which is the area that is employing people. Don't you think he still owes money on these resorts? Who's being foolish?

Yeah it's too bad we didn't have the most powerful military in the world back in 2001 or else the attacks could have been avoided.... wait... what???

Yup. It has been discussed in most of the write-ups about this letter. http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/valuedemployees.asp

He must be busy, because he couldn't even write his own letter. This is a fake chain letter sent out in 2008 to scare people away from voting for Obama. He just added a few examples to claim it as his own. I think he deserves everything he has built, including his 90,000 square foot house. But when Bush left office this guys business had tanked due to the real estate crash. It even dropped him from being a billionaire to (gasp) a hundred millionaire. This is just a rich guy being a douche bag to get attention. He will still make his millions regardless of who is president and he knows it.

I think a lot of Americans don't consider the current state of things as "well enough" or it would have been left alone. At least there is something on the table now and hopefully both sides will try to grow up a little and work with it to make improvements. Although Romney says he is going to repeal it, he really only means the individual mandate. He has stated he plans to keep almost everything else in it including requiring coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions. I just don't know how he plans to make that work without adding healthy customers to insurance companies pool of people. These companies aren't going to agree to take on a bunch of people that they are guaranteed to lose money on unless you give them a bunch of other customers they can make money on. After all, they are in business to make money. Apparently this is a secret the Romney is going to keep until after the election.

Wow... I actually started tearing up a little. I never realized how hard it is to be a billionaire.

Stan Potts

That is the way things have worked for a long time and I think something should be done so we don't have to continue to pay for them. Do you think the people that don't have health insurance should be denied care when they seek treatment at the Emergency Room?

From what I have read, they know that a large portion of the younger single people with no kids will choose to pay the penalty if they are healthy and take their chances. But they are counting on (and expecting) large numbers of people to enter into the insurance pool as well which will spread the risk and allow insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions. There will also be tax breaks to help lower income families get coverage. This is based on the Massachusetts model where less than 1% of the people choose to pay the penalty. How well it works nationally remains to be seen.

You aren't missing anything. You are exactly right.

What is your concern with the digital? It should work fine.

What is the penalty for noncompliance? The penalty is the greater of: For 2014, $95 per uninsured person or 1 percent of household income over the filing threshold, For 2015, $325 per uninsured person or 2 percent of household income over the filing threshold, and For 2016 and beyond, $695 per uninsured person or 2.5 percent of household income over the filing threshold. There is a family cap on the flat dollar amount (but not the percentage of income test) of 300 percent, and the overall penalty is capped at the national average premium of a bronze level plan purchases through an exchange. For individuals under 18 years old, the applicable per person penalty is one-half of the amounts listed above. Beginning in 2017, the penalties will be increased by the cost-of-living adjustment.

But remember that the individual mandate is meant to get younger healthier people in the insurance pool to spread the risk which allows those with preexisting conditions to be covered. Romney said he is going to repeal Obamacare, but keep the requirement to cover people with preexisting conditions (and almost everything else currently in it). So how will that work without adding healthy people to the insurance pool to spread the risk? Will the government have to pick up that tab instead of requiring individuals to purchase insurance themselves? He obviously knew that wouldn’t work in Massachusetts. I can’t support Obama, but as of right now I can’t support Romney either unless he quits talking to us like we are idiots. I’ll give you the details after I’m elected doesn’t work for me.

It was actually the penalty a person would have to pay for not maintaining health insurance they ruled was constitutional as a tax.

I'm guessing you are an avid Fox News watcher.