The difference is that I can chance my insurance company far, far easier than I can change my government.

No candidate this time around was asking to be worshiped. Voting for someone is not akin to agreeing with every aspect of their personality and beliefs. If it were, I couldn’t vote for anybody.

As opposed to when private health insurance companies pay for health care, its main focus is money and profit from the very start…?

Romney’s faith has a religious and political tradition of supporting public schools. Utah had a voucher program — ill-advised, as most are, because they suck blood out of the public schools — but the poulation rejected it in a referendum.

Especially vouchers tend not to work for minority students. Especially against minorities, vouchers tend to hammer their public schools so they end up getting screwed when a voucher program goes into effect — they can’t afford to make up the difference, and their schools lose cash.

Most minorities are well aware of these problems. The crash of the voucher/charter program s in Baltimore and Philadelphia disproportionately affected (detrimentally ) African American kids. California’s school collapse, due to a 40-year “austerity” kick, disproportionately hurt Latinos.

Still, Obama is probably the best bet for minorities, since he supports higher education for them.

That is a driving reason for the voter suppression efforts the GOP is running in Texas, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and a dozen other states.
What was it you wanted who to do in the voting booths this fall?

Everyone is going to have to join a health club and start working off some of that fat. And as long as my money is going to pay for other people’s healthcare, and food, it better be healthy food. No more sugar, or caffeine or red meat. Oh yeah, lower fat, no trans-fats, and less sodium. There, I think that’s a good start. If we all work at this, I think America could become like that show “Biggest Loser.” Welcome to America where we are all the biggest losers.

Of course, the Buffett tax would not be a major piece of that rebalancing. That’s just what I said; it can’t do it. But it’s been touted in the media as a solution that rich people like Buffett (allegedly) want. And thus the graph that shows this is just a ruse by Buffett and the complicit media.

The emergency spending by Bush and Obama, regardless of how necessary it was, still needs to be paid back. If we had more sane spending levels before that, and saved for a rainy day, then emergency spending wouldn’t be killing us like it has.

And Ryan isn’t saying that government isn’t something we cant’t afford. He’s saying government without a sane spending plan and where there is no fiscal discipline, is something we can’t afford. He’s trying to restore that discipline, or at least make actual progress towards it, with real cuts rather than the fake “cuts” in the rate of growth that DC loves to pretend is actual discipline.

Of course, the Buffett tax would not be a major piece of that rebalancing. Two thirds of the tax cuts went to the middle class, assuming you we can agree on whatever defines that group. The other third went to the top 5% of earners, with life getting progressively sweeter for the topmost .01%. Talking about that little group as though they will balance the budget, as Obama seems to imply, is a deceit. However, talking about the government we need as if it is something that we can’t afford and will be our ruin, as Paul Ryan does, is similarly inaccurate.

Also, treating the emergency spending of the Bush and Obama administrations to counter the financial collapse of 2007-2008 as though it were an optional, reckless expense is wrong, too.