Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:30 am  

Levels ya devils http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19415745

Levels ya devils http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19415745

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:33 am  

'We want stoodents to be kept stoopid'. Texas GOP objects to 'critical thinking'.

'We want stoodents to be kept stoopid'. Texas GOP objects to 'critical thinking'.

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:37 am  

Another Romney own goal? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19631430

Another Romney own goal? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19631430

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:51 am  

While in the US, my son stood on glass and cut open his foot.
In the ER, they gave him an anti-biotic shot, local anasthetic, and 4 stitches.
The bill for this was 1800USD. On top of that we had to buy dressings, and were given prescriptions for more painkiller and more anti-biotics. The drugs alone were over 50USD.
I don't know how anyone can afford to be ill or injured in the US.

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:17 am  

(Rocky) Bobby's Girl wrote:

While in the US, my son stood on glass and cut open his foot.
In the ER, they gave him an anti-biotic shot, local anasthetic, and 4 stitches.
The bill for this was 1800USD. On top of that we had to buy dressings, and were given prescriptions for more painkiller and more anti-biotics. The drugs alone were over 50USD.
I don't know how anyone can afford to be ill or injured in the US.

Most have medical insurance. If you're lucky and have good employers, then the employers will pay the insurance usually for your immediate family (spouse and kids). My Uncle worked for General Motors and had a very generous medical insurance with minimal excess that also covered the family and still covers him now he is retired.

My Aunt does know of a family who can only afford medical insurance for their kids so have sacrificed their own.

Its a sad state of affairs in the US when you are rushed into the Emergency Room and the Doctor gets straight on the phone; to your insurance company to see what level of insurance you have and how much/far he can treat you

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:16 pm  

WIZEB wrote: Another Romney own goal? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19631430 The 47% figure (which hasn't AFAIK been verified to anything) includes the retired and students. But it also reflects the huge concentration of wealth in the US - the reason so many people pay no federal income tax is because they earn about $20k a year and are on the breadline. Whilst you can find examples no doubt, they're not feckless or unemployed, they are caught in the joke that the American dream has become. The idea that they should be brought into the income tax system - as many Republicans claim - is insane; but then the party is that far gone. Ironically even if 47% is an accurate figure many of those will be the white working class poor in the South who vote for the Republicans because of the religious fundamentalism with which they can identify. So the whole idea that those in this category are down the line Democrats can be dismissed - they probably should be but have come to think the party which works against their interests is somehow standing up for them.

WIZEB wrote: Another Romney own goal? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19631430 The 47% figure (which hasn't AFAIK been verified to anything) includes the retired and students. But it also reflects the huge concentration of wealth in the US - the reason so many people pay no federal income tax is because they earn about $20k a year and are on the breadline. Whilst you can find examples no doubt, they're not feckless or unemployed, they are caught in the joke that the American dream has become. The idea that they should be brought into the income tax system - as many Republicans claim - is insane; but then the party is that far gone. Ironically even if 47% is an accurate figure many of those will be the white working class poor in the South who vote for the Republicans because of the religious fundamentalism with which they can identify. So the whole idea that those in this category are down the line Democrats can be dismissed - they probably should be but have come to think the party which works against their interests is somehow standing up for them.

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:33 pm  

What's Mitt Romney's beef with 47% of the population not paying income tax?

Does he want to make more people pay tax? Does he believe that government can spend taxes better than private citizens?

Sounds like Soviet Communism to me.

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:38 pm  

Randy Newman - I'm Dreaming of a White President

Randy Newman - I'm Dreaming of a White President

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:43 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

What's Mitt Romney's beef with 47% of the population not paying income tax?...

He doesn't want to feel so common. Not paying taxes is what the rich do – like him.

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Wed Sep 19, 2012 12:13 pm  

If Romney ever makes it as far as the White House he'll be the first US president who was virtually chased out of the UK by a media baying at his heels and a Prime Minister and Mayor of London (who technically should be supporting his flavour of politics) taking the mickey as often as they liked.