What would Westfielders most like to ask the candidates? If last Wednesday’s presidential debate left you with more questions than answers, here’s your chance for the presidential candidates to address the issues that most matter to you.
The next presidential debate will be a town hall meeting format at Hofstra University in Long Island, where voters will ask President Obama and Mitt Romney about domestic and foreign policy.
Patch is asking you, our readers, to participate by submitting questions for the candidates.
All you have to do is post your question in the comments section below and we’ll send it to the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Commission is partnering with Patch's parent company Aol, along with Google and Yahoo, to take questions from web users across the country.
Don’t wait until Nov. 6 to have a say in this year’s election. Share your thoughts in the comments!
Mr. President, please explain what your administration has to do with some homeowners who are underwater with their mortgage now having the ability to refinance the balance owed on their homes.
The government historically does not manage any business operation effectively...ie the Post Office. Whats makes you believe the that the government will have any better success managing the the most critical business operation of our society, Health Care?
A related question is that while the big-spending Federal government has been the primary beneficiary of these artificially low rates, the elderly have been the one class of people seriously hurt - now earning almost nothing on safe investments from a lifetime of savings. How ethical is that?
Governor Romney: You and the GOP like to offer that the USA is still the "land of opportunity" as your personal success certainly demonstrates. Yet, when based on statistics measuring economic and social mobility, it has been well-argued--even by the conservative Wall Street Journal--that many other developed nations, including Canada, Singapore, and several European nations I allude to above actually present more social mobility and opportunity for climbing the "ladder of success" as we have traditionally defined it than does this nation at present. Do you agree with this assessment? And if so why do you think that is, and what would you do to address this heretofore unseen economic/social "caste system" in the USA?
Your second question is quite interesting. My personal view is that the educational system in the USA is largely responsible. The unions have enforced a lack of competition on poor-performing inner city schools. Without a meaningful education, how can those children ever escape a ghetto environment and move up the economic ladder. There is also a lack of sufficient good quality education in the trades, impeding upward mobility for those who do not pursue a college degree.
And, in a related topic, Mr. Romney, why does your healthcare plan not provide coverage for pre-existing health conditions? You said it did in the debate that the plan provided such coverage, but you later admitted that was false.
The American Journal of Medicine reported that in 2007 [before the economic collapse], illness and medical bills accounted for 62% of all bankruptcies. "Most of the debtors are middle aged, middle class and have a college level education..." In fact, many of the pople I've dealt with in volunteer capacities had the following life story: Worked hard. Got a decent job. Supported family. Paid taxes. Got sick. Lost job. Lost health insurance. Went bankrupt due to health bills. Lost home (rental or owned). Wound up at soup kitchen/in substandard housing/homeless. Whatever class they were in prior to bankruptcy, these are not people who wanted and planned to go through life on a free dole. Most of these souls would give anything to be healthy again; to be able to work and to pay for life's simplest needs. Why do you not understand that living in poverty is not an enviable condition, and people don't aim for it? Why do you believe that these poor do not deserve medical insurance that would guarantee their care? Do you understand that sending them to the nearest emergency center costs more than prevention of the illness would have cost? Do you understand that the rest of us wind up paying for this emergency care anyway, because the rest of us have to subsidize the emergency center?
You say you want to produce jobs and you also say you want to make government smaller. 1: How would this work, given that government IS jobs (teachers, firemen, police, custodians, as well as administrators et al.) 2. Do you believe in sufficient government oversight and regulation to protect our lives, health, and safety in such areas as environmental pollution and food and drug safety?
According to ProPublica, The Boston Globe, and Rolling Stone, the methods and successes of Bain & Company and Bain Capital led to checkered outcomes. In a nutshell, many solvent companies were pushed into debt, the debt was manipulated for gains to Bain--by bailouts from banks and/or the U.S. Government-- and the companies were often left to go bankrupt at the end of Bain's association with them. Question 1: Do you think this kind of "business experience" is ideal preparation for running the U.S. Government...And who is going to supply the bailouts? Question 2: Why do you consider government bailouts to companies such as Bain or handouts to friends of the U.S. Olympic Committee to be "good," but consider government food and welfare subsidies to hungry and unemployed people to be "bad?"
We the People, in order to...Promote the General Welfare.. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .” The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.
Why do you say that lowering taxes will produce jobs, when that policy has never worked? Have your read David Stockman's book? (David Stockman was Ronald Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget.) In his book, "The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Redvolution Failed," Mr. Stockman explains why and how it failed and says that when he explained to Mr. Reagan what damage the policy was causing, Mr. Reagan understood, agreed, and reversed some of the policies. What would you do instead of repeating a failed policy?
Canada is in far better financial shape than the USA. They shrank Federal spending from 24% of GDP in 1985, to 22% in 1995 and 14% now. The USA is at 24%. On November 6 we get to choose to continue on a path toward Greece, which will destroy the standard of living for our children (as if we do not already see it in the 50% of college grads that are jobless or underemployed) or a path toward Canada.
My question to President Obama is: Since the actual goal for the 12-person Board in Obamacare is for a 10-year period "to make sure there are no increases in the total amount of net Medicare program expenditures" how can that be accomplished without rationing care for the elderly since there are millions of people each year being added to the Medicare program?
Neither you nor I know what the candidates learned in school, and different people often interpret the same words differently (hence, lawyers). My question is a personal question to each man.
I did not claim a direct quote from Mr. Romney, although if you are looking for one, the "47 percent speech" comes pretty close. Several statements that I have read or seen in news clips led me to my conclusion. And he has certainly not outlined in detail a comprehensive program to insure healthcare for the poor.
Yes, I'm aware of Mrs. Thatcher and so on. I'm also aware of some very successful "socialist" countries in Scandinavia (not necessarily recommending them). Canada is an interesting case. I have lived there. Having talked with others who lived there more recently, including a banker, I conclude that the reason they did not share our 2008 crash was that they have a very small number of banks, which are very large and are HIGHLY regulated by the government. Canada also introduced a socialist healthcare system some 50 years ago, which does not seem to have made a serious dent in their economic welfare. I believe that it is possible to run both capitalist and socialist governments well, or poorly. The latest Economist (which I've not had time to read in its entirety) suggests that a combination of these approaches would work best to "cure" some problems, including the divergence in wealth in many countries (including ours) and the lack of upward mobiliity that results (that's their main focus this week.) Canada seems to make that "combination" case. When I talk about public employee jobs, I don't mean that none should be cut, any more than you mean to imply (I don't think you do) that no community needs police, firemen, or teachers. I believe no single solution is going to solve our American problems. What makes me despair is when someone touts a scheme as a cure-all when it has been tried in the past and failed.