Clinton or Obama?

[johan]

meh, i've already got awesome health care through my employer. and i like it the way it is

what about solidarity with the 44 million us citizens without health care?

[dark4181]

what about solidarity with the 44 million us citizens without health care?

 

...get jobs?

[johan]

...get jobs?

like mac jobs?

 

its not like all jobs have health care

[dark4181]

jobs = money. money can buy health care

 

i just think that self reliance and personal responsibility are 1000000x better than any "universal" thing the gov't could provide

[johan]

jobs = money. money can buy health care

 

i just think that self reliance and personal responsibility are 1000000x better than any "universal" thing the gov't could provide

 

I invite you to come to my country ( the netherlands)

 

Our system is 100 x better than yours, everybody has the right to use the health system. Not just the rich people.

 

have you seeen this movie ? : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/

[killbot1000]

jobs = money. money can buy health care

 

i just think that self reliance and personal responsibility are 1000000x better than any "universal" thing the gov't could provide

 

This is a troubling and ignorant view to have about society.

 

First of all I will say that personal responsibility is great, I practice it, and I believe everybody else should too. But to simply state to people "get a job" is ignoring the vast social inequality that has been established since the beginning of human history.

 

If one "gets a job" at Wal-Mart, and works full time, I doubt that they would have enough money to even pay the rent and bills. Forget about health insurance there.

 

We'll see where self reliance gets you when you are sick and dying, and you need to operate on yourself because you are so damn self-reliant.

 

What some human beings don't understand (especially here in the US) is that human beings are pack animals, just like wolves. We have a leader most of the time, but overall we work together for all of our needs, human beings are not capable most of the time of doing everything themselves, some people can, but the vast majority cant.

 

Much of where you are today dark4181 relied on the help of other people, you might not want to admit it, but that is one of the reasons you are probably where you are today.

 

I must say I am pretty fortunate, I practice personal reliance and personal responsibility, but I am not kidding myself for a minute when I say I had a lot of help getting here. Had I been born in a neighborhood without any kind of hope, or a plan to get out, or if I had parents who didn't nurture me as parents should then I might be in an entirely different place today.

 

The reason why in the past, governments did not step in to help its citizens is because there was lack of communication, lack of travel, etc. The point is, that people mostly lived in small villages. These whole villages would raise children together (healthcare, food, morals, etc.) these villages were full communities, that helped each other out.

 

With the coming of the modern age, people were free to roam as they pleased, this led to a breakdown of individual communities and the centralization of society.

 

Theres not really a way that we can go back to the small communities that we had, so the government, or the central authority has to step in to fill that role, if it doesn't, we end up with a callus society where the rich rule the day, and regular people are left begging for food.

 

If you cant see that there is a war on the middle class of America in this country then you have no business (no pun intended) of talking about money and economics on this forum.

 

Stop shooting half sentence slogans, give our replies to your posts a substantive response. Please...

[Maxintosh]

If one "gets a job" at Wal-Mart, and works full time, I doubt that they would have enough money to even pay the rent and bills. Forget about health insurance there.

Good points! Jobs = money BUT people need to spend that money on MANY things to survive. Just having a job doesn't mean squat when it comes to healthcare, and if a person gets sick look out, most healthcare insurance has more loopholes than a knitted sweater

 

These whole villages would raise children together (healthcare, food, morals, etc.) these villages were full communities, that helped each other out. With the coming of the modern age, people were free to roam as they pleased, this led to a breakdown of individual communities and the centralization of society.

This is a sad - true fact that most people never stop to think about

 

If you cant see that there is a war on the middle class of America in this country then you have no business (no pun intended) of talking about money and economics on this forum.

You're being to generous Our middle class is all but gone. Most people in this country are either rich or poor I can't begin to tell you how many people I know that are living paycheck to paycheck.

 

 

have you seeen this movie ? : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/

Incredible movie Johan and a real eye opener. Everyone should see this movie before they vote in America to see how other countries handle healthcare. Most libraries have it available for free rental.

[killbot1000]

You're being to generous Our middle class is all but gone. Most people in this country are either rich or poor I can't begin to tell you how many people I know that are living paycheck to paycheck.

 

I know! I see it less because I live in WA (WA has one of the highest standards of living in the country). But I would say that 3 out of 5 of my friends have trouble paying the rent, my dad hasn't been able to find a decent job in years (pay/hard work ratio). Most of the people I know have parents who have trouble with the basic expenses.

 

I happen to fall on the more fortunate side of the fence, but the fact that one can't simply work hard and live a decent life is absolutely unacceptable to me. I wonder what we could possibly do to turn it around (besides all the stuff we've talked about, corporate structure, etc.)

[dark4181]

This is a troubling and ignorant view to have about society.

 

Always wonderful to hear, thanks...

 

First of all I will say that personal responsibility is great, I practice it, and I believe everybody else should too. But to simply state to people "get a job" is ignoring the vast social inequality that has been established since the beginning of human history.

 

If one "gets a job" at Wal-Mart, and works full time, I doubt that they would have enough money to even pay the rent and bills. Forget about health insurance there.

 

Getting, and keeping, a job enables one to live in this world. If a person is unhappy with their place in it, is it not their prerogative to utilize their willpower and ingenuity to enhance their place in it? Or am I wrong, and it's merely a person's prerogative to whine and complain at the government and the rich to hand down benefits that haven't been properly earned? I see nothing wrong with working within the system to close the gap between the rich and poor, but I don't believe in the "robin hood" solution. You can't tax the rich into oblivion just to give their earnings to the poor.. after the great depression the gov't tried it, after all. Any amount upwards of $200,000 was taxed at a rate of 93%... That standard was only rescinded in the sixties by JFK. Entertainers and other high earners would make one movie a year for as near to $200k as they could get, and not make another, because they didn't want to pay the tax, and the economy suffered for it. Spending stopped because pay plateaued. The problems we have now arose because, when pay began to climb again, it rose in disproportionate amounts between classes

 

BTW, Walmart has company health insurance. So says a friend of mine that works there as a second job.

 

We'll see where self reliance gets you when you are sick and dying, and you need to operate on yourself because you are so damn self-reliant.

 

I don't envision this happening to me, because I am working 2 jobs already to get out of debt and enhance my situation. When I succeed, and have money.. It will be because I earned it, not because I mewled to the government to bail me out. When I'm where I want to be, should I be punished with extreme taxation for my success?

 

What some human beings don't understand (especially here in the US) is that human beings are pack animals, just like wolves. We have a leader most of the time, but overall we work together for all of our needs, human beings are not capable most of the time of doing everything themselves, some people can, but the vast majority cant.

 

Much of where you are today dark4181 relied on the help of other people, you might not want to admit it, but that is one of the reasons you are probably where you are today.

 

I've got nothing against asking for help/accepting help when I need it, but I also know that I can meet my own needs more efficiently than anyone else could, because I know what my needs are, as well as my desires... I'm merely pointing out that there are people out there that leech off the system and look to the government to attend to all of their needs, full time. People out there on welfare, collecting food stamps and yet driving around with three cell phones in a chromed out SUV on spinner rims. I know that that's an extreme example, but the way that sounds to me is that these people would be better off being hardwired into the Matrix. At least then, their existance would be provided for throughout the term of their life.

 

As I said, I've accepted the help of others when it was prudent to do so, but I've never looked for a handout. And the turnaround my life has taken in the last 3 years has been 75% due to my own perseverance, 10% from help and 15% from luck.

 

I must say I am pretty fortunate, I practice personal reliance and personal responsibility, but I am not kidding myself for a minute when I say I had a lot of help getting here. Had I been born in a neighborhood without any kind of hope, or a plan to get out, or if I had parents who didn't nurture me as parents should then I might be in an entirely different place today.

 

Yes, it sounds like you have been fortunate, truly, congratulations... More so than I have. Maybe the fact that I've had to work my way out of a more desperate situation clouds my emotions a bit, I'll admit that. If I can turn my life around, through my own merits and willpower, why can't everyone else?

 

The reason why in the past, governments did not step in to help its citizens is because there was lack of communication, lack of travel, etc. The point is, that people mostly lived in small villages. These whole villages would raise children together (healthcare, food, morals, etc.) these villages were full communities, that helped each other out.

 

With the coming of the modern age, people were free to roam as they pleased, this led to a breakdown of individual communities and the centralization of society.

 

I can't really offer much in response to this, I agree with you, I just look in a different way than you at these things, I suppose. Add to this that the birth of the internet has reduced the need for actual physical contact and perhaps lead to alienation of some people or groups. People sit at home on the internet all day and never see the sun or other people, talking to people half a world away. Without things like making eye contact and reading the body language of those with whom we converse, I wonder if our ability to trust others has been diminished? Troubling...

 

Theres not really a way that we can go back to the small communities that we had, so the government, or the central authority has to step in to fill that role, if it doesn't, we end up with a callus society where the rich rule the day, and regular people are left begging for food.

 

If you cant see that there is a war on the middle class of America in this country then you have no business (no pun intended) of talking about money and economics on this forum.

 

I agree with you about the merit of smaller communities. There's a greater capacity to trust in a small group of close-knit people than in a much larger group. But I do believe that there are other alternatives to direct government control. The pity is that those in power now would fight them tooth and nail to the last man. 1) Reduce gov't spending, 2) reduce national debt, 3) abolish personal and credit debt, 4) reduce the laborer/CEO pay grade gap... etc, etc...

 

I agree that changes are needed, reckless spending and debting and taxation is dangerous. It allows businesses, as you say, to keep the middle and low class under their heel. But the way through that is for us to rise to the top and make change from within, not to look to the government for a quick fix, not when the quick fix is espoused by those already in power. It's my belief that not all change is good, consequences should be examined in advance as much as possible. Planning should be done and reform and revolution should happen over time.

 

Stop shooting half sentence slogans, give our replies to your posts a substantive response. Please...

 

I really do hope this post has satisfied your demands, seriously. Today's a rare day off, so I thought I'd take the time to think about things. I hope I managed to explain myself well enough that you can understand a bit better where I'm coming from. I'm not against change, I'm just hesitant. I feel that "Big Gov't" would end up being like "Big Business" and "Big Oil" and nothing would change.

 

Have a nice day

[killbot1000]

Have a nice day

 

Actually thank you. I do see where you are coming from. There is only one place where we really differ that neither of us can do anything about.

 

You feel as if there are a lot of people leeching off the system and that most people would leech and want to leech if given the chance.

 

I feel as if most people don't want to leech, that they want to do good work, that they want to provide for their family, that they don't want the government doing it for them.

 

I believe there are always people who will try to exploit the system for all its worth, but I feel like these people are generally small in number.

 

I do not necessarily support bigger government. What I am referring to in government change is the government passing laws such as requiring businesses to pay their employee's fairer wages, requiring adequate safety conditions, tax breaks for businesses that keep their business in the US, tax breaks for businesses that want to open up shop here, etc.

 

these are the things I am mostly concerned about when it comes to business, all of these regulations I have proposed in the sentence above do not require bigger government at all, I feel that if republicans were true to their word, and true to their "goals" of reducing government while improving the American Society, it would be these kinds of reforms that they would look toward, reforms which do not require an increase in government size.

 

If a republican ever says that their party is for reducing the size of the Federal Government, they are lying (either intentionally or unintentionally).

 

Both George W Bush and Ronald Reagan increased the size of the federal government much more than Clinton ever did. The only difference was that they spent the money on other things, such as national defense, and whatnot.

[dark4181]

Actually thank you. I do see where you are coming from. There is only one place where we really differ that neither of us can do anything about.

 

You feel as if there are a lot of people leeching off the system and that most people would leech and want to leech if given the chance.

 

I feel as if most people don't want to leech, that they want to do good work, that they want to provide for their family, that they don't want the government doing it for them.

 

I believe there are always people who will try to exploit the system for all its worth, but I feel like these people are generally small in number.

 

I think we're both correct in certain respects. I think that there is more leeching going on than you think, because if there wasn't, the system wouldn't be nearly as overwhelmed as it is.

 

I do not necessarily support bigger government. What I am referring to in government change is the government passing laws such as requiring businesses to pay their employee's fairer wages, requiring adequate safety conditions, tax breaks for businesses that keep their business in the US, tax breaks for businesses that want to open up shop here, etc.

 

I agree with you here. I'm all for bring and keeping more jobs in the US, having more here would increase wages due to competition and a lot of concern about unfair wages would be reduced. The problem is that the gov't and the board of directors and CEO's and such of all of the businesses have each others' backs. All of the money made goes into those three sets of pockets. To change that, more people like you and I would have to get into positions of power, and that can only be done by climbing up the ladder through our own power.

 

these are the things I am mostly concerned about when it comes to business, all of these regulations I have proposed in the sentence above do not require bigger government at all, I feel that if republicans were true to their word, and true to their "goals" of reducing government while improving the American Society, it would be these kinds of reforms that they would look toward, reforms which do not require an increase in government size.

 

Yet we're in a thread about two democratic presidential candidates that want to institute government control over health care.. That would be adding another arm to the government, in essence making it bigger.. Would it not?

 

If a republican ever says that their party is for reducing the size of the Federal Government, they are lying (either intentionally or unintentionally).

 

The same can be said about many democrats. It's my belief that both parties are corrupt, and again, my solution is for people like us to climb the ladder and effect change from inside. But that kind of thing would only work if a massive movement was made. It can't be accomplished if support only trickles in in ones and twos

 

Both George W Bush and Ronald Reagan increased the size of the federal government much more than Clinton ever did. The only difference was that they spent the money on other things, such as national defense, and whatnot.

 

National defense is important. I can't fault there intentions, only some of their results

 

Let me also add that I'm not a Republican and definitely not a Democrat. If I had to accept a label, I guess I would fall under conservative Libertarian. I agree with the Constitutionalist viewpoint. Everything that we need is in the original constitution, the problem is that those in power are interpreting it in their own context, for their own designs.

[Paranoid Marvin]

I guess I would fall under conservative Libertarian. I agree with the Constitutionalist viewpoint.

 

If you were a libertarian in any way, you would at least be more liberal with your views on homosexuality and christianity

[dark4181]

Last time I checked, it still said "In God we trust" on the dollar bill.

 

lib·er·tar·i·an

–noun

1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.

2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian).

–adjective

3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.

4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

 

 

lib·er·tar·i·an (lĭb'ər-târ'ē-ən)

1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

2. One who believes in free will.

 

Yes, I'm a Libertarian. What you want to do is up to you, and what I want to do is up to me

[killbot1000]

Last time I checked, it still said "In God we trust" on the dollar bill.

 

That was added later. It was added to some of our money in the late 1800's I think it was the 1870's and it wasn't added to all of our money until 1937.

 

We did not say "under god" in the pledge of allegiance until 1957 as a tactic against the Russian flavor of communism.

 

The God bit was added later. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

For the record, thank you for answering my questions, you provided some answers. That was nice, also for the record, I am not a republican or a democrat, although I would say I am very liberal.

 

I just have one more question for you as a libertarian

 

If a law were brought to vote on the American people supporting a ban on homosexuality (meaning if you were a homosexual and the police found out about it, you could be arrested and be put into prison) would you support it?

 

Also, even though you do not support homosexuality, would you allow them to get married, and if marriage is a problem definition wise, would you allow them to have a union that would have all the same tax, medical, etc benefits of regular marriage?

[dark4181]

I just have one more question for you as a libertarian

 

If a law were brought to vote on the American people supporting a ban on homosexuality (meaning if you were a homosexual and the police found out about it, you could be arrested and be put into prison) would you support it?

 

Well, some laws on the books now are ridiculous. In Tennessee giving a {censored} is illegal, for people of any orientation. So no, I would not support a homosexuality ban law. I'm all about free will. I just ask that my free will is respected in return.

 

Also, even though you do not support homosexuality, would you allow them to get married, and if marriage is a problem definition wise, would you allow them to have a union that would have all the same tax, medical, etc benefits of regular marriage?

 

This one is a little more difficult, as I tend to look at marriage as a sacred thing. Byproduct of growing up in a strict Catholic household, I suppose. But, on the other hand, the word "marriage" has become mainly a matter of legal lip service to the government, purely for purposes of taxation and censure. So I suppose a simplified answer would be: Yes, I would support homosexuals being allowed civil unions, or something like that. Let them get married and be miserable and lose everything in the divorce like the rest of us

 

Note that I'm still not saying that I agree with a person's decision to be homosexual, predisposed or not, but I do acknowledge that it is their choice to make.

[JonTheSavage]

I invite you to come to my country ( the netherlands)

 

Our system is 100 x better than yours, everybody has the right to use the health system. Not just the rich people.

 

have you seeen this movie ? : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/

 

 

I don't want health care. And I won't pay for yours commie. That is your problem. Not mine.

Plain. Simple. And to the point.

[johan]

And thats why the US is going down.

 

No solidarity between people, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting more poor. And the middel class is also disapearing.

 

Result: only the rich people are free. They can pay their health, safety etc.

 

I have been in the states, I loved it. for a holiday. But i realy wouldn't want to live there. I rather life with my family in canada. It feels so much better there, safer and nicer.

[JonTheSavage]

And thats why the US is going down.

 

No solidarity between people, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting more poor. And the middel class is also disapearing.

 

Result: only the rich people are free. They can pay their health, safety etc.

 

I have been in the states, I loved it. for a holiday. But i realy wouldn't want to live there. I rather life with my family in canada. It feels so much better there, safer and nicer.

 

You are right about the effect, but not the cause.

 

Educate yourself.

http://www.constitution.org/mac/artofwar_.htm

 

How the rich destroy the country from within.

It is public knowledge.

 

You provide your own safety. Don't rely on someone else to do it for you, becuase they won't.

[johan]

You are right about the effect, but not the cause.

 

 

You provide your own safety. Don't rely on someone else to do it for you, becuase they won't.

 

 

Well, where you live that may be true. But in my country there is the police/system/society taking care of it.

 

I think its wrong for a private person to own and use a gun/knife.

 

The use of violence should be restricted to goverment only.

 

The united states shows the world, teaches us.. how not to go about.

 

So much violence, poverty, people in jail. So much sick people without healtcare. So much people working day and night, still left being poor.

 

No , I hope that Obama or Clinton can change the United states and make ik more just and right for everyone.

[killbot1000]

Note that I'm still not saying that I agree with a person's decision to be homosexual, predisposed or not, but I do acknowledge that it is their choice to make.

 

Then you are perfectly ok by my standard.

 

Acknowledging the right to choose, regardless of approval, who would have ever thought of that idea? Hehe.

 

I originally thought that you were against somebody's right to choose on this subject. I see now that I was wrong in that assumption. I am happy that there are still people out there who acknowledge the freedom to choose while disapproving of the choice, its great, I wish more people could do that.

[dark4181]

It is amazing how much misunderstanding can come from poor use of words. I'm guilty of it a lot.

 

I don't know, maybe my stance is the way it is because I've watched my bro suffer through making his choice

[Paranoid Marvin]

It is amazing how much misunderstanding can come from poor use of words. I'm guilty of it a lot.

 

Guilty of *that*

 

Just flows better

[Maxintosh]

If a republican ever says that their party is for reducing the size of the Federal Government, they are lying (either intentionally or unintentionally).

Amen to that! Bush has wasted more money here than almost anyone else. They just hide it better through their rhetoric...

 

In Tennessee giving a {censored} is illegal, for people of any orientation.

Wow, I bet married women love that law...

 

I think its wrong for a private person to own and use a gun/knife.

You are right, it is wrong, but that means nothing in the real world with corrupt organizations like the NRA

 

So much violence, poverty, people in jail. So much sick people without healtcare. So much people working day and night, still left being poor.

That's the worst part about political corruption It's not going to change until someone with a backbone is elected, and the people support him. The second part might be harder than the first because people here aren't as smart as they'd like to be. Political wordsmiths have a way of taking something bad, and weaving it into something that 'seems' good, and many people fall for it over and over again. In a recent survey most students from here couldn't even find popular countries like France or Italy on a map, or even find several states in the U.S. Many know nothing about history, so it just keeps repeating itself with no lessons learned. Probably only around 1/3rd of the country is awake and knows what is going on, and unfortunately they are usually out numbered. One of the best things about the Obama candidacy is that he is having a positive effect on many younger people to get involved. You'll probably see more people voting in this coming election then any other time in our history, or close to it. Hopefully they will be voting for change.

[capt_cope]

Yeah vote for Obama! Vote for change! Vote for a racist pile of {censored}! If I didn't live so close to Il. I'd be amazed at how stupid they are, electing a guy like Obama to represent them.

 

How could people not vote for a guy who belives that it isn't "God bless America" but rather "God damn America" That's who I want leading America, a guy who's been a devoted member of an anti-american and anti-everyone who isn't black church.

But then what do I know? I'm just a typical white person. Rock on US of KKK!

[Maxintosh]

But then what do I know? Rock on US of KKK!

Somebody get this troll a band-aid before he bleeds to death dragging his knuckles on the ground