I think the Palin bump might be over with. Everyone's got fatigue now.
Though I caught a clip of Obama referring to the "McCain-Palin" ticket, followed by a clip of Hillary saying "no way, no how, no McCain, no Palin" At which point I yelled "Stop it, stop it, stop it." I've never seen so much focus misplaced on a running mate.
I don't know if everyone is worn out from the previous 362 pages but I'd be interested in hearing what any of you have to say about universal healthcare. I've been skeptical since the early 90s when Hillary took charge of the issue and I'm still not convinced it can work in a country this size. I'd like to think it could and I've heard others argue that it has to happen but I still have my reservations. I do think Obama's idea of opting in is better than Hillary's idea of forcing everyone in but again, I'm not 100% on any of the ideas I've heard. What are the drawbacks as far as quality of healthcare or it's impact on the medical profession?
jim wrote:I just think it's hilarious that you call yourself compassionate. Maybe you are in your real life, I have no way of knowing. But you just sound mean spirited on here.
I'm sure I've come across mean to a couple of posters here, but, as I've said time and time again, it's been mostly in response to things they've said, even directly to me. But, as usual, it's just what I'm doing....apparently. I guess when it goes against what others think, I'm what stands out.
And yeah...the medium has something to do with it for sure.
Freed Roger wrote:Now I finally get it - you are afraid of the "BoogieMan."
Guns -welfare programs, death penalty...
Reagan started the GOP down this path of stereotyping people of color as lazy welfare queens that are the root of most of our domestic problems in the US. And you and many others buy into it lock stock and gun barrel.
I share your concern about wasteful spending and fake idealism.. but Your worries about welfare spending are ridiculous considering the wasted money in Iraq. It dwarfs any social spending. Just the interest on it dwarfs social spending. You know what else dwarfs social spending- its corporate bailouts. Or defense spending contracts. I bet there are more millionaires made via corporate welfare than welfare to the boogie man.
UK wrote:I probably have opposite views as BW23, I have no problem with BW23 labeling themselves whatever they want. Constructive disagreements can still deemed possible regardless of differences, but it would go downhill quickly if it becomes attacking rather than discussing and that usually begins with negative labels towards the other.
I don't use the labels as negativity. If it's taken that way, then I apologize. I use liberal for democrat and conservative for republican interchangeably, even though there's differences, sure.
And a lot of this thread has been attacking. But when I'm one of the few on the right, I guess I should expect that. It's why I should stop posting in this thread. It's been too big of a waste of time for everyone, and it's done more harm than good.
The only thing I don't understand is why there is so much concern about waste in social programs as opposed to waste anywhere else in government. What about all the waste in the military? But the military is such a sacred cow in our system that if you say anything remotely critical of it, or how it's run, you are immediately painted as unpatriotic. Yet it's perfectly commonplace to demonize those people who are most vulnerable in society, those on welfare, food stamps, unemployment and other safety net programs. In other words, if you're poor, you're irresponsible.
I was having an interesting conversation with some friends at dinner the other night (I'm in France atm), and I brought up this very American perspective of how in France there are extremely generous entitlement programs, and there is a great deal of abuse of them. I raised the example of someone I knew who was unemployed for three years, and only got a job 2 months before his very generous (by US standards) unemployment benefits were set to expire. I commented that the system needs to be changed to prevent this kind of disincentive to work. The husband of a good friend of mine (who is thoroughly upper middle class, works as an engineer, never been unemployed) came back and said, "Who cares if people abuse the system? Is it more important to catch the abusers than it is to make sure that the people who really need it get the assistance? Sure there is waste, but I'm not suffering from it. So I pay a little more in taxes, but I'm happier knowing that people who need the assistance will get it rather than worrying about the people who don't need it taking advantage of it."
Now I'm not saying I completely agree with his perspective, but I found that view to be thorough refreshing (and completely un-American). Americans are so hung up on principles of justice and merit that I feel we lack basic compassion for the unfortunate. Sure, many of us will dole out money to selected charities, but for some reason government can't get involved in it or they'll screw it up. Government is viewed as an inefficient bureacracy, but only when it comes to social programs, education and healthcare. But somehow the military, the police, firefighters and other non-social programs are immune from this broad-brush kind of criticism, except when a clear case of abuse has been identified.
Earlier in the thread someone brought up the idea that they would like to be able to save for their own retirement and not be required to put their money toward a low-yield system like Social Security. I understand that sentiment, especially for those among us who are responsible enough to plan for the future. But if you go to that kind of system, what do you do about the poeple who didn't plan or planned recklessly and are left without money at the end? Are you just going to say, "Well, too bad mr. 70-year old retiree, you didn't plan well and so now you have to spend your final 10 years living in a dumpster." Is that really what we want for a society of total personal responsibility?
As far as healthcare is concerned, I just find you can't have an honest discussion about it in our system of political dialogue, just like it's impossible to have an honest discussion about welfare, the military, or even abortion and gay rights. Everything gets caught up in sound bites, scare tactics, and demagoguery on both sides. The reality is, if you are under a managed care or HMO system, the quality of your healthcare is basically worse than most socialized medicine systems in Europe (and more expensive). If you have a truly private health plan, then you are likely better off. But there's no reason to think that the people who are wealthy enough to have this type of plan cannot continue to pay for it in a socialized system. They just might have to pay a little more for it.
I'm wondering who is talking about the environment in this election. If every time we go through an economic downturn or oil prices spike the environment gets sacrificed as an issue, then we clearly are not responsible enough to deal with this issue, and will only be when it's too late. People care about their gas tanks first and foremost and that's a big problem. The amount of discussion about environmental issues in Europe (which is also going thru pretty tough economic times) dwarfs the real discussion and action about it in the US. Unfortunately I'd say Asia is pretty similar to the US in this regard (outside of Japan).
clement wrote:The only thing I don't understand is why there is so much concern about waste in social programs as opposed to waste anywhere else in government. What about all the waste in the military? But the military is such a sacred cow in our system that if you say anything remotely critical of it, or how it's run, you are immediately painted as unpatriotic. Yet it's perfectly commonplace to demonize those people who are most vulnerable in society, those on welfare, food stamps, unemployment and other safety net programs. In other words, if you're poor, you're irresponsible.
I was having an interesting conversation with some friends at dinner the other night (I'm in France atm), and I brought up this very American perspective of how in France there are extremely generous entitlement programs, and there is a great deal of abuse of them. I raised the example of someone I knew who was unemployed for three years, and only got a job 2 months before his very generous (by US standards) unemployment benefits were set to expire. I commented that the system needs to be changed to prevent this kind of disincentive to work. The husband of a good friend of mine (who is thoroughly upper middle class, works as an engineer, never been unemployed) came back and said, "Who cares if people abuse the system? Is it more important to catch the abusers than it is to make sure that the people who really need it get the assistance? Sure there is waste, but I'm not suffering from it. So I pay a little more in taxes, but I'm happier knowing that people who need the assistance will get it rather than worrying about the people who don't need it taking advantage of it."
Now I'm not saying I completely agree with his perspective, but I found that view to be thorough refreshing (and completely un-American). Americans are so hung up on principles of justice and merit that I feel we lack basic compassion for the unfortunate. Sure, many of us will dole out money to selected charities, but for some reason government can't get involved in it or they'll screw it up. Government is viewed as an inefficient bureacracy, but only when it comes to social programs, education and healthcare. But somehow the military, the police, firefighters and other non-social programs are immune from this broad-brush kind of criticism, except when a clear case of abuse has been identified.
Earlier in the thread someone brought up the idea that they would like to be able to save for their own retirement and not be required to put their money toward a low-yield system like Social Security. I understand that sentiment, especially for those among us who are responsible enough to plan for the future. But if you go to that kind of system, what do you do about the poeple who didn't plan or planned recklessly and are left without money at the end? Are you just going to say, "Well, too bad mr. 70-year old retiree, you didn't plan well and so now you have to spend your final 10 years living in a dumpster." Is that really what we want for a society of total personal responsibility?
As far as healthcare is concerned, I just find you can't have an honest discussion about it in our system of political dialogue, just like it's impossible to have an honest discussion about welfare, the military, or even abortion and gay rights. Everything gets caught up in sound bites, scare tactics, and demagoguery on both sides. The reality is, if you are under a managed care or HMO system, the quality of your healthcare is basically worse than most socialized medicine systems in Europe (and more expensive). If you have a truly private health plan, then you are likely better off. But there's no reason to think that the people who are wealthy enough to have this type of plan cannot continue to pay for it in a socialized system. They just might have to pay a little more for it.
I'm wondering who is talking about the environment in this election. If every time we go through an economic downturn or oil prices spike the environment gets sacrificed as an issue, then we clearly are not responsible enough to deal with this issue, and will only be when it's too late. People care about their gas tanks first and foremost and that's a big problem. The amount of discussion about environmental issues in Europe (which is also going thru pretty tough economic times) dwarfs the real discussion and action about it in the US. Unfortunately I'd say Asia is pretty similar to the US in this regard (outside of Japan).
++ beautifly put. You think social programs bankrupt us? Look at the military.
