McCain and Obama

[IWalker]

The Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor and we declare war on Japan. Using Iraq/Afghanistan logic we should have not joined the European front to confront Germany and Italy?

Using which Iraq/Afghanistan logic? I think that going into Iraq was the right thing to do...I just think the justifications being used to justify it were erroneous.

My point was more that placating Germany through various actions, including giving them Poland, just emboldened them...and led to the explosive confrontation that was WWII. The same sort of placation/soft diplomacy is being used against Iran...and was used against Iraq for years and years....and achieved nothing.

The only options put forward against Iran are basically...do what we tell you or....we'll keep telling you not to do it. The only threats that are worthwhile are ones that are backed up by actions.

 

[tsmooth]

I hear you on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and that it is a problem NOBODY is going to touch until it becomes an absolutely necessary (like all government issues). People actually take a week off of work, fly to Europe, get a procedure done, take a vacation, and spend about as much money as just the procedure costs here! The quality to compensation is a bit out of proportion right now. About Social Security, one guy that is leading the charge on reform is Wisconsin’s own Congressman Paul Ryan (if you have the time take a look at the plan he is proposing). As a 23 year old, I have been saving for the future for 5 years now because I expect to get nothing from SS when I am of age to retire.

 

[tsmooth]

Using which Iraq/Afghanistan logic? I think that going into Iraq was the right thing to do...I just think the justifications being used to justify it were erroneous.

My point was more that placating Germany through various actions, including giving them Poland, just emboldened them...and led to the explosive confrontation that was WWII. The same sort of placation/soft diplomacy is being used against Iran...and was used against Iraq for years and years....and achieved nothing.

The only options put forward against Iran are basically...do what we tell you or....we'll keep telling you not to do it. The only threats that are worthwhile are ones that are backed up by actions.

I was agreeing with your post, I guess I should have been more clear with my point.

 

[IWalker]

Diamonds,

You are not the only liberal on this site by a long shot. But I've been a bit burned-out with this topic due to the similar workplace discussions. I'm just tired of trying to reason with conservatives who go out to their car at lunch to catch their latest talking points from clowns like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

I'm tired of debunking the myths, assuring people that not all Dems want to take their guns, God, or money away from them. I find it odd that I actually have to justify sweeping changes to our medical system -- after all, is it reasonable in this age that 46 million Americans can't get or afford treatment for even the most common ailments ?? I grow weary of verbally illustrating the cronyism, idiocracy, high crimes and misdemeanors of this current administration and McCain's unwillingness to reject it -- talk about guilt by association !! Jeremiah Wright was a hair on a gnats arse compared to this wookie's worth of injustice inflicted upon the American citizenry.

But now you got me rambling... So I'll stop before I start to really stir up the s**t on this forum.

~VDR

One point to note. 46 million americans DONT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. that's far different than not being able to get care. Hospitals are legally bound to provide care to a patient whether or not they can afford it.

Also, sweeping reform and nationalized medicine don't necessarily go hand in hand. I agree that medical reform is important...but I think that mccains ideas on it are far more worthwhile than obamas. There's a reason why most canadians who can afford it come to the US for treatment when they're on waiting lists. Something like 20% of cancer patients who are treatable die before they ever receive treatment. So, you take a system that covers most people (90%) well....and replace it with a system that sucks, but covers everyone? That makes no sense to me at all. Also note that 18 million of the 46 million are middle or upper class...and could buy insurance if they wanted...but choose not to. I almost always prefer choice to having the government telling me what to do.

 

[IWalker]

I was agreeing with your post, I guess I should have been more clear with my point.

haha, or I should be my careful in my reading of it

 

[IWalker]

I hear you on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and that it is a problem NOBODY is going to touch until it becomes an absolutely necessary (like all government issues). People actually take a week off of work, fly to Europe, get a procedure done, take a vacation, and spend about as much money as just the procedure costs here! The quality to compensation is a bit out of proportion right now. About Social Security, one guy that is leading the charge on reform is Wisconsin’s own Congressman Paul Ryan (if you have the time take a look at the plan he is proposing). As a 23 year old, I have been saving for the future for 5 years now because I expect to get nothing from SS when I am of age to retire.

So...how to you address the issue of health care? It's a guarantee that if you put it all in the hands of the government that the quality of administration (in the absence of competition) will decline, and the costs will go up. The best way to create efficiency in a market is to increase competition, not remove it in favor of socialism.

One reason care is so expensive here is that insured patients have to cover the costs of uninsured patients that get treated and can't pay...so it's essentially acting as gap coverage for the uninsured, at the cost of the insured.

Another big issue is that having access to the very newest treatments is often much more expensive. If you want to use drugs that are 10 years old and off patent, they're very cheap...but also less effective. People want the highest quality treatment but don't realize that it costs money.

Also, considering the costs of becoming a doctor (4 years of $50k/year, plus opportunity cost of at least that...plus a few years of residency) the profession has to be lucrative to lure top talent. On top of that, there's ridiculous malpractice insurance that doctors have to pay for as well. The surest way to cause a huge shortage of doctors is to turn doctors into civil servants making a civil service salary...after making a half million dollar investment in their education.

 

[IWalker]

Am I really the only liberal except for Tom on this entire forum? Rich boys and there toys I suppose.

Haha, sorry to team up on you like that. I'm frankly kind of surprised at the response...I'm so used to being teamed up on 5v1.

I'm also a 27 year old who's middle class...working my way up...and hoping that the hard work and good decisions I put in now will reflect for me in the future. I've moved 3 times since college, and likely soon to be a 4th, because I realize that as much as that's a hardship for me...it will likely have the best long-term result. I'm choosing what I feel to be best over what I feel is easiest. Shouldn't there be benefit from those kind of difficult decisions? Instead, the government seeks to punish successful people with a progressive tax rate, while liberals tend to demonize them. It seems like the people who continue to make this country an economic power (which thus allows us to be a military power...etc.) should be celebrated, not demonized.

I also tend to think that, if you do assume that people are personally intelligent and responsible...they are better able to run their own affairs than the government is. Liberals claim to be the champions of "freedoms" (hate the Patriot Act, etc.) yet choose to eliminate many freedoms through the introduction of socialist programs. Comes off as hypocritical to me.

 

[tsmooth]

So...how to you address the issue of health care? It's a guarantee that if you put it all in the hands of the government that the quality of administration (in the absence of competition) will decline, and the costs will go up. The best way to create efficiency in a market is to increase competition, not remove it in favor of socialism.

One reason care is so expensive here is that insured patients have to cover the costs of uninsured patients that get treated and can't pay...so it's essentially acting as gap coverage for the uninsured, at the cost of the insured.

Another big issue is that having access to the very newest treatments is often much more expensive. If you want to use drugs that are 10 years old and off patent, they're very cheap...but also less effective. People want the highest quality treatment but don't realize that it costs money.

Also, considering the costs of becoming a doctor (4 years of $50k/year, plus opportunity cost of at least that...plus a few years of residency) the profession has to be lucrative to lure top talent. On top of that, there's ridiculous malpractice insurance that doctors have to pay for as well. The surest way to cause a huge shortage of doctors is to turn doctors into civil servants making a civil service salary...after making a half million dollar investment in their education.

Wow, I am worn out and getting sloppy . The nature of having a society of people that want and people that work for what they want creates a balance issue in our free and open system. Your points are outstanding and in the end people on one side of the fence are going to end up getting the shaft.

 

[IWalker]

Wow, I am worn out and getting sloppy . The nature of having a society of people that want and people that work for what they want creates a balance issue in our free and open system. Your points are outstanding and in the end the people on one side of the fence are going to get the shaft.

Haha, thanks. Yes, one side is going to get the shaft...and it seems the government is constantly deciding that the people who work for what they want are more deserving of the shaft. (because they can better take it?) It's actually a form of reverse discrimination. You make one set of people pay more than another set who benefits equally. Not that I thnk life should be fair....but as long as fairness is being used as a defense of the proposed capital gains tax increases by Obama (pretty much the worst idea ever....and the worst justification for an idea) I think it's valid to point out unfairness on the other side.

 

[tsmooth]

Diamonds,

But now you got me rambling... So I'll stop before I start to really stir up the s**t on this forum.

~VDR

Ha, intellectual debate is great and I thank everyone for posting. I have noticed in my own personal life and with other forums is that many Liberals have a hard time keeping emotions out of the points they are trying to make. They start with claim, a conservative offers a rebuttal, and the Liberal response is something about bad about Bush or a blanket statement. I am happy we have been able to keep this civil so far and hope to continually get useful commentary offered up from both sides (ex. IWalker, Diamonds, VanDaRo, eknuds01, David Matz, etc.). I must say I am definitely doing more research for the upcoming election season due to the points raised on this site.

 

[IWalker]

Ha, intellectual debate is great and I thank everyone for posting. I have noticed in my own personal life and with other forums is that many Liberals have a hard time keeping emotions out of the points they are trying to make. They start with claim, a conservative offers a rebuttal, and the Liberal response is something about bad about Bush or a blanket statement. I am happy we have been able to keep this civil so far and hope to continually get useful commentary offered up from both sides (ex. IWalker, Diamonds, VanDaRo, eknuds01, David Matz, etc.). I must say I am definitely doing more research for the upcoming election season due to the points raised on this site.

Agreed...I love a spirited debate on almost any topic, as long as it's kept on topic and civil....but it seems so rare these days to find that. The saying holds true that the two hardest things to discuss are often religion and politics...and I can count on one hand the number of discussions I've had on either that have remained civil for more than a few minutes...and I generally don't try to get people riled up...just try to lay out my perspective...take it or leave it. It says a lot that it's stayed civil even on an internet forum...where it's so easy for people to be obnoxious without any sort of ramifications. I have great respect for people, whatever their views, that can be mature in their discussion of them.

 

[twich54]

Am I really the only liberal except for Tom on this entire forum? Rich boys and there toys I suppose.

Definition.......... A Bleeding heart liberal is a conservitive who has yet to be victimized !

Not trying to pick on you diamonds , truth is I feel the ultra right are about as goofy as the far out left. It would be nice if the world were flat that way they all would have fallen off by now and we could really get something accomplished !!

 

[VanDaRo]

An interesting read. All points are reasonable, but I would like to point out that no president, politician or other lawmaker has any interest in seeing their constituency driven into the poor-house. So set your fears aside for a few moments.

Reforms to the medical system, social security, public schools and whatnot will surely cost money. But Obama and many in Congress are very smart people and will have to hash out compromise bills that won't impact doctors' pay, medical innovation, maintain high standards of education, and yet provide for the long-term defense of this nation. There is no black and no white in any of these political topics, only shades of gray.

With that being said, the main difference between Reps and Dems is in the approach. Conservatives generally don't want to give anyone lesser than themselves anything that they may have worked for (ie: welfare checks by way of income taxation) -- the old "income redistribution" argument. Liberals believe that when we come together as a people we are better able to solve our issues, even if that means the well-healed pay more.

When foreign scholars study American politics, they often note that Republican tactics and rhetoric are mean-spirited compared to the Democratic one. This is well-documented, and that says something. Bear in mind that I don't give money to beggars or strangers on the street -- but I do empathize with their plight. Who here would not give a friend or co-worker suffering hard times $50 to fill up his tank so that he could get to work tomorrow ? Sure, the money is mine, mine, mine -- but if help is what you need, then it should be there for you. I may fall upon hard times myself someday.

Conservatives also like to bring up the matter of system abuses. Social Security, Disability Act and Medicare being the big ones. And yes, there is a certain percentage of the population that will try to "work" the program to their financial or laziness-maintenance advantage. But they are the exception.

--Let's treat the exceptions as the exceptions, not as if they were the norm.
--Let's elect politicians that want to try and make a difference.
--Let's not let peoples' thoughts on God, abortion, race relations, gun-ownership, etc... rule this campaign or influence our long-term political future. These line-item issues cloud the real goals of this country because some people are just not rational when it comes to Jesus, Allah, their reproductive rights or "Heckler and Koch".

BTW, I bought a Glock 10mm auto this summer and it KICKS SOME A$$ !! I like my guns too.


~VDR

 

[twich54]

Good rebuttal Van !! I concur.

 

[Tube60]

There's a reason why most canadians who can afford it come to the US for treatment when they're on waiting lists. Something like 20% of cancer patients who are treatable die before they ever receive treatment. So, you take a system that covers most people (90%) well....and replace it with a system that sucks, but covers everyone? That makes no sense to me at all.

If whatever administration bent on nationalized healthcare tries, they'd better dismantle the existing private healthcare industry COMPLETELY or the government plan would be a laughingstock; a joke. Where I came from, the waiting list to see a specialist takes YEARS, and that's why they max out credit cards and 2nd mortgage their property to come here for treatment. BBC America had a show about Britain's worst teeth, and they showcased a gal who had a really serious phobia, to the point that her dentist recommended a specialist who could give her general anaesthesia. The narrator went on to say she gave up because the waiting list WAS OVER TWO YEARS LONG. I'm not say that WOULD happen here, but that example is part of a long historical record of national healthcare systems worldwide. Do we really need yet another federal beauracracy? The better solution is to reform the present system. It's still the best in the world in spite of the flaws. ( Like why do hospitals charge $60.00 for two Advil? Case in point. )

Back to topic. Liberal or conservative, we've had the same old "soak those rich *******s and help the poor" arguments since the 20s at least; one side getting easy votes and the other side pointing out the other's not telling the whole truth, well, both sides really, and it gets nowhere. The wealthy know how to get around those punishment programs, and the poor don't get the help they really need, like how about programs to help the poor not be poor anymore?
We need to refine and hone what really works in this great country of ours, not to throw things away to try what other countries and cultures have and failed, through right or left politics.
Otherwise, lets just get along and find out together what works!

 

[IWalker]

An interesting read. All points are reasonable, but I would like to point out that no president, politician or other lawmaker has any interest in seeing their constituency driven into the poor-house. So set your fears aside for a few moments.

Reforms to the medical system, social security, public schools and whatnot will surely cost money. But Obama and many in Congress are very smart people and will have to hash out compromise bills that won't impact doctors' pay, medical innovation, maintain high standards of education, and yet provide for the long-term defense of this nation. There is no black and no white in any of these political topics, only shades of gray.

With that being said, the main difference between Reps and Dems is in the approach. Conservatives generally don't want to give anyone lesser than themselves anything that they may have worked for (ie: welfare checks by way of income taxation) -- the old "income redistribution" argument. Liberals believe that when we come together as a people we are better able to solve our issues, even if that means the well-healed pay more.

When foreign scholars study American politics, they often note that Republican tactics and rhetoric are mean-spirited compared to the Democratic one. This is well-documented, and that says something. Bear in mind that I don't give money to beggars or strangers on the street -- but I do empathize with their plight. Who here would not give a friend or co-worker suffering hard times $50 to fill up his tank so that he could get to work tomorrow ? Sure, the money is mine, mine, mine -- but if as help is what you need, then it should be there for you. I may fall upon hard times myself someday.

Conservatives also like to bring up the matter of system abuses. Social Security, Disability Act and Medicare being the big ones. And yes, there is a certain percentage of the population that will try to "work" the program to their financial or laziness-maintenance advantage. But they are the exception.

--Let's treat the exceptions as the exceptions, not as if they were the norm.
--Let's elect politicians that want to try and make a difference.
--Let's not let peoples' thoughts on God, abortion, race relations, gun-ownership, etc... rule this campaign or influence our long-term political future. These line-item issues cloud the real goals of this country because some people are just not rational when it comes to Jesus, Allah, their reproductive rights or "Heckler and Koch".

BTW, I bought a Glock 10mm auto this summer and it KICKS SOME A$$ !! I like my guns too.


~VDR

Interesting points...and I think they highlight very well where some of our differences lie. First: "But Obama and many in Congress are very smart people" So, basically you have faith, even after years and years of earmarks and misguided and inefficient legislation (basically everything that's gotten the system to the point it's at) that these "smart people" will do the right thing. Well, I can guarantee you that there are a lot more people who are likely a lot SMARTER in the private sector...and they are forced to live with the consequences of their decisions (based on whether they survive or not professionally)...I'd much rather put my faith into people who are experts in their field than legislators who have no relevant experience in the associated field. This applies to pretty much every issue out there.

Also, you mention that they "will have to hash out compromise bills that won't impact doctors' pay, medical innovation, maintain high standards of education, and yet provide for the long-term defense of this nation." The only way to maintain all of these things is to massively increase the cost. It's like saying "I want a car that's faster, more luxurious, has better gas mileage, and is less expensive" There's no magic bullet scenario...and by trying to provide blanket coverage, you end up with inadvertant effects...that you wouldn't get through a system of increased private competition (because people can choose based on their own preferences.)

So, in summary. 1. Liberals tend to have faith in Government, conservatives generally have faith in human nature/private sector (ie, someone who has something to gain or lose through their decisions) Liberals tend to think that if it's the government spending money...then it's not REAL money...like a kid with a credit card. (Yes, Bush was bad about this too...I acknowledge that...but it's a common liberal approach...disagree if you like) Private sector companies have to weigh costs and benefits...government just weighs benefits...and often comes up with grossly inefficient solutions as a result.

2. Ah, here's the rub. Republicans are MORE charitable in their giving than liberals per capita! Bet you didn't expect that. You say you don't give money to beggars or strangers on the street...but that's EXACTLY what welfare is. People you don't know benefiting from your hard work...just because they exist in the same geographic boundary as you. I would do anything for my family and friends if asked of me...and give "liberally" to organizations that I think are worth it. It's not charitable if you take other people's money to do it...but that's how liberals treat charity. If they want something done...they get the government to force everyone to contribute (through taxes) and then pay for it...instead of paying for it out of their own pockets through a charity. Feel free to look up the statistics. Here's a link - there are tons more with the same statistics...I just googled it.http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/will/s_559181.html

A couple of exerpts :

•Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
•Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

As a note...I also wouldn't give money to a rich stranger...so it has nothing to do with one's position to life. It has to do with one's relationship to me.

3. "When foreign scholars study American politics, they often note that Republican tactics and rhetoric are mean-spirited compared to the Democratic one. " Mean-spirited? Really? First of all, I think there's a lot of this on both sides...hell, look at Hillary Clinton's campaign or MoveOn.org's calling of Petraeus "General Betray-Us" Both sides do it...and I don't think "foreign scholars" is any sort of worthwhile qualification. Liberals in Europe are very sympathetic to American Liberals....and the VAST majority of "scholars" are liberal. Of course they're going to think that. It's a very subjective subject...and whatever there findings there is NO way to quantify that research. It's pure opinion...so I'll move on from this point. As for the part about gas money...I think that fits more into the charity point in #2. Conservatives are more charitable

4. The point is not that there are system abuses...but rather that the system encourages a certain set of behavior. If you give me $50 to do something, I'm more likely to do it....if you give me $50 not to do something...I'm less likely to do it. The kind of behavior that welfare systems encourage are not the kind that help close the income inequality gap. It's creating a "welfare state"....in which people rely on the free money...and creates a pattern...such that a large proportion of their children then are on welfare, etc. The focus should be on providing work in lieu of straight handouts...and training in important job skills. The truth is that there are people out there who ARE lazy and who won't work....and the system just props them up.

This comes to the second major difference. Liberals tend to think that all people are inherently good and hard working...but sometimes need the government to guide them. conservatives think that you have hard working and talented people...and you have lazy people...and you reap what you sow...and the government should stay out of it. (also known as personal responsibility) I don't think anyone disagrees that there's a class of people (disabled, etc.) that can't take care of themselves, even if they want to...and they need to be provided for.

"--Let's not let peoples' thoughts on God, abortion, race relations, gun-ownership, etc... rule this campaign or influence our long-term political future. These line-item issues cloud the real goals of this country because some people are just not rational when it comes to Jesus, Allah, their reproductive rights or "Heckler and Koch"."

Amen. I agree with this whole-heartedly.

So, basically....I think that I know better how to spend my money than the government does...and I want the FREEDOM to spend it that way. A government that taxes you excessively is limiting your freedoms (in my opinion it's far more egregious than the FBI having the right to tap my phone).

It's very interesting to read that you have faith in the government to do the right thing. Especially interesting since congress has a 9% approval rating...it seems like misplaced faith based on past results.

 

[IWalker]

Good rebuttal Van !! I concur.

oh boo. Read my re-rebuttal above

 

[IWalker]

If whatever administration bent on nationalized healthcare tries, they'd better dismantle the existing private healthcare industry COMPLETELY or the government plan would be a laughingstock; a joke. Where I came from, the waiting list to see a specialist takes YEARS, and that's why they max out credit cards and 2nd mortgage their property to come here for treatment. BBC America had a show about Britain's worst teeth, and they showcased a gal who had a really serious phobia, to the point that her dentist recommended a specialist who could give her general anaesthesia. The narrator went on to say she gave up because the waiting list WAS OVER TWO YEARS LONG. I'm not say that WOULD happen here, but that example is part of a long historical record of national healthcare systems worldwide. Do we really need yet another federal beauracracy? The better solution is to reform the present system. It's still the best in the world in spite of the flaws. ( Like why do hospitals charge $60.00 for two Advil? Case in point. )

Back to topic. Liberal or conservative, we've had the same old "soak those rich *******s and help the poor" arguments since the 20s at least; one side getting easy votes and the other side pointing out the other's not telling the whole truth, well, both sides really, and it gets nowhere. The wealthy know how to get around those punishment programs, and the poor don't get the help they really need, like how about programs to help the poor not be poor anymore?
We need to refine and hone what really works in this great country of ours, not to throw things away to try what other countries and cultures have and failed, through right or left politics.
Otherwise, lets just get along and find out together what works!

Wow, another one! :rocker:

Agreed, though I'll say "We need to refine and hone what really works in this great country of ours, not to throw things away to try what other countries and cultures have and failed, through right or left politics." Is exactly right...but SO far from being able to happen.

This brings me to another point. How many people actually think that politicians have the good of the people/country as their primary motivation? I'd say there are probably a few of those politicians...but for the most part, they're more (or at least AS) greedy and power-hungry than the private sector rich they purport to despise (and tax the hell out of). They essentially have their hands on a blank checkbook...which is ALWAYS a bad scenario. Does standard human nature somehow not apply to politicians?

Getting back to Obama specifically...what is it about his "hope and change" message that actually makes anyone think he's anything more than just a good politician? His policies are standard far left....just in a slick package. If the policies he supports represented any sort of change...they wouldn't be historically party-line positions, right? (though...he is changing his positions quite a bit for the general election...which raises the questions...what does he really believe?)

 

[Kaboomnash]

" It's actually a form of reverse discrimination. You make one set of people pay more than another set who benefits equally.

Funny, I was always under the impression that there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. Either your being discriminated or your not.

Why does being rich, white or straight make it reversed?

Lee

 

[Tube60]

Here's a story about some farmers worldwide that all have something in common:
Six cows, a wife, and kids.

In the communist country, the government came in and shot five cows, took the sixth, shot the wife, sent the kids to "re-education centers" and sentenced the farmer to one year hard labor for being a western spy. And his farm was burned to the ground and he was sent to a collective farm after his stint in the gulag.

In the socialist country, the government came and took five cows, left him one and put him into a 95% tax bracket, and was monitored by the secret police for several years because he didn't declare the cows.

In the national socialist country, the government took all his cows, took his family away because his wife had some Jewish ancestry and sent them to a concentration camp, and installed an army barracks on his farm.

In what might be tomorrows America, the government came and took five cows for carbon credits, humanely euthanized the sixth for methane emissions, declared eminent domain on his property and sold it to a developer, arrested the farmer and his wife for homeschooling their kids, and sent the kids to "protective custody".

In what has historically been America and still mostly is, the farmer sold two cows and bought a bull.

Now if that doesn't lighten things up, nothing will!