Obama vs. McCain: Thoughts?

[ShahinVahdat]

Well said, Greg. I think the problem is that people are willing to put their trust more in the corporations than in the government. It's sad that the government has bred so much distrust in people, and again it's sad that people trust corporations to take care of them.

The solution in my opinion is to build a government in which the people can put their trust, provide basic services and not feel as if they'll be screwed over.

Now to start steering back the conversation to the original topic...I really think the Democratic Party and Barack Obama have taken the right step by swearing off lobbyist money. Again, are they perfect? No. Do the Republicans have valid points on the topics affecting us as a country? Absolutely they do. However, I believe that where we are as a country, Republicans choose to stick steadfastly to current policies, which continue to hurt our national welfare. This may be a direct result of President Bush's leadership and McCain may be different. However, it can be seen that Americans agree with this sentiment in that 55% of registered voters are Democratic and now only 36% are Republican.

[Makh]

And you mention the Iraq War is costing billions, but most of that cost is just the general cost of keeping the military ready to defend the country. Almost all of that money is spent on soldier's salaries, new fighters (which would be bought anyway), new armored vehicles (again, bought anyway), and upkeep of military installations. A small percentage of those billions is due to the war in Iraq. (mostly just slightly increased ammo costs, and hazard pay) So you say the war costs billions, but so does a standing army. Just look at where most of the money goes. It goes to basic military functions, not war-specific items.

Martin Blank, if you are reading this, please explain to this man the process of military operation, and more importantly, how your military budget works. You have more advanced knowledge then me on this, and better words. I know it is not topic, so maybe in a later thread or via pm.

Really? Export democracy? And here I thought we took down Saddam because he was funding terrorists and killing his own people because they didn't agree with him. I just figured that democracy was the easiest way to ensure that the new leader wouldn't do the same. Tell me spikegirl, what do you think on the Darfur issue, then?

No. It was because of weapons of mass destruction. I do not understand why you can not remember. This is what they said perseveringly at UN for several months in 2003 before invasion. This was the main reason mentioned at the assembly. It is however, another topic.

For the moment, what leader if you ask me? My opinion is not McCain. He may be experienced politicians and very competent, I do not have great knowledge of American domestic policy he is proposing, but there are some things I do not like in his foreign policy, to not say worrying. I do not like his view on Russia, Cuba, Iran and North Korea, he seems to be more inclined to confrontation then negociations. Clearly, he does not like how Russia is dealing with her own business. He wants to kick Russia out of G8, and will probably try to isolate her the more he can. Like Bush, he uses methods of fear to convince its people. He is trying to show an image of himself, he must think that a strong leader, is a leader using confrontation, or even intimidation. Not good idea after the last 2 terms.

[Thorsman]

Surely a healthy populace is also necessary?

Well said, BtEO!

Spikegirl, you really need to get over the idea that getting taxed for a system from which you also benefit is "stealing" and somehow "morally wrong." If I were you I'd be more worried about the immorality of allowing the medical industry *retch* in the US to leave people destitute after having to pay for overpriced medicines and medical care. THAT is actually more of a problem where taking money out of people's pockets is concerned. Which is worse - paying a little extra taxes for guaranteed national health care, or having to half-starve yourself for the month because you need to pay for necessary medication? Your idea of vigilant independence is all well and good in theory, but in REALITY even the best of us need help. Suppose you had a serious accident, fell, and broke your neck. Then what? You certainly wouldn't be able to work again, and you'd need long-term nursing care. I doubt your insurance would cover this for you. In fact, as Greg quite rightly pointed out, medical insurance is becoming increasingly useless, so you'd be up Shit Creek without a paddle. It can happen to anyone, so don't say it can't or won't happen to you.

[The Cid]

Okay. I've had it. I'm speaking up dammit.

Look, I'm no expert on health care, but Thorsman and for that matter anyone else who agrees, please stop saying THIS:

If I were you I'd be more worried about the immorality of allowing the medical industry *retch* in the US to leave people destitute after having to pay for overpriced medicines and medical care.

I don't know how I feel about government health care. But I know this: the medical industry is just fine. It's the insurance companies that are doing the damage here. Not hospitals. Not big pharmaceuticals. Insurance companies have the medical industry in America by the short and curlies.

I live in a state where residents are required, by law, to have insurance. However, we are also required to pay for it out of their own pockets. It's legislation that hurts more than it helps, no matter how good the intentions, because all it does is give a lot of business to the legislators' buddies in insurance.

They are the ones who have been raising the prices for prescriptions, raising the prices for visits to the doctor, and certainly raising prices for their premiums.

Now, I'm not often the type to condone the government simply giving its people anything. Primarily, I don't trust the government to provide much of anything in an effective and simple manner. As a result I'd rather pay lower taxes so I have more money in my pocket and so the government has less money to waste. However, when it comes to health insurance I'm not so sure. Simply put: ill business practices, 99.99% of the time in American industry, do not affect one's general health. Very few businesses will make more money from you dead than they will alive. Insurance is the exception to that rule. In many instances it actually serves as a bad business decision to allow someone covered under your policy to undergo vital and expensive surgery. Insurance companies can and will do everything they can to deny their policy holders from undergoing expensive procedures.

Maybe if we stopped overspending in so many areas, we could pay for universal health care without it costing us a dime. Lord knows we've wasted billions of dollars each year, maybe we could redistribute that into something that would actually benefit the American people. ...Not that our government would want to help Americans stay healthy and live longer.

[The Cid]

Honestly, that was uncalled for and I don't appreciate your smarmy tone. Yes, I'm an American. No, I'm not dumb enough to place blind trust in a government that has done nothing to earn trust in some fifty years. Problem?

[collegestudent22]

I think they depicted in a documentary in the States called Sicko! or something.

A blatant propaganda film. They tried to show Cuba's socialized healthcare system as better than the privatized system here. While some socialized healthcare may not be as bad, (see Britain) Cuba's is absolutely horrible, and for that movie, the people in the movie were moved to the front of the line and STILL had to wait. Although that film didn't show all the waiting....

And Thors, I would like to know how much you wait to see your doctor. Because I don't wait to see mine. I go whenever I need to. I have had three appointments with a specialist for a hole in my eardrum that isn't healing, and all three have been in the last two weeks. (and they were only spaced out because I needed ear drops to soften some wax that needed to be removed to improve the doc's line of sight....)

[StruckingFuggle]

No, I'm not dumb enough to place blind trust in a government that has done nothing to earn trust in some fifty years.

I think you mean 231 years, there. (almost 232)

[collegestudent22]

No, I'm not dumb enough to place blind trust in a government that has done nothing to earn trust in some fifty years. Problem?

The part in italics is unneccessary. No one should be placing blind trust anywhere.

I thought Reagan was good though. Much better than Carter... or Carter, part 2 Obama

[StruckingFuggle]

Carter, part 2 Obama

Elaborate?

[The Cid]

No, I'm not dumb enough to place blind trust in a government that has done nothing to earn trust in some fifty years. Problem?

The part in italics is unneccessary. No one should be placing blind trust anywhere.

Quoting one of the most inconsequential things I've said in this thread is unnecessary.

I thought Reagan was good though. Much better than Carter... or Carter, part 2 Obama

So I say the government has done nothing to earn our trust in my or my parents' lifetimes, and that's unnecessary, but this is called for?

Also, you were born AFTER Reagan left office! You are welcome to think he was a good president, of course, but I simply don't see what this part of your discussion has to do with the matter at hand. At ALL.

[collegestudent22]

Carter, part 2 Obama

Elaborate?

Carter became the front-runner early on by winning the Iowa caucuses. (as did Obama) Carter had and Obama will have failed energy policies. Both are very big government liberals. Both Obama and Carter see a non-material, soul-level or attitudinal problem with the United States.

The Next Jimmy Carter

And Cid, I wasn't being entirely serious there. I was pointing out that, I think, if Obama gets elected, he will do about as well a job as Carter, mostly because he thinks and campaigns like Carter. That is how it has to do with the matter at hand. If Obama is elected, we will need another Reagan-esque president to clean up after him, just as Reagan cleaned up Carter's mess.

[The Cid]

I think, if Obama gets elected, he will do about as well a job as Carter, mostly because he thinks and campaigns like Carter.

I've never heard something so audacious from an eighteen year-old, and that's saying something because at eighteen pretty much everyone is a bit audacious.

You REALLY think you know this guy well enough to tell me, or ANYONE, how he thinks? Are you out of your mind? How do you know how Jimmy Carter campaigned anyway?

(Keep in mind you're not talking to a big Obama supporter. My mind is not yet made up, in part because I don't try to read the minds of any candidates. I just don't think you have the ability to tell us what's in the man's mind.)

[collegestudent22]

I think, if Obama gets elected, he will do about as well a job as Carter, mostly because he thinks and campaigns like Carter.

I've never heard something so audacious from an eighteen year-old, and that's saying something because at eighteen pretty much everyone is a bit audacious.

The audacity of hope. (that obama doesn't get elected)

You REALLY think you know this guy well enough to tell me, or ANYONE, how he thinks?

I can tell he is a big government liberal, as well as his stances on the issues. That is what I am going off of. They both came to the same conclusions. Whether they came to them in the same fashion, I can't say.

How do you know how Jimmy Carter campaigned anyway?

It is quite common information. I believe it had something to do with claiming the U.S. was in a state of "malaise" and that he was a "new politician" who could fix the government. Hmmm... sounds a lot like one of today's candidates....

[StruckingFuggle]

It is quite common information. I believe it had something to do with claiming the U.S. was in a state of "malaise" and that he was a "new politician" who could fix the government. Hmmm... sounds a lot like one of today's candidates....

Nevermind that, despite Carter being a crappy president (even if he's been a great ex-president), he was right, then (even if he wasn't the right man for the job), and Obama's right, now...



... you wouldn't agree that there's at least something rather and rather largely wrong in the US and with the government and that something needs to change and we need a new sort of person to run the show in a different way? Even if you disagree with anyone else on what 'different' is? I'd be surprised, considering how much you seem displeased with the status quo.

[The Cid]

It is quite common information. I believe

So...it's common information, but rather than the facts you're going to just speculate anyway.

Good. Glad we cleared that up.