ExRx.net

Well, the idea of sticking up a thread on politics has been brought up. Figured I'd do it. I'm focusing on the US situation, but all non US types feel free to join in, maybe we can benefit from your outside perspective. Also welcome is politics on the world level.Personally with a president with such a low favorability rating, and a congress who people trust less than the president, this should be interesting. I know we have at least 2 libertarians on here, me and Ironman, and together we should be able to piss off just about anybody. What a choice have this year, an icequeen that can't hold a straight tune (Hillary), a militant fanatic who has trouble telling the truth(not Bush) -Guiliani, a guy that changes his mind every 5 minutes, Romney. I don't know enough about Obama, he's a fresh face, might be decent. I;m all for Biden and Richardson on the Democratic side, they may be Democrats, but both are centrists, use good common sense, and have had a lot of international exposure. I love Ron Paul on the Repbulican side (a libertarian that would slash the size of the Govt), but unfortunately I don't see any of them standing a chance.
Tim

Yea, Ron Paul is my favorite. I don't think he has much of a chance though. I do like Obama, and I think he does have a good chance. Biden and Edwards are ok, not a big fan though. I hate Clinton though. I will feel dirty if I have to vote for her to keep a social conservative right wing nutjob out.

Anything is better than the president we have now though. He is my polar opposite. A social conservative that spends money like Jimmy Carter.

I'm all about small government keeping out of people's way. Every issue that comes up government always wants to ban it, or throw money at it. In most cases they should butt out and leave people alone.

I hate the 2 party system. Gridlock is the best we can hope for. If a party gets too much power, then the country basically becomes a dictatorship run by either the RNC or DNC because everyone just falls in line behind their party leader.

Yeah, the 2 party thing is a mess. There was talk earlier of a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket coming out on the independent ticket. That would have been a decent alternative to what we have now, but it doesn't look like that will happen. I have nothing against religion, but it seems like everytime I turn around, there is a far right nutjob arguing with a farleft loon nutjob about church and state. I prefer to believe the majority of the peope here in this country hate the idea of the far left getting the pledge od allegance thrown out because of it's use of "under God", and those idiots making it Happy Holidays and wanting to ban all things Christmas. Likewise, if Falwell and Robertson had their way, it would be a theocracy.
BTW, Merry Christmas to all
Tim

I don't care about the christmas/holidays thing. Either way they want to go with it. The words "under god" were added to the pledge in 1956. I would like the original pledge restored. Where were those protect the pledge people in 1956?

We live in the United States of amnesia where people don't remember anything like that.

Well what I have to say is the I am all for Obama at the moment. It pissed me off so much with that whole being un American because he didn't put his hand over his heart during the national anthem, not the pledge of allegiance. Then you have small minded right winged and possibly left wing retards saying that hes for terrorism. Its rediculous and disgusting how ignorant people can be when it comes to politics. People are more likely to cause terrorism then the president himself. Hes under the telescope 100% he exists in office while people are not at all. Alot of people use there own personal bias when they talk about politics so its next to impossible to have a good conversation about it. Or even read information about it. Like with persident Bush at the moment, you have people that love him because of his party and then others that hate him because other people do. And if you ask them why they hate him they give you a half assed bull$hit reason why. But at the moment I believe he (Obama) is the one whos got our best interests at heart.

His ideas are great one of them being gay marriage. Making it sort of a legal bind between the partners instead of a full blown marriage. That would be fair because it will work the same way as a marriage that if one person dies the other one gets their belongings. That would satisfy everyone.

Well, the campaign's just getting started. Get ready for much more mudslinging. Q: How do you tell if a politician is lying? A. Their lips are moving.
Tim

Yep...Not fun at all, most of the time I'll just ignore it because I rarely watch local tv stations and any news I read is online, and those articles that bash each other I won't read.

I do like watching some of the PBSnews summaries, along w/ BBC. They're about the closest to uniased as I can find. I occasionally watch Scheiffer on CBS Sunday because he is pretty low key and doesn't "get in your face" when interviewing, but do like listening to the journalists in the round tables. Even they remarked that it's too bad the late night comics aren't on now because of the writers strikes. They seem to be able to pick up on the crazy statements the candidates make and have a field day with them.
Tim

I fail to see how gay marriage and straight marriage are any different. It's just discrimination based on sexual orientation. Homosexuals are one group where prejudice is still considered acceptable. To be fair, the bible does say they should be stoned to death, along with disobedient children.

The gay marriage controversey thing is something I could never figure out. I couldn't care less if they called them "unions" or "mariages". You're right, it's discrimination, a coupe thats together whether they are straight or gay, are commited to each other be it a marriage or a union, should have the legal rights of spouses. I.E power of attorney, hospital visitation, etc I also don't see where the Govt should be sticking their noses intothis anyway. Speaking of stoning disobedient kids,we'd have a ton of dead kids floating around if they bought that back.
Tim

The reason the government is getting involved is because they have to because of people out there. There are alot of people who create uproar over gay marriage because of the bible or because they find it unnatural or because they are hardcore supporters of it. Its because of the people that there is government intervention. If people would not create problems with it there would be no intervention.

One thing I hope for is that you Americans finally get a decent social system, something like many European countries have. Here in Belgium everyone who works pays about 13.5% for the RSZ (social security). That way workless, retired, handicapped,... get at least minimum wages to survive.
You should also get decent insurances, who don't cost as much as you are paying right now (I've heard that hospitals cost fortunes for those who don't have one/ can't pay insuarances) I don't know for certain but I believe that in the 13.5% we pay, hospitality is also inhibited.
I don't really know much about your elections/candidates, but I think Obama is the "best choice", I believe that he's for social security, etc.

PS: Don't vote for a retard who wants to "save" the whole world, while all he (actually his "sponsors") wants are oil, money and influence. Just my 2 cents.

Wouter, that's one of the big issues right now. I don't know how many millions of people have no health insurance right now in the US. The problem is, has been , in the past, paid for (mostly) by the company you work for, with the individual doing a co-pay. Worked fine for a number of years, but then HMO's came into existence, insurance costs sky-rocketed (both for employers and those workers who had to pay or their own), it cut way into company profits, and noweverybody is in between a rock and a hard place. The big ebate right now, is how to cope. Do it w/ the Govt?-regulating costs, paid for w/ taxes, turning it into a European type system, or Leave it to privatization, getting rid of HMO's letting the provider's compete? That's the big debate over here. Neither plan is perfect, Romney, to his credit, (I'm NOT a big fan of his) actually came up with a plan in Massachusetts that did work. Hillary (I'm definately NOTa fan of hers either), to her credit, has one of the beter plans being formeed on that subject. I guess we;ll see what comes out of this.
Tim

Normally I am small government on everything. But I'm not on health insurance. Now granted I want to keep the hospitals and doctor's offices private, because socialized medicine sucks. Many countries in Europe have substandard health care because of that. However, I think we SHOULD socialize health INSURANCE. Because really, insurance IS socialism. Think about it, you pay premiums and copays, but otherwise, everyone contributes and some people get more then they pay for and others get less. That is socialism. However you also have billions and billions of dollars going to insurance company profits. So, if we socialize it all the way, there would be no profit, it would just break even. So then those of us who can pay, would pay about the same as we are paying now for plans through our employers. and there would be enough money leftover to insure the poor at a reduced rate they can afford. Even free for the very worst off. The only exception being standard copays, which are usually nominal.

We pay for it anyway. When people can't afford medical care, it is still provided. They take our tax $$ to pay for it. Plus any losses that aren't compensated with tax money just increases the cost of health care, so we ALREADY pay for everyone. But if we go from 99% socialized to 100%, we free up billions so everyone can have proper care instead of minimal emergency care. Another aspect of this, is the poor don't get preventative care. Which paying for that would be cheaper then waiting until they have major problem and then paying for it. Preventative care is much cheaper.

So in all honesty the drain on taxes and premiums now, is already greater than what would be paid if we socialize it.

The average person is not going to understand though. So it is unlikely to happen.

I'll have to disagree that "socialized medicine" sucks. I do know that here in Belgium we have very good doctors who aren't less educated then your doctors, most are at least equally good as the American doctors, if not better. The difference between "socialized medicine" and "private medicine" is the cost. In the "private system", the insurances are out of reach for a lot and even more can barely pay theirs, in the "social system" the insurance isn't out of reach for anyone. Everyone pays the same ratio and everyone gets the same. The rich do not have more and better doctors, they are equally treated as the poor.
That is a more valuable system in my logical thinking. The rich need their money less, thus they can pay more.