purrtykitty
Well-known member
I am learning so much today!!
Not necessarily what I'm supposed to, but I'll still put it in the win column!
Who will you Vote for 2008
- Thread starter SkylarV217
- Start date
blindpassion
Well-known member
"John McCain believes bringing troops from Iraq is “not too important.” "
RedLasso - John McCain believes bringing troops from Iraq is "not too important."
I just posted this for the general interest of the forum, I'm not trying to push a point or anything like that, I just thought this video was interesting
RedLasso - John McCain believes bringing troops from Iraq is "not too important."
I just posted this for the general interest of the forum, I'm not trying to push a point or anything like that, I just thought this video was interesting
Aprilrobin
Well-known member
Quote:
Unfortunately work took me away, however you're contradicting yourself over and over again and I'm afraid that now I'm not even sure what your point about the VP is. It's so advanced that it will save the life of a president and the rest of the party is irrelevant, but it can't help McCain and his oldness. I don't get it. Beyond that, there are reasons beyond death and illness that a president may be removed from office.
Yes medical science is very advanced, however it ony takes 1 bullet, one bomb, one attack in whatever way shape or form you'd like to use as an example to kill any of them. It wasn't all that long ago that the president was shot and I'll leave the terrorism topic out of it. Even, leave the violence out of it ... it only takes one aneurysm, one brain tumor...
It's been several administrations since a president has fallen, but I wouldn't rest on my laurels. So yeah, dismiss an entire platform/ administration because their presidential is just "too old" and therefor might not live for 4 years.
And on the topic of pregnancy, I see that what you're saying is that a woman is electable as long as she's menopausal. Ignore it all you want, but I guess if a 35 year old woman is ever nominated you won't vote for her because she's too young and female.
We'll just have to agree to disagee on his age being a factor in his leadership ability, but just think about the assumptions you're making based on a person's age. I hope nobody dismisses you or your abilities like that one day.
Thanks for the discussion.
Originally Posted by ratmist
The question you pose is a bit of a straw man, so I'm going to avoid it for now. The assumption that with old age comes variable health concerns is a medical fact, not an opinion. If that's ageism, then we're all going to be quite offended with our doctors when we get older. As far as giving birth, if a female President wanted to do that, that'd be her choice. But there is an age limit to even running for president at 35, but it's highly unlikely someone of that age would be elected, whether female or not. Even at the age of the youngest candidate right now - Obama, who turns 47 in August - a woman of 47 would most likely be too old to get pregnant without medical assistance, and even with medical assistance would most likely fail to conceive, let alone bring to term. The youngest ever president was 42 (Teddy Roosevelt) but he was a governor and VP before he became President by succession, so I'm just going to ignore your pregnancy argument as a parallel for legitimate ageism. Actually it's 9 out of 43, including the current President. 1. John Tyler - took over in 1841 when Harrison died of pneumonia. That would almost certainly not kill a president today. 2. Millard Fillmore - Took over in 1850 after Zachary Taylor died from gastroenteritis or heat stroke. That would not kill a 21st century president in all likelihood. 3. Andrew Johnson - 1865, following the assassination of Lincoln. Lincoln had poor health but that isn't what allowed Johnson to take over. Took a bullet to do that. 4. Chester A Arthur - took over when James A Garfield was assassinated in 1881. Assassination isn't ill health, so the point is moot. 5. Theodore Roosevelt - 1901, after McKinley was shot. Again, not ill health. 6. Calvin Coolidge - took over in 1923 when Warren Harding developed pneumonia during a cross-country tour and died of a heart attack or stroke a week later. It's iffy whether a modern president would have died. Surely the pneumonia would've madea 21st century Harding stop touring, at least long enough to recover. So that's 1 for ill health, but I still think a 21st century president may have been able to recover. 7. Harry S Truman - 1945. This is the only one where I think it's fair to say the VP became President as a result of the President's ill health. FDR had a huge list of health problems, but he really died as a result of all of them. 8. Lyndon B Johnson - 1963, took over when JFK was shot. 9. Gerald R Ford - 1973, and really doesn't count because he took over when Nixon resigned. Ill health of the incumbent had nothing to do with it... unless you count the fact that Nixon was a nutbag. ---- In total, I'd say 1 as a result of ill health of the incumbent, 4 if you count diseases that wouldn't kill a sitting President today unless the numerous staff members, doctors and family members didn't watch his/her health closely - like that's possible, given the situation. That's a 2.32% to 9.3% chance of succession, and I'd weight that statistic closer to the bottom number than the top, given medical science. So. Yes, I think it's fair to think about whether someone can physically handle the job, and not really focus too much on the VP or the cabinet. The cabinet can be replaced fairly easily, after all. And the VP? Well, it's important to be happy with whoever the VP is, but at the end of the day, you're really voting in the candidate, not his/her buddy. |
Unfortunately work took me away, however you're contradicting yourself over and over again and I'm afraid that now I'm not even sure what your point about the VP is. It's so advanced that it will save the life of a president and the rest of the party is irrelevant, but it can't help McCain and his oldness. I don't get it. Beyond that, there are reasons beyond death and illness that a president may be removed from office.
Yes medical science is very advanced, however it ony takes 1 bullet, one bomb, one attack in whatever way shape or form you'd like to use as an example to kill any of them. It wasn't all that long ago that the president was shot and I'll leave the terrorism topic out of it. Even, leave the violence out of it ... it only takes one aneurysm, one brain tumor...
It's been several administrations since a president has fallen, but I wouldn't rest on my laurels. So yeah, dismiss an entire platform/ administration because their presidential is just "too old" and therefor might not live for 4 years.
And on the topic of pregnancy, I see that what you're saying is that a woman is electable as long as she's menopausal. Ignore it all you want, but I guess if a 35 year old woman is ever nominated you won't vote for her because she's too young and female.
We'll just have to agree to disagee on his age being a factor in his leadership ability, but just think about the assumptions you're making based on a person's age. I hope nobody dismisses you or your abilities like that one day.
Thanks for the discussion.
ratmist
Well-known member
Quote:
I'm really not. My point is that the VP will rarely take over the Presidency in the event that the President is too ill to continue his/her duties. You said it wasn't that uncommon, at 8 to 42. I listed the historical precedents, at 9 to 42, pointing out that statistically this is biased because only 1 to 4 cases involved ill health. Of those cases, we can reasonably dismiss 3 due to advances in medical science. So we're down to 2% likelihood, based on historical precedence, that the VP will take over an ailing President's duties.
This is to say nothing of how fucked up the political process would be to get the incumbent to step down and allow the VP to take over in the event we did have a diseased, demented or depressed President unable to continue the duty. Here's a really good example that relates to WW2 (from Q J Med 2003; 96: 325-336: Diseased, demented, depressed: serious illness in Heads of State -- Owen 96 (5): 325 -- QJM):
I'll allow that perhaps I wasn't clear, so I'll try to be less obtuse.
It isn't about McCain's age. It's about his medical health, which is impacted by his age. By reiterating that I'm going on and on about his age, you're willfully ignoring the fact that I've referred to his health over and over again. You may think this is a smokescreen for ageism, but as I said in the previous post, with old age comes increasing health concerns - that's simply medical fact. You can't have it both ways - that medical science can keep him alive, but medical science can't point out that he will may not handle the physical and mental stress of being President as well as a person half his age might.
Quote:
You assume I'd vote for a woman on the basis she's a woman. I don't vote that way.
I don't vote on party lines. I don't vote the black guy because I'm concerned about civil rights. I don't vote the white chick because I want to see a woman in the Oval Office. I don't vote the old white guy because I'm a Republican and it's better than voting for a Democrat. I vote who I think is best for the office. No one under 46 has yet been considered experienced enough to be elected to the highest office in the land. Even Obama, at nearly 47, is constantly attacked by McCain for being inexperienced. You show me a 35 year old woman who is experienced enough for the job, and I'll vote for her, no problem. She can menstruate all over the White House for all I care.
Quote:
I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I've made no assumptions, merely pointed out the facts.
| Originally Posted by Aprilrobin
Unfortunately work took me away, however you're contradicting yourself over and over again and I'm afraid that now I'm not even sure what your point about the VP is. |
I'm really not. My point is that the VP will rarely take over the Presidency in the event that the President is too ill to continue his/her duties. You said it wasn't that uncommon, at 8 to 42. I listed the historical precedents, at 9 to 42, pointing out that statistically this is biased because only 1 to 4 cases involved ill health. Of those cases, we can reasonably dismiss 3 due to advances in medical science. So we're down to 2% likelihood, based on historical precedence, that the VP will take over an ailing President's duties.
This is to say nothing of how fucked up the political process would be to get the incumbent to step down and allow the VP to take over in the event we did have a diseased, demented or depressed President unable to continue the duty. Here's a really good example that relates to WW2 (from Q J Med 2003; 96: 325-336: Diseased, demented, depressed: serious illness in Heads of State -- Owen 96 (5): 325 -- QJM):
The most serious case of incapacity in a Head of State or Government over the last 100 years was that of President Woodrow Wilson
. He had had hypertension for many years, and retinal changes had been recorded in 1906. He suffered a right middle cerebral artery stroke in 1919 while in his second term as President of the US.5 His consciousness became impaired on 2 October, with a complete paralysis of the left side of his body and a left homonymous hemianopia, his speech was weak and dysarthyric, and he developed hemi-inattention and anosognosia. In not facing up to the seriousness of his illness, he referred to himself as being ‘lame’. This denial by the President was buttressed by his wife and by his personal physician, Admiral Grayson, who told the Cabinet on 6 October that Wilson was only suffering from a ‘nervous breakdown, indigestion and a depleted nervous system’. Grayson had made it clear he would not sign any certificate of disability. There is little doubt that Wilson should have stepped down at least for a period of time from October, until it was clear whether or not he was going to recover. Had he done so, it might have been possible to persuade Congress to ratify the Treaty establishing the League of Nations, which might have helped stop World War II. Between his wife and his doctor, the false image was given of a working President. As a result his wife is often spoken of as America's only woman President and his doctor has been much criticized for putting his patient before the needs of the country.
Quote:
. He had had hypertension for many years, and retinal changes had been recorded in 1906. He suffered a right middle cerebral artery stroke in 1919 while in his second term as President of the US.5 His consciousness became impaired on 2 October, with a complete paralysis of the left side of his body and a left homonymous hemianopia, his speech was weak and dysarthyric, and he developed hemi-inattention and anosognosia. In not facing up to the seriousness of his illness, he referred to himself as being ‘lame’. This denial by the President was buttressed by his wife and by his personal physician, Admiral Grayson, who told the Cabinet on 6 October that Wilson was only suffering from a ‘nervous breakdown, indigestion and a depleted nervous system’. Grayson had made it clear he would not sign any certificate of disability. There is little doubt that Wilson should have stepped down at least for a period of time from October, until it was clear whether or not he was going to recover. Had he done so, it might have been possible to persuade Congress to ratify the Treaty establishing the League of Nations, which might have helped stop World War II. Between his wife and his doctor, the false image was given of a working President. As a result his wife is often spoken of as America's only woman President and his doctor has been much criticized for putting his patient before the needs of the country.
| Originally Posted by Aprilrobin
It's so advanced that it will save the life of a president and the rest of the party is irrelevant, but it can't help McCain and his oldness. I don't get it. Beyond that, there are reasons beyond death and illness that a president may be removed from office. |
I'll allow that perhaps I wasn't clear, so I'll try to be less obtuse.
It isn't about McCain's age. It's about his medical health, which is impacted by his age. By reiterating that I'm going on and on about his age, you're willfully ignoring the fact that I've referred to his health over and over again. You may think this is a smokescreen for ageism, but as I said in the previous post, with old age comes increasing health concerns - that's simply medical fact. You can't have it both ways - that medical science can keep him alive, but medical science can't point out that he will may not handle the physical and mental stress of being President as well as a person half his age might.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Aprilrobin
And on the topic of pregnancy, I see that what you're saying is that a woman is electable as long as she's menopausal. Ignore it all you want, but I guess if a 35 year old woman is ever nominated you won't vote for her because she's too young and female. |
You assume I'd vote for a woman on the basis she's a woman. I don't vote that way.
I don't vote on party lines. I don't vote the black guy because I'm concerned about civil rights. I don't vote the white chick because I want to see a woman in the Oval Office. I don't vote the old white guy because I'm a Republican and it's better than voting for a Democrat. I vote who I think is best for the office. No one under 46 has yet been considered experienced enough to be elected to the highest office in the land. Even Obama, at nearly 47, is constantly attacked by McCain for being inexperienced. You show me a 35 year old woman who is experienced enough for the job, and I'll vote for her, no problem. She can menstruate all over the White House for all I care.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Aprilrobin
We'll just have to agree to disagee on his age being a factor in his leadership ability, but just think about the assumptions you're making based on a person's age. I hope nobody dismisses you or your abilities like that one day. |
I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I've made no assumptions, merely pointed out the facts.
captodometer
Well-known member
Quote:
Won't speak for anybody else, but don't think it's ageism on my part to be worried about McCain. I work in public health: from a purely statistical basis the odds of McCain still being alive in 10 years just aren't good.
And it's not the being alive part that I'm worried about; being alive and functional enough to perform the duties of the office are what concern me. Reality is that most of us manage to live most of our lives in decent health, and then spend the last 5-10 years in significant decline before we die. Once the decline starts, it tends to be fast and we don't recover. So the fact that McCain appears to be OK today means nothing for 2 years from now; the statistical odds favor him being dead or significantly disabled in 8 years. The odds increase every single day he manages to stay alive.
Of course the country would continue to function if he became disabled or died. But it would be better for the country if the president was able to finish one or both of his elected terms in office without interruption
The odds do favor Obama as an ex-smoker to develop lung cancer. The relative risk for active smokers compared to never smokers is 9-10 times as high. The risk for former smokers decreases after they quit, but it never decreases until it's equal to that of people who never smoked at all. So since I believe he quit, his risk decreases with ever single day. Most smokers/ex smokers who develop lung cancer do so in their 60's onward: incubation period is generally accepted to be 30+ years. So even if Obama succumbs to lung cancer in the future, it's not very likely that it's going to happen while he's in office.
History favors the re-election of sitting presidents who don't die during their first term in office. In 8 years, assuming they are both still alive, Obama will be 55-56 and McCain will be 80-81. The odds favor Obama being alive and well, and McCain not.
The government has always tried to hide negative info about the health of the president from the American public. Other people basically ran the country during the 2 months after the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan: they wheeled the cameras into the hospital room to put on a show for the American public. Reagan basically wasn't capable of doing squat, and he never really fully recovered: it's the expected outcome for an elderly man who has been shot in the chest. He was delegating everything and taking half day naps by the end of his presidency; they managed to maintain the coverup until after he died. They would do the same for McCain or anybody else who suffered serious deterioration while in office, so I would prefer not to hand them the opportunity to do so.
| Originally Posted by Aprilrobin
3) McCain is too old??? WTF? He has to stay alive for FOUR YEARS. I'd be willing to put my money on him making it. How come racism and sexism are so not OK, but ageism is absolutely fine? Gross. |
Won't speak for anybody else, but don't think it's ageism on my part to be worried about McCain. I work in public health: from a purely statistical basis the odds of McCain still being alive in 10 years just aren't good.
And it's not the being alive part that I'm worried about; being alive and functional enough to perform the duties of the office are what concern me. Reality is that most of us manage to live most of our lives in decent health, and then spend the last 5-10 years in significant decline before we die. Once the decline starts, it tends to be fast and we don't recover. So the fact that McCain appears to be OK today means nothing for 2 years from now; the statistical odds favor him being dead or significantly disabled in 8 years. The odds increase every single day he manages to stay alive.
Of course the country would continue to function if he became disabled or died. But it would be better for the country if the president was able to finish one or both of his elected terms in office without interruption
The odds do favor Obama as an ex-smoker to develop lung cancer. The relative risk for active smokers compared to never smokers is 9-10 times as high. The risk for former smokers decreases after they quit, but it never decreases until it's equal to that of people who never smoked at all. So since I believe he quit, his risk decreases with ever single day. Most smokers/ex smokers who develop lung cancer do so in their 60's onward: incubation period is generally accepted to be 30+ years. So even if Obama succumbs to lung cancer in the future, it's not very likely that it's going to happen while he's in office.
History favors the re-election of sitting presidents who don't die during their first term in office. In 8 years, assuming they are both still alive, Obama will be 55-56 and McCain will be 80-81. The odds favor Obama being alive and well, and McCain not.
The government has always tried to hide negative info about the health of the president from the American public. Other people basically ran the country during the 2 months after the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan: they wheeled the cameras into the hospital room to put on a show for the American public. Reagan basically wasn't capable of doing squat, and he never really fully recovered: it's the expected outcome for an elderly man who has been shot in the chest. He was delegating everything and taking half day naps by the end of his presidency; they managed to maintain the coverup until after he died. They would do the same for McCain or anybody else who suffered serious deterioration while in office, so I would prefer not to hand them the opportunity to do so.
blindpassion
Well-known member
I dont think anyone in this forum is trying to be discriminative based on age
But at 72 my grandfather couldnt do his own taxes, let alone run a country. And thats okay, people get old, and they are still people and they are still just as important as anyone else, but the job of the president is a giant responsibilty even for someone whos healthy and in their 40's... I think thats just what everyones trying to say, if I had to help my grandfather cut his steak at 72 and watch him die infront of me in the hospital from a stroke at 78, (non smoking, healthy), I just dont feel like the stresses of running a country and making those kinds of decisions should be put on someone who maybe cant handle it. And I mean that with as much respect as possible.
edit: also, the government is known for hiding the condition of the various presidents from the public, what if in a year he comes down with a non-curable disease, and it takes 3 years before they go public about it, sure its illegal but it wouldnt be the first time such a thing has happened, wouldnt everyone feel so cheated? and not to mention unsafe.
But at 72 my grandfather couldnt do his own taxes, let alone run a country. And thats okay, people get old, and they are still people and they are still just as important as anyone else, but the job of the president is a giant responsibilty even for someone whos healthy and in their 40's... I think thats just what everyones trying to say, if I had to help my grandfather cut his steak at 72 and watch him die infront of me in the hospital from a stroke at 78, (non smoking, healthy), I just dont feel like the stresses of running a country and making those kinds of decisions should be put on someone who maybe cant handle it. And I mean that with as much respect as possible.
edit: also, the government is known for hiding the condition of the various presidents from the public, what if in a year he comes down with a non-curable disease, and it takes 3 years before they go public about it, sure its illegal but it wouldnt be the first time such a thing has happened, wouldnt everyone feel so cheated? and not to mention unsafe.
purrtykitty
Well-known member
For those of you following election coverage, sad news today...Tim Russert died suddenly of a heart attack. He was 58. At least he died was doing what he loved. NBC's Tim Russert dead at 58 - Politics - MSNBC.com
kristina ftw!
Well-known member
Quote:
Okay, before I go on with what I was going to post, please let me say that I am not talking about the US here, because I do not have enough insight in the US Economy to form an opinion on it.
However, in all fairness ...
In Norway, we have pretty heavy taxes on everything - products and wages.
The more money you make, the larger percentage of your paycheck goes to taxes.
My parents have to pay over 50% of their income in taxes.
Some people tend to complain about it a lot, but the fact of the matter is, these taxes pay for our education (the first thirteen years of our education is completely free, unless we choose to go to a private school, and higher education levels are really affordable compared to other countries as well), our health care system (which is among the best in the WORLD), and a whole lot of other benefits for the people. Welfare for those who need it, child support for anyone with children under 18, public services such as health care, police, firefighters ... And a lot more.
There are political parties who wish to heavily reduce the taxes, but if they do, they will have to get the money for all these benefits elsewhere. We have an oil fund that they plan on taking it from, but what happens when that money's gone? THAT, my friends, could quite possibly lead Norway right into an economical disaster, because that oil fund is our security blanket.
So, when it comes down to it - When I have a job, I will pay my taxes with a smile.
All I'm saying is, taxes exist for a reason.
Again though; I don't have much insight in American economy or tax policies - this is just how it is here in Norway.
| Originally Posted by elegant-one
Small Business owners are the backbone of this Nation. My husband & I are small business owners that actually provide jobs for others...single moms, new business owners, etc. While I'm not thrilled with McCain, at least he will keep the tax cuts permanent & understands that you cannot continue to tax the people & businesses. I have listened to many top Economists that have stated that if Obama's Robin Hood rob from the rich to give to the poor & raising taxes gets implemented it will definitely hurt the Nation, Small Business & the Economy as a whole right now. The Government needs to stay out of our personal lives & our money. But hey...as long as Obama is cute...what does the Economy matter. |
Okay, before I go on with what I was going to post, please let me say that I am not talking about the US here, because I do not have enough insight in the US Economy to form an opinion on it.
However, in all fairness ...
In Norway, we have pretty heavy taxes on everything - products and wages.
The more money you make, the larger percentage of your paycheck goes to taxes.
My parents have to pay over 50% of their income in taxes.
Some people tend to complain about it a lot, but the fact of the matter is, these taxes pay for our education (the first thirteen years of our education is completely free, unless we choose to go to a private school, and higher education levels are really affordable compared to other countries as well), our health care system (which is among the best in the WORLD), and a whole lot of other benefits for the people. Welfare for those who need it, child support for anyone with children under 18, public services such as health care, police, firefighters ... And a lot more.
There are political parties who wish to heavily reduce the taxes, but if they do, they will have to get the money for all these benefits elsewhere. We have an oil fund that they plan on taking it from, but what happens when that money's gone? THAT, my friends, could quite possibly lead Norway right into an economical disaster, because that oil fund is our security blanket.
So, when it comes down to it - When I have a job, I will pay my taxes with a smile.
All I'm saying is, taxes exist for a reason.
Again though; I don't have much insight in American economy or tax policies - this is just how it is here in Norway.
ratmist
Well-known member
Quote:
I think the problem I have with the US taxes, having grown up there and had family members who earned a significantly high amount of money...
is that you don't get jack back for the taxes.
The pulic education system is poor, particularly in rural Texas where I grew up, and rural Arkansas where the rest of my family are. Hell, there's a saying in Arkansas - "Thank God for Mississippi" - because if it weren't for Mississippi, Arkansas would be dead last in the performance tables for education.
There is no national health service. I'm sick of my friends and family members having to wait until they're nearly dead before they can get healthcare in an ER that shouldn't be their primary health care service.
Many of the public roads and highways are paid for through taxes. Again, I lived in very rural areas, and some of those roads are just glorified pigtrails.
Welfare is paid for through taxes, but I have disabled family members that still can't make ends meet, even with the food stamps and welfare cheques. On top of that, the government continuously tries to get them off welfare, but without any help for their disabilities and healthcare for on-going medical needs, I really can't see how they can survive without welfare.
I could go on, but the point I'd like to make is that most people in America pay a lot of taxes and really seem to get very little back from the government in terms of real benefits that they need to get by on a daily basis. I am all for paying taxes, but I don't see where American tax dollars go.
Oh wait, yes I do - the "defense" budget.
Nevermind.
| Originally Posted by kristina ftw!
Okay, before I go on with what I was going to post, please let me say that I am not talking about the US here, because I do not have enough insight in the US Economy to form an opinion on it. However, in all fairness ... In Norway, we have pretty heavy taxes on everything - products and wages. The more money you make, the larger percentage of your paycheck goes to taxes. My parents have to pay over 50% of their income in taxes. Some people tend to complain about it a lot, but the fact of the matter is, these taxes pay for our education (the first thirteen years of our education is completely free, unless we choose to go to a private school, and higher education levels are really affordable compared to other countries as well), our health care system (which is among the best in the WORLD), and a whole lot of other benefits for the people. Welfare for those who need it, child support for anyone with children under 18, public services such as health care, police, firefighters ... And a lot more. There are political parties who wish to heavily reduce the taxes, but if they do, they will have to get the money for all these benefits elsewhere. We have an oil fund that they plan on taking it from, but what happens when that money's gone? THAT, my friends, could quite possibly lead Norway right into an economical disaster, because that oil fund is our security blanket. So, when it comes down to it - When I have a job, I will pay my taxes with a smile. All I'm saying is, taxes exist for a reason. Again though; I don't have much insight in American economy or tax policies - this is just how it is here in Norway. |
I think the problem I have with the US taxes, having grown up there and had family members who earned a significantly high amount of money...
is that you don't get jack back for the taxes.
The pulic education system is poor, particularly in rural Texas where I grew up, and rural Arkansas where the rest of my family are. Hell, there's a saying in Arkansas - "Thank God for Mississippi" - because if it weren't for Mississippi, Arkansas would be dead last in the performance tables for education.
There is no national health service. I'm sick of my friends and family members having to wait until they're nearly dead before they can get healthcare in an ER that shouldn't be their primary health care service.
Many of the public roads and highways are paid for through taxes. Again, I lived in very rural areas, and some of those roads are just glorified pigtrails.
Welfare is paid for through taxes, but I have disabled family members that still can't make ends meet, even with the food stamps and welfare cheques. On top of that, the government continuously tries to get them off welfare, but without any help for their disabilities and healthcare for on-going medical needs, I really can't see how they can survive without welfare.
I could go on, but the point I'd like to make is that most people in America pay a lot of taxes and really seem to get very little back from the government in terms of real benefits that they need to get by on a daily basis. I am all for paying taxes, but I don't see where American tax dollars go.
Oh wait, yes I do - the "defense" budget.
purrtykitty
Well-known member
Quote:
^^ITA. I'd have no problem paying for public programs if they actually worked. The problem is in the US, they don't. There is so much fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare/Medicaid system it'll make your head spin, and as we all know, that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's no way I want the government to even thinking about tackling healthcare before they fix the other fucked-up programs.
The only "public" programs I see that actually work are the ones that get public funding, but are run by private individuals. As I said before, if you want something fucked up, let the government run it.
| Originally Posted by ratmist
I think the problem I have with the US taxes, having grown up there and had family members who earned a significantly high amount of money... is that you don't get jack back for the taxes. The pulic education system is poor, particularly in rural Texas where I grew up, and rural Arkansas where the rest of my family are. Hell, there's a saying in Arkansas - "Thank God for Mississippi" - because if it weren't for Mississippi, Arkansas would be dead last in the performance tables for education. There is no national health service. I'm sick of my friends and family members having to wait until they're nearly dead before they can get healthcare in an ER that shouldn't be their primary health care service. Many of the public roads and highways are paid for through taxes. Again, I lived in very rural areas, and some of those roads are just glorified pigtrails. Welfare is paid for through taxes, but I have disabled family members that still can't make ends meet, even with the food stamps and welfare cheques. On top of that, the government continuously tries to get them off welfare, but without any help for their disabilities and healthcare for on-going medical needs, I really can't see how they can survive without welfare. I could go on, but the point I'd like to make is that most people in America pay a lot of taxes and really seem to get very little back from the government in terms of real benefits that they need to get by on a daily basis. I am all for paying taxes, but I don't see where American tax dollars go. Oh wait, yes I do - the "defense" budget.
|
^^ITA. I'd have no problem paying for public programs if they actually worked. The problem is in the US, they don't. There is so much fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare/Medicaid system it'll make your head spin, and as we all know, that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's no way I want the government to even thinking about tackling healthcare before they fix the other fucked-up programs.
The only "public" programs I see that actually work are the ones that get public funding, but are run by private individuals. As I said before, if you want something fucked up, let the government run it.
ratmist
Well-known member
Quote:
I have to say, I'm 100% behind a national health service for the USA. However, I just haven't seen many instances where the government has run a national program that really works, whether Republican-run or Democrat-run. FEMA is a great example of how badly the Republicans fucked up (and continues to fuck up) in the Bush administration. Medicare/Medicaide is a travesty for both Republican and Democrat-run administrations.
I've discussed this issue many times with friends and family members, and we all agree that the Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security programs are really broken. Again, I have family members with severe medical problems, and the system is set up currently in a way that basically punishes them for having poor health - especially those that have poor mental health. So I'm really for a national health service because I've seen how well it works in other countries.
| Originally Posted by purrtykitty
^^ITA. I'd have no problem paying for public programs if they actually worked. The problem is in the US, they don't. There is so much fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare/Medicaid system it'll make your head spin, and as we all know, that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's no way I want the government to even thinking about tackling healthcare before they fix the other fucked-up programs. The only "public" programs I see that actually work are the ones that get public funding, but are run by private individuals. As I said before, if you want something fucked up, let the government run it. |
I have to say, I'm 100% behind a national health service for the USA. However, I just haven't seen many instances where the government has run a national program that really works, whether Republican-run or Democrat-run. FEMA is a great example of how badly the Republicans fucked up (and continues to fuck up) in the Bush administration. Medicare/Medicaide is a travesty for both Republican and Democrat-run administrations.
I've discussed this issue many times with friends and family members, and we all agree that the Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security programs are really broken. Again, I have family members with severe medical problems, and the system is set up currently in a way that basically punishes them for having poor health - especially those that have poor mental health. So I'm really for a national health service because I've seen how well it works in other countries.
Aureliphonics
Member
I'm French but if I was American, I would definitely support Obama. You lucky American
zabbazooey
Well-known member
Voting for John McCain. I hate the idea of socialized medicine.
