|
Post by Hook on Sept 4, 2008 19:11:58 GMT -8
I don't think it's as simple as a matter of total population. I know they call it political science (no social science is science and I hate the term), but they should probably call it political engineering. In that light, I don't think people would be so pessimistic and cynical about social issues. Nothing's set in stone and just because things are the way they are now that doesn't mean they can't be better. One thing's for certain, though, ask anyone else in the civilized world how health care works in the USA, and this is the reaction you'll get: It's not "the damn foreigners, hate America", it's simply that your country has a very particular way of handling this issue.
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Sept 4, 2008 19:26:24 GMT -8
I think McCain made an excellent speech tonight. i do think the Palin pick was terrible personally, (if he picked Lieberman it would have been a no brainer vote from me...), but i think the Palin pick will definitely draw in votes from some more demographics that McCain didn't appeal to, namely the more conservative folk, and maybe families. I doubt it has a huge influence on women since she's anti-choice and everything else.
Palin's way too conservative for me, but thankfully the VP pick doesn't control what gets taught in schools---that's a state issue.
Unfortunately though, it seems this another "voting against the worst guy" election, and it seems that although I am no longer a "republican" I'll once again be voting against the Democratic candidate.
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Sept 4, 2008 19:39:31 GMT -8
I don't know that they are of 'equal weight', but I do agree that people do indeed minimize sex (and not just on physical consequences you mentioned, but emotional/mental as well.)
But ehh----I don't think I agree with the rest of what you said here. Those are some sweeping generalizations, Brendan, about "illegitimate kids", and the parents of such kids.
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Sept 4, 2008 19:44:51 GMT -8
I don't think it's as simple as a matter of total population. I know they call it political science (no social science is science and I hate the term), but they should probably call it political engineering. In that light, I don't think people would be so pessimistic and cynical about social issues. Nothing's set in stone and just because things are the way they are now that doesn't mean they can't be better. One thing's for certain, though, ask anyone else in the civilized world how health care works in the USA, and this is the reaction you'll get: It's not "the damn foreigners, hate America", it's simply that your country has a very particular way of handling this issue. I don't see how it can be better than I explained. Only those who can't pay for health care get it paid for by the local county (and you don't really even have to ask for the forms. The hospital does everything for you and mails the applications to your house!). I don't see how the big national government stepping in would make anything better. Obviously the local governments know more about what their citizens need than Washington. I bet most of the workers in the hospital billing departments know the people who hand out the money for the counties by name. Less red tape gets things done faster. Hospitals could probably keep costs down if the government got off of their backs too. When I went to the emergency room for extreme vertigo a month ago they gave me dizzy pills and on the bill I noticed they charged me $8 for two pills. The problem is this medication is over-the-counter and I bought a bottle of 100 tablets of this same medication at Target for $4. The parts I heard I thought were good, but I had to turn it off because of the protestors screaming over him. It was nice watching it on PBS in widescreen and no commentators! I still can't get it out of my head that we have McCain who volunteered to stay in the NVA prison camp so another prisoner could go free vs. Obama. A community organizer (whatever that is). Sorry had to get my one smart-ass comment in for the day!
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Sept 4, 2008 19:46:38 GMT -8
Even the illegals get it for free! Its out of control.
i didn't hear any protestors, it seemedl ike they were cheering? Anyway I didn't watch all of it. maybe the last 20 minutes
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Sept 4, 2008 19:50:50 GMT -8
Even the illegals get it for free! Its out of control. Hahaha. I'm sure they do. Although, you have to give the hospital and counties one of your current pay stubs and tax returns so they know if they need to pay for all or some of your medical bills. This part of the process would seem to weed out some of the illegals at least.
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Sept 4, 2008 19:52:54 GMT -8
i didn't hear any protestors, it seemedl ike they were cheering? Anyway I didn't watch all of it. maybe the last 20 minutes There were a few of those punk anarchists that smell like vinegar trying to yell over McCain's speech. The delegates chanted "USA USA USA" over them so you couldn't hear them. It looks like they somehow got in the Xcel Center by posing as media. Fitting actually.
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on Sept 4, 2008 20:08:49 GMT -8
Interesting how "USA! USA! USA!" has suddenly become this year's GOP mantra. As Muckle said, every time someone started protesting, the response was, "USA! USA! USA!" They would keep chanting this as the protestor was dragged away, desperately making peace signs until someone pinned their arms down. The way that whole sequence of events kept repeating over and over... I don't know, it felt like a Monty Python skit.
As for the speech, I thought McCain did okay, but it felt too safe to me. There were several moments where McCain seemed to flirt with the idea of digging into some complex areas, but he quickly backed out of them in favor of saying the usual things that make Republicans cheer enthusiastically. You know, stuff along the lines of, "I will keep this country safe from terrorists and fight for freedom!" Not that there's anything wrong with all of that, but the speech felt a lot less bold than Palin's... or Obama's.
Back at ya later
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Sept 4, 2008 20:19:43 GMT -8
Interesting how "USA! USA! USA!" has suddenly become this year's GOP mantra. As Muckle said, every time someone started protesting, the response was, "USA! USA! USA!" They would keep chanting this as the protestor was dragged away, desperately making peace signs until someone pinned their arms down. The way that whole sequence of events kept repeating over and over... I don't know, it felt like a Monty Python skit. Yes, it was funny in a strange kind of way. Were those people actual security or delegates? One guy looked like a young republican in a suit that was escorting one of the ladies away. Maybe it was undercover cops? Funny how the ad banners keep changing from Obama to McCain to Obama to McCain. So now I'll go ahead and do a test to see who will win in November: Obama McCain McCain Obama Obama McCain McCain Obama Obama McCain Obama McCain
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Sept 4, 2008 20:30:00 GMT -8
I thought the protests were orchestrated by supporters of the internet's president, Ron Paul.
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Sept 4, 2008 20:34:54 GMT -8
I thought the protests were orchestrated by supporters of the internet's president, Ron Paul. lol
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Sept 4, 2008 20:54:55 GMT -8
If two 17 year olds think they're old enough and responsible enough to be having sex, then they better consider themselves responsible when the consequences of their actions come to fruition (i.e. a baby). Own up, be an adult, and provide a good home and life for that kid! I don't see how witnessing a bad marriage is providing a good home and life for that kid. Yes, I agree that the parents should be there for their children; however, I don't think marriage should be the answer to a sexual mistake. Anyway, thank the state for divorces because some folks shouldn't be married (see Lisa-Marie and Michael Jackson.) ;D. Yikes, I would hate to try to sustain myself using only Social Security benefits. Brendan, I don't think Social Security should become someone's SOLE source of retirement income, but for a lot of folks it is. How did it get this way? I'm not totally sure, but it doesn't seem like it was because folks got addicted to handouts and said, "hey I don't have to save..." Maybe, their pension plan got reduced and slashed. Maybe their savings got depleted due to an unforeseen emergency. Social Security is there as a financial bedrock. Now, some SS recipients are dependent on a government program, which they were forced to pay into, is this any different than being dependent on one's company pension plan? Speaking of pensions have you seen this: acpilot.blogspot.com/2006/06/pbs-frontline-takes-sobering-look-at.htmlwww.pbs.org/now/politics/pensions.html (can't find the link to the more recent episode) knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1375Oh, and as the PBS link says "Traditionally, retirement experts have told us to think of retirement as a "three-legged stool" comprised of personal savings, Social Security and employer sponsored pensions. These days, the stability of all three legs are being challenged..." So, without the security of the government's leg, Social Security, how can I ever be certain that I will have a stool to sit on, once I become old and feeble. The government does this. They encourage folks to start an IRA plan. However, the interest which accrues in the IRA is not guaranteed - only the deposits are FDIC insured. The thing with Social Security is that the employer and the employee are both forced to pay taxes, which will be used to help pay for retirement costs. The company I work for doesn't contribute to an employer's IRA account, and my current salary doesn't allow me to make the maximum yearly IRA payment. If SS wasn't mandatory would companies really contribute to a worker's retirement plan, or would they give the employer a high enough wage to cover his retirement cost? Would the hands-of, market approach really be the best idea for a retirement plan? I don't know about you, but I think the third-leg of the stool, that government program, should be there... Would the US be better off without the Social Security program? America's promise of life and liberty, would be undermined... In fact, America's economic prosperity could suffer without the SS program? If millions of elderly people, who are no longer able to work, had no source of income, what would happen? Hey, when did the SS program get started? Ah, FDR, the Depression, and the New Deal. I really have to read up on this. Individual power can only go so far. Education. Public Safety. Security. Environment Regulation. Can an individual do it alone? I still don't see how SS is an "unnecessary" program. Oh, no, I'm going to break out the Dennis Kuchinich chart. www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htmWhat should the role of government be when it comes to retirement? I hope you don't think public education is an unnecessary program. Or, what about Iraq? - Americans would boost funding to private humanitarian and community organizations designed to help the people in the very situation you pointed out
- The government would be freed up to provide for those we've been talking about: the disabled, mentally challenged, etc. in a need-based system
- More money would be infused into the economy through commerce resulting in higher tax revenue to the government resulting in better funded programs for those in need.
So, the $2,000 (+) dollars I pay each year for SS, suppose I didn't have to pay it. Would I boost funding to humanitarian and community organizations? Okay, say I did that. No, say I didn't. Say I was a smart American and I put my $2000 into a traditional IRA account. So, for 30 plus years, the government would actually take in less money, because I wouldn't be paying a yearly tax on the $2,000. However, say I set up my IRA at a bank, that went under. So I'm old and I only have 60K or so? How will I live off that... -CG
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Sept 4, 2008 20:57:51 GMT -8
Agreed 100%
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Sept 4, 2008 21:04:04 GMT -8
I agree with Tj's comments on the Mc Cain speech and so forth... but I only watched the first 20 minutes or so. I had an unfavorable take on Palin's speech. I listened to this one on the radio. The tone, the substance, it just turned me off. I wanted to hear more about her own political philosphy. What are here political causes? Her speech just seemed inauthentic... like it was talking points memo written by a Republican operative. And Clark, I, too though Rudy's speech was awful.
Nate, where does the funding for current healtcare programs come from? I think the answer will surpise you.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Sept 4, 2008 21:18:36 GMT -8
I don't see how it can be better than I explained. Only those who can't pay for health care get it paid for by the local county (and you don't really even have to ask for the forms. The hospital does everything for you and mails the applications to your house!). I don't see how the big national government stepping in would make anything better. Obviously the local governments know more about what their citizens need than Washington. I bet most of the workers in the hospital billing departments know the people who hand out the money for the counties by name. Less red tape gets things done faster. Yes, states have programs, like Charity Care in New Jersey, which pay for health care services if one can't afford to pay for it. Nate, how are these programs funded? Yes, the goverment plays a role. You know the popular, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), that one is federally subsidized. So, are you for Charity Care (healthcare) programs? See what can happen... www.nj.com/opinion/times/editorials/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1213589117278590.xml&coll=5-CG PS: Funding Fiscal support for New Jersey charity care program comes through a mix of funding sources. In 1993,the state ended a system of hospital surcharges and instituted the charity care program to reimburse hospitals for the care they are legally required to provide to poor and uninsured patients. The Health Care Subsidy Fund – which funds hospital charity care – is supported by funds diverted from unemployment taxes and the state’s general revenue fund. Funding for the FY 2005 budget total of $583.4 million to the state’s hospitals will come – in part – through a $50 million transfer from the unemployment insurance fund, a new tax on Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) to generate $55 million and $31 million from a new tax on certain non-hospital ambulatory medical facilities (Stainton, 2004). www.forumsinstitute.org/publs/nj/sept_04.pdf
|
|