Can anyone tell me why we should vote for Barack Obama? Honestly? This is a man who was senator for 107 weeks and then said "Hey! I think I can be president!" Really? I mean...really?? I know he's "inspirational" and all, but...come on. Jimmy Carter was seen as inexperienced, but at least he was governor for a little while before he decided to try to be our commander-in-chief. This is someone who has little or no foreign policy experience while we are in a state of war, and who, like Jimmy Carter, does not understand how Washington works. The fact is that you can't get things done unless you understand how this country works, and I think this was proven under the disastrous Carter years.
And his supporters don't even know what he stands for. Its no wonder, considering the guy only speaks in platitudes and vague precepts. But Obama was rated as the number one most liberal senator based on his voting record in 2007. Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire (effectively a tax increase) and increase the social security payroll tax, which would, combined, increase the average americans tax burden by over $1,000, amounting to the largest tax increase in america's history. Ask any economist. Increasing taxes is EXACTLY what you do not want to do when entering economic instability, which we are in.
He talks about change a lot. But there are different types of change, good and bad. He represents the same kind of change that led us to the stagnation of the 70's and that has led to the meager .5%-1.5% growth rate that has strangled Europe. Obama wants his voice to be heard, for his "new" and "fresh" ideas to be brought to Washington. But these ideas have already been tried in Paris and Berlin and Brussels. And it has led to near double-digit unemployment rates, low growth, and a socially dependent culture. We have one of the highest growth rates and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the industrialized world. And for good reason. So far, we haven't given in to Obama's "changes".
So are we as a nation headed in a good direction right now?
no. but that dosent mean that we should just run to someone whose advocating change. we need to see if that person has the right ideas and the right experience. if you look at others [i support john mccain] you will see that they are not bush clones. they do want to do things differently. deregulate healthcare so there's more competition, leading to lower costs. close guantanamo bay as a display of goodwill to the world. continue the surge, which has brought monthly deaths down from 100 a month to 25 a month. push the iraqi government to accomplish more politically. keep taxes low and have programs to help people who are defaulting on their homes. these are all ideas pushed by john mccain, and i feel would be good for this nation. obama is inspiring and eloquent, but he just dosent have what is needed to pull our country out of the funk its in.
So I understand that you like McCain because of his experience and viewpoints, but do you know where the rest of the candidates stand on these issues? What about Barack's lack of international experience prevents you from supporting him? Bush had experience, but you can see where that has led this nation.
One of the issues I have to touch on is the deregulation of healthcare. Pushing citizens into the hands of corporations and private companies does not seem like a viable way to fix the healthcare system. What would prevent them from all agreeing to raise their prices? Cutting down restrictions would just leave our government in the hands of money-hungry businesses who are strictly looking to make money off of their clients.
With the current state of affairs in our government, is it really feasible to lower taxes? People who make over $90,000 (somewhere really close to that number) are only taxed on that first $90,000. Those who are making the most money are having to contribute the least to the government. Something about that just seems wrong.
~The Writer~
But Nationalized healthcare IS a viable way to handle the situation?
You DO realize the only reason we have the best healthcare in the world is BECAUSE it is handled by corporations who COMPETE TO MAKE BETTER DRUGS.
If healthcare is owned by the government, sure it'll cost alot less, but it'll be extremely close to the healthcare in Cuba.
You get what you pay for.
I am not saying that I am advocating for nationalized healthcare at all, though I do not think it is a terrible idea. Have you taken a look at where the United States actually ranks in their healthcare system? According to a little thing called the World Health Organization, the United States is at #37, just ahead of Slovenia. There is obviously a reason our nation ranks so poorly. Do you think that other nations are not in the technology race, trying to discover and invent newer, better ways to improve the healthcare system? Competition is not the only driving force behind people trying to improve technology. In case you would like to verify our rankings, you can check that here:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
In addition, here is a list of all the nations who have BETTER healthcare than the United States does:
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
~The Writer~
Touche =]
You got me.
But we also live in a service industry where jobs are a necessity and these positions wouldn't be as readily filled if they paid less, with less benefits, and were run by the government.
I'm actually shocked by some of those countries ahead of us. Scary.
yea, but you need to break that down
countries that have small populations, leading to more manageable healthcare programs:
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
24 Cyprus
28 Israel
29 Morocco
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
then theres the countries that have large oil revenues so they have plenty of money to spread around:
8 Oman
22 Colombia
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
then theres countries that dont have to worry about spending money on their military [mostly cuz the us will defend them against threats]:
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
23 Sweden
31 Finland
and that leaves us with:
1 France
2 Italy
7 Spain
18 United Kingdom
25 Germany
32 Australia
and the us has higher growth rates and lower unemployment that these 6 countries. its a trade-off
While our healthcare system is flawed and needs reforming, we should not take such a drastic step as to have a universal healthcare program, which stifles competition, leading to a less productive economic sector. Why would you become a doctor if the government tells you where you can live, who you can treat, how you treat them, and how much you are paid? Its completely ridiculous. Why is it that wealthy Europeans fly to America when they have a medical problem, rather than relying on their own healthcare systems? It's because we are more efficient, more motivated, and have higher quality physicians. All things that come with competition.
But yes, this fails to address the need of millions who are uninsured. But by bringing healthcare into the private sector, that will pull healthcare costs down so that it becomes affordable for most Americans. Mccain has called for a reform in the tax code to eliminate the bias toward employer-sponsored health insurance. This will allow individuals to shop around for different healthcare programs that suit them, rather than being told by their employer what kind of healthcare they can or cannot get. The republicans will then provide all individuals with a $2,500 tax credit ($5,000 for families) to increase incentives for insurance coverage, and will also allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines to maximize their choices and heighten competition for their business, which will eliminate excess overhead, administrative, and excessive compensation costs from the system.
These strategies will help increase competition, which does lower prices. You can beat up on the evil "corporations", but private vice brings public virtue. Their greed will lead them to offer better coverage because they have to fight for your dollar.
95% of all healthcare dollars in the United States are put toward fixing a problem, while only 5% of all money is spent on preventative care. More emphasis and incentives need to be placed on preventative actions so we do not have to spend so much time and money "picking up the pieces". Fix the system and fewer people will need help due to being a product of a broken system.
thats true. but socialized medicine [what barack obama and billary are suggesting] wont do that
First of all, I laughed at the "billary" statement. In addition, (and I am sure you are not going to like this), I recommend watching the documentary Sicko. Having seen several other Michael Moore documentaries, I can honestly say this one is the least biased out of the bunch and many articles agree that there is a ton of truth to the movie. If nothing else, it will give you some points to learn to refute when bleeding heart liberals (such as myself) suggest all the same arguments. Keep a look out for the responses to the movie as well.
hahaha
i actually HAVE seen that movie lol. i [try] to be as open-minded as possible, and one of my more liberal friends took me to see it.
you thought it was unbiased? really? like when they went to cuba. you really think that was how things were run? then why isnt cuba above the us on your list?
and yea, we have problems with healthcare. but the european healthcare system isnt as whimsical and perfect as michael moore would like you to believe. they have serious issues, and their programs are beginning to become so expensive that their eating away at their ability to grow as a society. and with low birthrates, these problems are exaserbated
i do think that we need to find a way to help those less fortunate in our society
im somewhat of a bleeding heart conservatve lol :P
Though you are a "bleeding heart conservative", I am incredibly glad that you acknowledge the disparities in our current system and the need for change. Most conservatives I know have a "you're on you're own, pull yourself up by your bootstraps mentality". It's refreshing to hear that "we need a way to help those less fortunate in our society".
By the way, I do not agree with everything in Sicko and know Moore idealized the situations, but it gave me a frame of reference so I could do research on my own to find the middle ground.
I think we'll agree that something needs to be done, but disagree on the exact course of action.
~The Writer~
Obviously the less fortunate need to be helped in society.
But giving them free handout's isn't the right idea.
It becomes more and more aparent that the current liberal ideal is:
"Give us all your money through taxes and we'll disperse it equally to all the people who need it." Which is a dumb idea.
Giving people money they never had in the first place won't solve anything and do you really think people would want to make anything of their lives when shit is being handed to them?
I would love to see more programs where people are given OPPORTUNITIES rather then MONEY. But instead all I see is "Oh...stock market is dropping? real estate is dropping? FREE MONEY! QUICK FIX!"
~The Writer~
Not necessarily in the short term.
The economy will fix itself over time, like Nature.
Ergo, we don't higher taxes (Or financial aid to homeowners) just like we don't need recycling.
=] (Like I how I turned that around to be about me?)