The next U.S. President (for non-US members only)

keiser willhelm wrote: Hillary Clinton is the worst thing that could possibly happen to this country and if she is elected, i will move to Canada. that is not an idle threat.

Okay, while I can see why one wouldn't like Hillary, how can you possibly think she's worse than Bush, Cheney, and other Neo-Cons?  I'd be pretty upset if Hillary was the democratic candidate, but virtually any democratic candidate is better than what Washington has now.

im not saying i like bush but i AM saying Hillary would be worse. she just oozes this sleazeyness that makes me cringe. her politics? borderline socialist. her personality? borderline . . . disgusting. Im not jumping on any sort of band wagon of hillary haters but everything about that woman is so wrong. im just worried that people will vote for her simply because she is a woman and comletely ignore anything she says. not that what she says isnt worth ignoring in the first place. BTW, what do people see in her? not people who would vote for her not to vote for someone else, people who would vote for her because they like her. . . what do you see?

I really hope to be in the USA when the next elections are held, though of course I won't be able to vote. That said, even if I am a woman, I am rooting for Obama - not because I think Hillary is such a monster, but because it's high time the US had a black president, and someone who doesn't have the advantages Hillary has.

As to Hillary's 'socialist' ideas, I suppose they have to do with her support of universal healthcare. Well, as a European, who has heard and read many horror stories about what can happen to American citizens who are not insured, I firmly believe healthcare is one of the inalienable human rights (same as education), and treating it like just any other commodity is, in my opinion, a crime against mankind. If that makes me a 'socialist', so be it - I'd rather see myself as a humanist, though I've never hidden my leftist leanings.

Ghost Rider wrote: As to Hillary's 'socialist' ideas, I suppose they have to do with her support of universal healthcare. Well, as a European, who has heard and read many horror stories about what can happen to American citizens who are not insured, I firmly believe healthcare is one of the inalienable human rights (same as education), and treating it like just any other commodity is, in my opinion, a crime against mankind. If that makes me a 'socialist', so be it - I'd rather see myself as a humanist, though I've never hidden my leftist leanings.

Other - I have no idea.

stonebeard wrote: It's just what should be done, and when you have so many people paying taxes for war, why not just replace that "defense" tax with health care tax. It's make our country a whole f**king lot better.

Bluesaga wrote: keiser willhelm wrote: im not saying i like bush but i AM saying Hillary would be worse. she just oozes this sleazeyness that makes me cringe. her politics? borderline socialist. her personality? borderline . . . disgusting. Im not jumping on any sort of band wagon of hillary haters but everything about that woman is so wrong. im just worried that people will vote for her simply because she is a woman and comletely ignore anything she says. not that what she says isnt worth ignoring in the first place. BTW, what do people see in her? not people who would vote for her not to vote for someone else, people who would vote for her because they like her. . . what do you see? What's wrong with Socialism?  Most people who associate socialism with something bad actually don't understand what it is.  I personally find it a much more appealing ideology than capitalism.  The United States isn't exactly 100% capitalist too, by the way; that is another common assumption.  The closest America got to true capitalism was around the time during and before the Great Depression.

Don't hear a lot of complaining about the socialized fire departments or the socialized police forces.  Capitalism works best when tempered by some socialism.  Some things work best when there's competition and a profit motive, other things need to be handled collectively for the common good.

Bluesaga wrote: keiser willhelm wrote: im not saying i like bush but i AM saying Hillary would be worse. she just oozes this sleazeyness that makes me cringe. her politics? borderline socialist. her personality? borderline . . . disgusting. Im not jumping on any sort of band wagon of hillary haters but everything about that woman is so wrong. im just worried that people will vote for her simply because she is a woman and comletely ignore anything she says. not that what she says isnt worth ignoring in the first place. BTW, what do people see in her? not people who would vote for her not to vote for someone else, people who would vote for her because they like her. . . what do you see? What's wrong with Socialism?  Most people who associate socialism with something bad actually don't understand what it is.  I personally find it a much more appealing ideology than capitalism.  The United States isn't exactly 100% capitalist too, by the way; that is another common assumption.  The closest America got to true capitalism was around the time during and before the Great Depression.

Do you understand what it is? The Utopian theories are appealing too. Are they realistic?

Ghost Rider wrote: IVNORD wrote: [   Costa Rica, Japan, western europe, etc, all have miniscule (or non-existant) defense budgets to compare with us. We have provided them with security since the end of WWII. That's why they can pay for their socialist games although at a risk of going bankrupt  Socialist games? I hope you realise what you are saying. As a European citizen, I find such a statement extremely offensive. And, in the present circumstances, talking of us going bankrupt sounds a bit like the kettle calling the saucepan black. I know that Italy was helped a lot by the US after the war, but we paid very dearly for that. I don't want to go into detail, but I was born at the end of 1960, and I know what I am talking about.

Ghost Rider wrote: IVNORD wrote: [   Costa Rica, Japan, western europe, etc, all have miniscule (or non-existant) defense budgets to compare with us. We have provided them with security since the end of WWII. That's why they can pay for their socialist games although at a risk of going bankrupt  Socialist games? I hope you realise what you are saying. As a European citizen, I find such a statement extremely offensive. And, in the present circumstances, talking of us going bankrupt sounds a bit like the kettle calling the saucepan black. I know that Italy was helped a lot by the US after the war, but we paid very dearly for that. I don't want to go into detail, but I was born at the end of 1960, and I know what I am talking about.

I surely realize what I'm saying.

 

Socialism is expensive. In 2006, Italy's GDP was $1,880B. It spent only $15.5B on defense, or less than 1%. http://www.armedforces.co.uk/mod/listings/l0012.html

 

Which means 99% of its GDP is used productively. Yet Italy consistently runs budget deficits accumulating a public debt of 103% of its GDP. That's a sound fiscal policy alright!

http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/10/budget-deficit-italy-markets-equity-cx_vr_1010markets20.html 

 

That's the price of socialism. Having long sold their gold reserves and other assets, Italy looks pretty much like a bankrupt already. Unfortunately, the method of choice of all western governments to fight deficits is thru the money printing press. For the time being they manage to walk the tightrope at the expense of the general population as the money we earn is losing its buying power faster than it's being printed. Ultimately it will lead to a financial disaster. Ever heard of the Weimar Republic?

 

We waste a humongous sum of money on defense. You can imagine how better off we would have been by keeping the $535B; but that allows your government to spend 99% on your social programs as we pay for the defense of Italy and the rest of the world.