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

Slart - thought of you when I saw this... 

No conspiracy theories please.

For anyone who'se read or seen Obama's  speech re : Rev Wright - do you  think that in a non-partisan & realistic world that this would clinch the presidency ? It was refreshing to see  controversy be addressed honestly rather than spun by PR flaks. 

keiser willhelm wrote: Ron paul is the only one i really dont hate. Obama, don tlike almost half of his platform. hillary? 100% of hers. Mcain? hovering about 40 or 50 percent. its somewhat depressing. Paul is someone i support on many isues, mainly on the war ad the economic system and federalized health care.  basically, the lesser of all the evils. too bad hell be a 3rd partier and thats only ever reached a peak % of the mid high twenties. (the socialist from the 20's) so i feel like my vote is wasted.

i would too if i knew that the vote of some people is worth 10 thousand more than mine. Damn the super delegates. I find incredible how people don't care about politics, not only in US, but around the world. Some time ago, during the french elections, the nazi party almost won because everybody decided to go to the beach instead of go voting. Here in Brazil most people go to the voting booth without know in who to vote! That is just shameful . . . . .

I miss the long gone days, that i do not lived, when students fought for things other than parties and beverage. Truly shameful.

CCVP wrote: keiser willhelm wrote: Ron paul is the only one i really dont hate. Obama, don tlike almost half of his platform. hillary? 100% of hers. Mcain? hovering about 40 or 50 percent. its somewhat depressing. Paul is someone i support on many isues, mainly on the war ad the economic system and federalized health care.  basically, the lesser of all the evils. too bad hell be a 3rd partier and thats only ever reached a peak % of the mid high twenties. (the socialist from the 20's) so i feel like my vote is wasted.  i would too if i knew that the vote of some people is worth 10 thousand more than mine. Damn the super delegates. I find incredible how people don't care about politics, not only in US, but around the world. Some time ago, during the french elections, the nazi party almost won because everybody decided to go to the beach instead of go voting. Here in Brazil most people go to the voting booth without know in who to vote! That is just shameful . . . . . I miss the long gone days, that i do not lived, when students fought for things other than parties and beverage. Truly shameful.

obama and clinton both have horrible economic polocies, they plan to institute more social programs without making the needed adjustments to the taxation system. I support socialized healthcare, but it will never work withou significant taxation increases. The dems progams all need HUGE changes in the taxation system (I'm talkin' new deal level changes). If they were to implement the programs the way they plan they would fail so miserably that they would never be tried again correctly. For now the lesser evil is to stick to Reaganomics, because atleast that way America won't fall further in to debt than we already are.

Proletariat wrote: For now the lesser evil is to stick to Reaganomics, because atleast that way America won't fall further in to debt than we already are.

Please tell me you were making a joke there.  The national debt simply evaluated as a percentage of the gross domestic product had been steadily going down since WW II, escalated under Reagan and Bush I, went steadily down again under Clinton I, and then headed steadily back up under Bush II (I found the "steadily" part under B II rather interesting when I looked it up, I was expecting to see "skyrocketing").

We don't need socialized healthcare or huge tax increases.  Socialized health insurance is the answer.  It wouldn't require huge tax increases, but a few powerful folks who are using the current capitalized health insurance scam to make lots of money would be left out in the cold.  And to that I say, so what?

As a meddling canuck , my question to those who defend Health Insurance instead of basic universal health care - why is it better to pay $600 a month in health premiums (my wife's cousine's family coverage, not including what her husband pays for his health "benefits"), than to pay, say $200/month extra on your taxes. Oh wait, all taxes are bad. For profit more economical , not for profit more uncontrollable. Me go back to cave now. Me know that if me break my arm hunting mousse, that no worry about pocketbook when going to emergency room.
Oh, and isn't the most recent figure estimate of the number of citizens in the world' wealthiest and most advanced country that have no access to basic health care comes close to 40 - 50 million people.
This may sound too christian for some of the U.S. evangelicals, but I remember something about who's responsible for their brother. Hey, we're either in this thing together or it ain't gonna work. The rich can & do look after themselves. The rest, and that should include most of the middle class should understand the advantage of sharing the cost & risk among a wide base.
Of course, we could just search out and find what the per capita costs are of a public versus private system.
And we would need to compare not only the U.S. and Canadian systems, but also the French, British, German, Scandinavian, and some Asian national systems. (funny how the Scandies higher tax rates are never brought up when discussing countries with the highest standard of living AND competitiveness. I guess it comes down to what you do with your taxes. In America, you build bridges to nowhere in the middle of Alaska, ensure that Homeland security funds are spread equitably across the nation, taking into account the number of voters, I mean security risks that are the same whether it's the Port of New York, or the Des Moines airport.

P.S. Major P.S. this post does not in any way make any claim as to any national health system having attained perfection. My point is the access vs the assumed cost.


Edited by debrewguy - April 27 2008 at 18:02

IVNORD wrote: debrewguy wrote:   (funny how the Scandies higher tax rates are never brought up when discussing countries with the highest standard of living AND competitiveness. Funny you mention it... A couple of years ago I traveled thru Scandinavia and saw the highly praised highest standard of living AND competitiveness. We rented apartments (as opposed to staying in hotels) living in real conditions (as opposed to tourist arrangements) and mingling with the locals. I would say the owners of the apartments could be considered middle class by their standards, but their standard of living is more of our (and your)working class. Of course, by averaging the US poor and rich you get a lower reading than Scandinavia where the population is more level. Whether it's better or not is debatable. On one hand it would be nice to have all people living equally well; on the other, why would you work your ass off if you have no incentive to do so. Our hosts in Iceland were thoroughly entertained by the fact that my wife managed to get a 3-week vacation (she has 4 weeks a year but  can leave for 2 contiguous weeks at best, usually 1) while they have 6 weeks by law. And it's only in the summer; 2 more in the winter. And of course, they were in total disbelief when I said I had to get up at 5 am to go to work as even supermarkets in Iceland open up at 10 am. So you work less you get less. I would consider myself to be a typical struggling middle class guy, but to them I would be rich. So much for their highest standard of living. As for their highest competitiveness I think you're mistaken too.

Strange that I've never noted anything remotely like it before. But then I live in Sweden, where supermarkets open at 7 or 8