Forums → WEPR → US Elections 2010

Let me barge into this debate.

As such a system should be implemented that caters to everyone.

At what expense? The expense of others, who don't want the system? Sounds like a pretty totalitarian move. Why should anyone care about people they will never meet, see, or ever know existed? We shouldn't, it's not our problem. Have pity on them, I don't care, just don't force pity on others who lack it.

A system for everyone is nonexistent. There is no way to make ever 20% happy at once. Why? People like you, people like me, people like everyone else, have different ideas on how government should be run. How can the government possibly maintain minimum tax rates and yet feed, clothe, and provide healthcare to everyone?

No matter what you do, you get people pissed at you. Get over it.

If the majority don't want it, don't give it. Simple as that.

If such an attitude does represent conservatism on average then this just confirms my suspicions on which party is the more corrupt.

As a side note, who are you to determine corruption based on ideology? Quite an arrogant and self-centered move.

At what expense? The expense of others, who don't want the system? Sounds like a pretty totalitarian move.

I see it as nothing more then a grown up form of bullying. Let the strong step on the weak, screw that.

No matter what you do, you get people pissed at you. Get over it.

No I won't get over it. If we can find a system that benefits the majority that's the system we should strive for.

A system for everyone is nonexistent.

Then we should work on one that get's us as close as possible.

As a side note, who are you to determine corruption based on ideology? Quite an arrogant and self-centered move.

So an ideology that basically says let people suffer is not corrupt one?

What if that means allowing Europe to become the new world power?

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Is Europe going to enslave America? Heaven forfend America loses the spotlight on the world stage, not that it isn't already happening.

So we can bicker and whine about why the system works and why it doesn't, but the truth is NoName, you're taking this to the greatest extreme imaginable. See, unlike you I live in a country that has this system in place, and the system has been running for decades. Yes, there are flaws, but find me a perfect system. There isn't one. Furthermore, last time I checked Canada allows a great number of liberties for its people. In fact Canada grants more liberties than America. Last time I checked homosexuals are allowed to get married. And guess who passed that law, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

So, do me a favour and stop thinking change means communism. Just because something changes does not make it a bloody communistic idea. And in case you need a history lesson America was FOUNDED on the idea of change. The colonists decided they didn't want to put up with Britain, and they CHANGED the system, by breaking the system. Your nation is defined by changing the system, and yet ever since post Vietnam America has grown into a cesspool of social stagnation. The Reds aren't out to get you, the cold war is over! It's been over for almost 20 years. So now is the time to move forward and not be afraid of the "evil" commies.

If the majority don't want it, don't give it. Simple as that.

The majority also possess the intelect of a grade 5, so if you paint them a pretty picture they'll take it, regardless of what it is. The majority can't be trusted.

As a side note, who are you to determine corruption based on ideology?

Christ it's basically black and white. Republicans shout "CHANGE IN EVIL!"

The majority also possess the intelect of a grade 5, so if you paint them a pretty picture they'll take it, regardless of what it is. The majority can't be trusted.

They are still the majority. Trust them or not, they are still in power. Unless you decide not to trust them, and let those that possess intelligence to take over, dictating our lives. Let me quote: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Christ it's basically black and white. Republicans shout "CHANGE IN EVIL!"

Democrats shout "CHANGE IN I-DON'T-KNOW-WHAT-I'M-DOING-BUT-I'LL-SO-IT-ANYWAYS"

I say screw them both.

I say screw them both.

Oh good I'm glad we have arrived at this point. I can now ask why doesn't America allow for more political diversity?

You see the American system is basically the extremes on the politcal system. You have the choice of Chocolate, or Vanilla. what if you don't like either, well in your system you're basically SOL. So, why not be more like Canada? Canada has gained 2 new parties in the past 50 years. The NDP and the Green Party. Technically the Green have yet to win a seat, but they are gaining ground.

I can now ask why doesn't America allow for more political diversity?

Libertarians, Greens, and Constitutionalists. We got five official parties, but only two actually matter. Guess which.

Our lack of diversity lies less in the laws and more in the psyche of our mentally deficient population.

My opinion? Abolish the system.

So, why not be more like Canada?

Actually the US is far less partisan than in the past. 10 or 20 years ago even the Green Party, Libertarians, and Independents would not have even made it on the ballot, yet now they are receiving large amounts of the votes. Also, because of our bipartisan system we have seen more party members differing in opinions with their peers which has led many to vote more on individual politics rather than a solid party. You forget, there are many political parties in the US, however only 2 are in the majority.

We got five official parties, but only two actually matter. Guess which.

Really? I wouldn't say you have officially five if only 2 matter. Officially Canada has 10-15 parties, but technically only 4 have a chance of making it into the house of Commons. So, I would say America has 2 parties because I've yet to see any other party sit in your senate or house.

My opinion? Abolish the system.

And replace it with?

You forget, there are many political parties in the US, however only 2 are in the majority.

I haven't forgotten this I just don't see why these other parties have gained little ground. Canada encourages diversity, so in 50 years we have 2 majority partie to 4 majority parties.

And replace it with?

More democracy, less republic Would be better IMHO.

And replace it with?

... No parties?

Party should be closed down, it's getting out of hand. Don't make me call the cops.

The reason I say this is: The more parties, the more split votes. You still win if you get 36% and everyone else has less.

With no parties, it guarantees you vote on the person, not the party.

You either help the rich and screw the poor, screw the rich and help the poor, and the middle class gets screwed over either way.

Given the parties at hand that does seem to be the choices that why I'm not for either. However if someones saying screw the majority then I take issue. If the trickle down effect where you benefit the rich and the majority who aren't so well off really did show to benefit the majority instead of just help further the problem in the long run, then i would be for such a system. A system that forces out business leaving no other options is pretty ****ed disgusting and unsustainable as well.

It does not simply 'let' people suffer. It lets people do as they please, if they want people to be helped, they help, if they don't want to give a ****, they don't give a ****. You shouldn't be forced to give a ****, at least not in a free society. Do you want to be free?

That's no better then anarchy.

Let them, then. In the meantime, them and they're ultrarich companies can give those poor poor people some jobs. Maybe they can continue to work there, maybe they won't. No one cares.

In by doing so everything fall apart as we see happening. It also no so much about caring as it is about protecting and providing for the needs of the people. Which is what the government should be doing for the people, otherwise what the hell do we even have it for?

How can you really care about them? You can care about the group, sure, but I doubt anyone can care about something or someone they don't know exists.

I can do it and I'm someone.

Poor people make up an integral part of society. Face it, they're needed. It might suck to be poor, but with some drive and some good ideas, you can become rich too. Yes, it is possible; yes, it has happened.

If they are so integral then maybe we should provide for them. If they want to be rich and are capable of striving for it, then the already rich should try and stand in there way as they do.

We got five official parties

We have more then just five parties.

List of political parties in the United States

Party should be closed down, it's getting out of hand. Don't make me call the cops.

I actually agree with you here I would prefer there not be any parties and people get in on there own merits. Far to often people with side with their party without even knowing what their party is standing for.

Small government, what's so wrong with it?

All I'm asking for is a government that takes care of it's people. I'm against putting up a system that only caters to a select few at the expense of the majority. That's not big government that's reasonable government.

Just because I might not be for one extreme doesn't mean I'm for the other.

Do you seriously want the US government giving you anything? I hope you're a patient person, because it will be a while before you get anything. The magic word: Bureaucracy.

Yes I am, and they already do. Though the way the system is set up I have little hope of being able to fend for myself.

Chances are I'll still be poor when I grow up. Unless, you know, I do something with my life.

What of those who can't but could otherwise if they only receive the help required?

There is no majority, none that can be satisfied.

So you've been proposing we cater to something that doesn't exist this whole time?

Maybe we should, but, you know, without you shoving it down our throats. I'd love for my friends to get help, that would be awesome. Except they won't, and I'm more afraid of Big Brother taking over than that of nothing at all.

Nothing at all isn't freedom either since it just leaves us at the mercy of the more powerful. A government doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. Which seems to be your mode of thinking.

I see it as nothing more then a grown up form of bullying. Let the strong step on the weak, screw that.

How does the strong step on the weak? How does the rich step on the poor?

First, understand what insurance is. Insurance is a system that will help pay for future medical costs assuming something bad does happen. Insurance does not cover pre-existing conditions because then it wouldn't be insurance. Why would I start a business where my job basically consists of you having high medical bills, and paying me a small amount of money to cover those huge bills? It's like buying a car with 2,500 dollars worth of damage, then buying insurance for 100 dollars and having the insurance company pay for the damages.

So let's step outside of insurance. How does the rich step on the poor? They provide goods for the poor and the poor gives the rich money? Bill Gates is evil because he owns Microsoft, a company that gives people really nice computers for their money? He should be giving those computers away for free! How greedy!

The rich step on the poor? I don't see how the act of having money alone a is harming anyone.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Is Europe going to enslave America? Heaven forfend America loses the spotlight on the world stage, not that it isn't already happening.

If that happens, America would have lost a great deal when it comes to standard of living. To be honest, that's a pretty big change. I'm not saying America should be better than Europe, but if the cost of NHC was that great, then it definitely would not be worth it.

You're willing to lower the quality of living at such great levels for one single plan. A sane person who believed in NHC would at least suggest that they would abandon the plan after a certain amount of failure.

So we can bicker and whine about why the system works and why it doesn't, but the truth is NoName, you're taking this to the greatest extreme imaginable. See, unlike you I live in a country that has this system in place, and the system has been running for decades. Yes, there are flaws, but find me a perfect system. There isn't one. Furthermore, last time I checked Canada allows a great number of liberties for its people. In fact Canada grants more liberties than America. Last time I checked homosexuals are allowed to get married. And guess who passed that law, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

There are still a lot of economical drawbacks in Canada and Canada has high taxes. You're happy with them. Good for you. I'm happy with having an option in what kind of health care I buy IF I want to buy it. I live in America, I think I know what I want in my own country better than you.

I said this before, NHC is not the answer to fixing health insurance problems.

So, do me a favour and stop thinking change means communism.

Change doesn't mean communism. I am merely telling you that you can't support a system no matter what the cost. If something costs too much, you must at some point stop supporting the system. By doing everything in your power to support a single policy means neglecting every other problem America has. This was the point I was trying to make.

The majority also possess the intelect of a grade 5

Because the minority are smarter?

You support NHC because the majority of people would benefit. Now the majority of people don't get a say because you claim they are all stupid?

Who is to decide if NHC is a good thing or a bad thing? Who's to decide what policies are good or bad? That's why we have a democracy, because if we trust one person or group of people to decide if a policy is good or not, then who's going to stop them when they say happy meals should be made illegal or some other totalitarian law?

More democracy, less republic Would be better IMHO.

Democracy is the answer. If the majority are wrong, then it's your job to persuade them.

Which is what the government should be doing for the people, otherwise what the hell do we even have it for?

The government's job is to protect the rights of the people (rights as in - stuff you are allowed to do, not entitled to) and to build a military to protect the people from invading countries. The government is supposed to establish positive connections with other countries. The government is also supposed to provide some services.

The government's job is not to fix the economy by taking over businesses itself. The government's job is not to provide people with health, homes, and clothing.

Small government, what's so wrong with it?

You have to take care of yourself. : (

If they are so integral then maybe we should provide for them. If they want to be rich and are capable of striving for it, then the already rich should try and stand in there way as they do.

Instead of providing for these people, why don't we simply give them opportunities? Rather than finding ways to take care of them, why not find ways to help them take care of themselves by making it easier for jobs to open up that can hire these people.

I actually agree with you here I would prefer there not be any parties and people get in on there own merits. Far to often people with side with their party without even knowing what their party is standing for.

If we get rid of the party system, people will still continue to refer to themselves as libertarians, greens, and so on. It's an easy way to identify with people. I believe in small government involvement when it comes comes to economics and personal liberties. The best way for me to find people with similar views is to find other people who also refer to themselves as libertarians.

It would be nice, however, if the political lines were smeared and if less focus was on a person's party and more on what they views were. One problem is that many people don't reflect the party they stood for.

All I'm asking for is a government that takes care of it's people. I'm against putting up a system that only caters to a select few at the expense of the majority. That's not big government that's reasonable government.

The government isn't efficient at proving such services. If NHC means waiting, then it is not efficient. Sure, everyone will be covered, but we can't make everyone wait 3 months! I have never waited more than a week for medical attention!

You are basically trading quality for quantity. This trade only causes as many problems as it fixes, except everyone will be forced to pay NHC so it actually causes more by giving us no choices.