America: You Vote '08

[Keaton]

Discuss the Presidential Election for 2008. Plain and simple. Who you support, why you support them, the different candidates views, etc.

[{joy the hideous new girl}]

OBAMA-POO.

[tyler]

Either Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. I really like what Mike Huckabee, the Baptist minister from Arkansas had to say, but I don't think he'll ever get elected. He has the right idea, but unfortunately, half the population of the US doesn't.

McCain is wishy-washy and too Centrist for my tastes.

[Swoosh]

We already have a topic for this, but this one seems better, anyways, so...

I'm gonna go with Obama. My main reason is his dedication to "clean up" Washington - that is, to remove the corruption that lobbyists and party-based prejudices have instilled into American politics. I also agree with his plans to reform the immigration process, protect the environment and use more alternative energy sources, reform American health care, and to rebuild America's international reputation.

[tyler]

It just occurred to me that Ebola and I are the only ones on this forum old enough to vote, lol.

As far as health care goes, free, socialized, "Canada-style" health care is not all it's cracked up to be. It's easy enough to think that our government should be providing health care for us, but look at it this way. In most places, public schools (BTW, all education was provided for by the private sector in the early days of this country) are sub-par at best. It's bad enough that we let the government educate our children, do we want them performing surgery on us?

The private health care industry comes at a higher cost to the individual, but it is of a significantly higher quality.

You may be thinking "Well why can't we just have both? A private sector alongside a socialized health care system for those individuals who can't afford the good stuff?" That may seem like a brilliant idea, but remember, there is no such thing as FREE. Everything comes at a cost. Robin Hood policy, no matter how noble it may seem, is not right. My hard-earned money does not always need to go into the social "pot" in Washington, to be distributed to the greater citizenry at large.

What COULD be reformed, however, is the insurance industry. The government needs to be careful just how far they allow themselves to step into the private sector (which however flawed it may be, the capitalist private sector is what built this country and helps drive many great people toward success). It will be tricky, but something needs to be done to ensure a fair insurance system.

Wow, I can't believe I just typed all that.

[Ebola]

They wouldn't be coming down here if their health system didn't suck.

adventurepresidentialcampaign.ytmnd.com/

[Swoosh]

Interesting views, Tyler.

However, America is one of only very few major nations that doesn't provide national health care - I think we actually might be the only, but I don't want to make that claim without being positive. The point is, other countries seem to be doing well with a national health care system, so why wouldn't we?

Also, your ideas about not wanting to take a portion of your well-earned money to help then eedy worry me. Honestly, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the more fortunate people in this world giving to help the least. Now, if the government stops using the money in the proper way or something along those lines, then of course governmental reform can occur to make sure it does, but that isn't the issue here.

I think you need to stop thinking of poorer people as more than just statistics or a relatively small percentage. They're PEOPLE, and most of them can't afford qiality health care, which just isn't right.

[tyler]

I never said poor people were a statistic. I'm one of them. My family is in a lower, less comfortable tax bracket than yours. It's a miracle I'm able to go to college.

I also never said that I wasn't interested in giving to those less fortunate (both here and abroad). But I think charity and philanthropy should be left to the private sector, along with pretty much everything else. I don't believe the government has the right to decide where and how to spend my money on those less fortunate.

You speak of the "other countries" that "seem to be doing well" who provide all sorts of socialized services for their citizens. What you may not be aware of is that these countries provide these seemingly "free" services by heavily taxing their citizenry. The personal income tax rate in America is 0-35% (based on income). Meanwhile, citizens of Denmark and the Netherlands give up 38-59% and 34.15-52% (respectively) of their income to the government. Imagine working hard to earn $100,000 a year but only keeping $48,000! Europe isn't always doing the right thing. That's why we left Europe and founded a new nation in the first place.

I should also note that it's the "rich, right, Republicans" that the liberal media are always warning you about who get the heaviest tax burdens. Just because one has more money does not mean they should be paying a higher rate than others.

This nation's government wasn't established to "give the people what they want." In its framing, the government's sole responsibility was to protect the American people through law and national defense. Nowhere was it stated that the government had to play the role of Santa Claus and use tax dollars to provide FREE education, FREE healthcare, or FREE handouts.

Of course, I'm not saying the government should cut spending entirely. I think that to protect the American people, the government needs to provide some things, the most important being education, because a well-educated society prospers financially and culturally, and therefore is able to compete and stand its ground in the emerging global environment.

[Web]

im supporting obama, and john edwards would be like the worst president ever bc he is running on good looks