Lets talk politics.... :(

I only knew of Hilary that wanted to do that and she is out of the run, but I can be wrong. Maybe someone else is? Either way, its never going to be done. Jack Thompson failed and is now the punchline of every lawyer's joke. Maybe as the president you can but the president doesn't have almighty power, or then their just dictators.

I may be wrong, but I know a good handful of popular politicians do want to limit video games. and yea, jack is teh lulz now XD pwnd so bad

Holy, long article and I didn't learn anything new about the electoral college. Seriously, that has to be the most confusing way of choosing a president. I barely understand what goes on during American elections. I really want to know how thye teach that stuff in American schools (do they even teach that at all?)

I bet even the Senate in the US don't understand that thing completely much less Bush. I bet he still asking himself how he won his first election.

Crap, that wiki confuse me the hell out of me again. I'm going to bed.

They don't teach it in schools, your teacher with mention it in conversion for like 5 minutes then they move on.

Pretty much, and since I got into a philosophy based social studies/lang arts program, i barely heard about it

I consider politics very important and I keep up to date on national and international politics and there is rarely a thing I don't have an opinion on.

While I support our liberal party here they often don't get very far in the elections, that makes me sad and sometimes somewhat angry.

I'm confused by that, but I think I got a bit of it. They don't actually vote for the president but for another voter. So they can't technically vote for their leader?

Pokemon has already declared the winner.

Ok, I will try to explain this the best way I can. Say the people of New York vote for Obama (whole state does). Well the it goes the the electoral college, which is let say made up of 31 votes for New York. Those 31 votes have the desiding vote on the president and which person won that state. In theroy they should all vote for obama, but this doesn't always work out this way. Hense the problem, as I said when it started it wasn't a bad idea, but now it is useless.

She's referring to me... Since I am arguably the most political American on these forums.



Fair warning this may get long. I'll try to break it up and organize it as best as I can.

To start off: I'm not a Republican/Conservative/Neo-con/whateverthefuckliberalscallthepeoplewhodisagreewiththemnowadays

Health care: Currently 17 cents out of every dollar earned is spent on Health care. The projected totals by 2017 is expected to be 1 out of every five dollars will be spent on health care. His overall plan is very vague (i.e. lacking specific details) but, one aspect is crystal clear; He wants to expand the size of the Government to do this. That means a whole army of new Government employees and more bureaucracy in relation to the health care system. Obamas plan is below

-Mandatory Health care for Children
-Expand Medicare and State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
-Businesses that don't provide health care will be assessed a fee based on a percent of their pay roll.

Current estimates place the cost of covering the 47 Million uninsured Americans at a price tag of more than $50billion a year. There is also another downside to his plan. Its not mandatory for adults, that means that younger healthy workers (like myself) will forgo buying into the plan to save money. The idea is that if we all pay a little that means that everyone will be covered. So his health care isn't "Universal" like the other Democratic candidates. Its basically your insurance company except your insurance company is the Federal Government.

Another point is the Businesses being "assessed" a fee based on a percentage of their pay roll. Larger companies like General Motors, Ford, Google,etc already give health care benefits to their employees. The companies that will be effected are small businesses. American business is made up by roughly 60-70% small to medium sized businesses instead of the large companies like Wal-mart and Etc since they do not pay taxes in America (explained below). So these little companies can't afford to pay benefits like that and it would force many of them out of business which leads to higher unemployment.

You think Canada's health care system is so great? A typical Canadian seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment had to wait 18.3 weeks in 2007. In America you have to wait roughly 3 weeks for cancer treatment. Think about waiting 18 weeks before your first shot of Kemo? Canada is already slow in its health care and it doesn't have nearly as many people as the United States.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Education:
-Reform the "No Child Left Behind law"
-Free college
-Apposes "school vouchers"

Senator Obama wants to reform the No Child Left Behind law (NCLB). As most of the school graduates of the last few years have noticed. Out education has dropped from "mediocre" or outright embarrassing. The problem with NCLB was the fact it lowered the standards so everyone would pass. As most of us have noticed it seems like the graduating classes are getting dumber every semester. The reason being is this particular legislation forces the schools to hold the hands of the idiotic and the ones who refuse to do anything but, act out in class to disrupt it because he/she doesn't want to be there. His idea to better this program is to give it more funding. More funding to the program and better pay for the teachers.

Currently the average pay for a teacher is $51,000 a year with several months of vacation when students are on summer vacation. Just an FYI someone earning $20/hr working 40hrs a week every week for 52 weeks earns roughly 47,000+/-. Teachers have it a lot easier than it is portrayed.

He wants to provide free college to all people. He may have changed his stance on this but, last time I read anything it was free college so I'll debunk that. Colleges are a business, their business is to provide you a better education in exchange for money. The general view is the more expensive the college the better the education (Harvard, Yale,etc vs Devry,etc). These places can't hand out things for free otherwise as a business they will fail to afford the salaries of their employees and will have to close.

Another point is, think how expensive it is to go to college. Now think of how many students are entering college every semester. If college is "free" where is the money coming from to pay for this? The tax payers, which means higher taxes.

Apposes school vouchers: "A school voucher, also called an education voucher, is a certificate issued by the government by which parents can pay for the education of their children at a school of their choice, rather than the public school (UK state school) to which they are assigned."
Here's the wiki, its too long to explain already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_vouchers#United_States
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social security:
-Stabilize social security

Social security was a good idea at the time. Now, its an outdated system that has become the proverbial window. His only real suggestion was to give it more funding. Throwing money at the "window" isn't a solution. Currently S.S. is funded through our taxes (look at your paycheck). Current estimates believe S.S. have its cash flow choked when baby boomers begin to hit the retiring age around 201- and will continue to see more and more every year until 2025. All while the pool of tax payers shrinks. in 1950 each retiree's benefits were distrubed across 16 tax payers. So 16 working people paid for one person. Today its 3.3 workers per retiree and it'll only get worse.

Obama plans to give this bad idea an emergency cash infusion. As we all can tell throwing cash at the problem won't make it go away. Around 2018 S.S. will use up its $100 billion and congress will have to find billions more to fund the program. From there, the annual demands will reach first $200 billion a year, and soon $300 billion a year (Random Fact: The Iraq war costs $120 Billion a year). In 2006 the Government had a revenue of $2.3 trillion. Think of everything the government pays for, Paychecks of Senators, president, government employees, buildings, roads, National defense, social programs,etc and yet they overspent that revenue. They spent a total of 2.7 trillion. Hard to believe isn't it? The amount money that goes out the door to pay for old people.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taxes: Did you know that middle class America pays 33 cents out of every dollar in Federal taxes? Kinda hurts when you look at your paycheck doesn't it? If we pay 33% out of every dollar then how much do the "rich" people pay. Have a look http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-T4-The-Top-10-Percent-of-Income.html Remember the Government works in Trillions...with a T.

We bitch about paying taxes? At least we aren't getting prison raped. In comparison the top 1% are getting violently raped by a guy with a horse dick while the average Joe (50K and down) is only getting his junk fondled. Heavy Progressive Income Tax is one of the ten steps of communism. Look into the U.S. Government and Obama's "Change". See how many more you can spot!

Obama wants to raise taxes on that 1% and repeal the tax cuts. Then close the "corporate loopholes" that exist. Those "corporate loopholes" exist because the companies don't want to pay outrageous taxes. Remember that comment I made earlier in the Health care bit about companies like Wal-mart not paying taxes in America? Its because our taxes are ridiculously high so companies pay taxes in a country that has lower taxes. Basically, our high taxes are making companies leave the U.S. (thus why jobs are leaving as well) so they don't have to pay these huge taxes. Current estimates place all the money that these companies are paying into other countries is somewhere in the trillions. That is trillions of dollars that the government could receive but, because of the governments greed those companies leave. Want more tax income? lower the taxes and encourage companies to come here (if out taxes or lower then companies will flock to us to avoid high taxes thus more money for us).

Ever hear the question "Which is more: being given one million dollars, or one penny the first day, double that penny the next day, then double the previous day's pennies and so on for a month?"

That the logic. Sure High taxes will get you that million dollars but, with lower taxes and more money being earned, paid and spent will be like the doubling penny.

If that doesn't change your mind go ahead put up your Che Guevara pictures and begin singing since on the current path we will become the U.S.S.A

(I'll put up more when I have the time)

It's amazing that, despite the fact that Denmark, Norway and most of Europe have all the Government-provided services you listed above(including free healthcare(with short waits I might add, since if the public hospitals are full here, we get sent to private ones for free. We're also guaranteed to wait no longer than three weeks for stuff like cancer treatment), free college-level education, a fairly hefty paycheck for those who are unable to work, and more) is doing better than the United States in just about any way you can look at it, including financially.

Sure, we pay ~50% of our income in income tax alone, but I don't think you'll be able to see that from looking at peoples living standards here, which IIRC is higher than in the US.

Holy crap penguin, that was a pretty amazing and informative post. Seriously, I didn't know social security in the US was that bad. I never really payed attention to that sector before. I guess I'll do it more often from now.

+1 rep.

Also, the USSR had a pretty kickass anthem.

Talking from the German point of view, we don't care what color your president is. He could be purple for all we care, as long as he has a good judgment and common sense. The thing about Obama is that he has a large amount of "charm points" in Europe due to visiting the European countries and holding speeches.
On the other hand, I think the most important point is that you get your educational system back into a proper standard again and clean up the political mess in your country, before you try to comment on the politics in other countries backyards.
Politics is like a gamble in this case. You can't really judge how a party or person will act once it has the power. You can just hope it will keep up to 20% of the promises made during the election campaign.

I'm sure there is a large social difference between America and the rest of the world. I am also sure those government don't hemorrhage money like America. I'm also sure that those government haven't given them a deficit as large as ours. Currently the Debt the government has is 9 trillion (The projected budget for 2009 is 3.1 trillion). This along with our trade deficit and dragging out economy down the proverbial shiter. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security are eating up money like a fat man at a buffet. If we trashed these programs then we could easily fund Universal health care and mimic the French by allowing public and private funds to give everyone coverage. The problem is that the American idiots won't let go of their hand out programs. Unless we cut the Governments rampant spending and get our economy back to its Juggernaut status that it used to be then we could have Universal Health care.

-The value of the dollar is dropping due to our national debt and trade deficits.

-Americans are too used to the Nanny State Government that we currently have and show no initiative to strike out on their own. Since politicians constantly tell them that they can't succeed without Government handouts.

-Americans have an insurmountable mountain of health problems and that would only put huge drains on the economy and it would only get worse.

I won't do the math for you but,an example is my Father. Two heart attacks, overall medical costs are 1 million dollars. One man has had 1 million dollars sunk into him. Now think about how many Americans are just like him with their medical costs. Add on the amount of cancer patients that need treatment, tack on the hospital visits for the unhealthy (obese, heart disease,etc). You can figure out the rest that require treatments.

Americans simply can't survive forking over 50% of our income in taxes. The average income for an American is $50,000 of less. Forking over half of their income would reduce the "upper middle class" to below our poverty rate. Two income household (each member earning 50k) would come out at 50k after taxes.

In a nutshell. Universal Health care is a noble goal but, just not one America can achieve right now without causing greater problems than the ones we currently face.

I saw that one coming lol

Its because you love me. Admit it. :wink:

You're right, that American society is much more individualist, which is why we have fewer social programs than most places in Europe. However, I think much of your economic analysis is off.

The debt, which is 9 trillion, seems like a huge number, but it is a meaningless platitude when stated in isolation. The debt needs to managed in proportion to the GDP. Currently, from that measure, we are actually slightly safer than we were at the end of Reagan/HW Bush. I think it is true that we do need to starting taxing and spending more responsibly, but economic flexibility, from a policy standpoint, is more important that a dogmatic need to fight debt. GDP growth has been largely positive in recent years, so even just keeping the debt where it is would be effective and make the country a little more secure from a fiscal standpoint.

On to government spending: in the current times, the two main political parties have come up with two philosophies.

Democrats are willing to tax, but wish to enact expensive programs, and their taxes are generally not enough to pay for this.

Republicans are unwilling to tax, but try to spend less money. However, while they have been somewhat effective at opposing new programs, they have pretty much failed to cut anything meaningful. The current wars compound the issue, by bringing on another cost for which the Republicans cannot pay without borrowing because they are unwilling to tax.

Which is a saner approach to fiscal policy? It's probably time to start taxing more, since W. Bush has expanded the government significantly with departments that are planned as permanent and wars, but we should probably think twice before promising new programs.



This doesn't actually have that much effect on the overall economic health of the US. If you are trying to go abroad, it sucks certainly, and it affects import costs, but it is largely self correction. As US exports get cheaper and foreign imports get more expensive, economic theory 101 kicks in, and things start to move the other way.



The US, as a society, has decided it is unacceptable to merely let people die. If you go to a hospital, insured or otherwise, they are obligated to keep you alive. Perhaps not give the super-expensive cutting edge surgery, but the ER doesn't check insurance papers before trying to save lives.

We are already paying for the uninsured, at exorbiant costs. Preventative medicine for them is impossible, and so they put off treatment until complications set in, making things a lot more expensive.

Additionally, you see the Health Insurance industry, in order to offer competitive rates to low risk customers, force extremely high rates on people who have medical problems, or just refuse them outright. Thus, the people who need health insurance the most are the ones from whom it is made unaffordable. The government ends up picking up the tab when they end up hospitalized, and the insurance companies and the low risk people do very nicely.

The idea behind a universal health care program is to redistribute the risk so that most of the burden doesn't end up on people with chronic medical problems who can't afford treatment. Additionally, it is designed to give access to preventative medicine, so that people can attack their medical problems earlier on, which is cheaper.

One can argue the morality of forcing a shared healthcare burden vs. screwing over those who have poor constitutions. However, it is a proven fact that there will be a significant portion of people for whom the market economy will not provide effective and affordable healthcare, because it is not profitable.

Another interesting note: if we combine all the money spent by both the private sector and the government, we find a number of medical and economic experts who think that if everyone had healthcare, this total number would actually go down because of preventative medicine. The question is who will pay for what and how?



This neglects the fact that if more things were free(college, healthcare, etc), one would have to have less money to be in poverty. $25000 in a 50% income tax society with broad social programs(like Sweden) is not equivalent to $25000 in the current US society.

Also, I don't think an income of $50000 qualifies as upper middle class, though that is somewhat subjective.

The United States Government defines "middle class" as anyone making less than 75,000 a year. So 50,000 is actually a bit low for upper middle class. Earning $23/hr working a 40/hr work week will only net roughly 47,000. How many people do you know earn 23+ dollars an hour?

While it may be true that we have fewer social programs in comparison to Europe. I see that as a good thing. America was always a place of hard work equals success. Obama, Nancy Pelosi,etc claim they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps. Yet, the very same people tell their followers that you can't succeed without the governments help.

While I agree that the democrats have been throwing money away like a compulsive gambler and that the money we give them needs to be spent more wisely. I disagree with you (with a fiery passion) that taxes need to be raised. Taxes are like a noose around the neck of the economy. Every time the taxes are raised the noose it tightened. Eventually, the government will hang itself by over taxing people and people just won't be able to afford the standard of living.

The more sane philosophy is actually cut spending, cut taxes, get rid of this notion the because Europe did it that means America is obligated to follow. Also need to let go of the skirt of the nanny state.

Its actually the hospital that picks up the tab on the uninsured that go to a hospital. If they are homeless, poor or illegal immigrants they all get service and the price is passed on to the paying customer of the hospital such as myself when I go to the doctor for a check up. The government is involved at the Medicare and Medicaid level which FYI has a 31% fraud rate since the Government approves everyone. Medicare and Medicaid are already funded by the tax payers and that is another problem when it comes to those two programs.

This idea of redistributing the "risk" to the healthier people so the people who either have a preventable illness (cancer) or just don't take care of themselves (Obesity). So a healthy individual like myself or my friends that rarely require hospital visits and the few visits we make are purely elective "just in case" visits. Why is it fair for me to pay for them? which is part of the morality argument. My take on this is personal responsibility. If you are willing to take care of yourself and keep yourself healthy then you should suffer for your decision.

The concept of "free" college "Free" health care,etc is failing in logic. Nothing in this world is free. The phrase "There is no free lunch" someone is going to foot the bill somewhere. Which means higher taxes and a bigger drain on the economy. If democrats or liberals want socialized medicine then get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social security. By removing those bloated, and ineffective programs you would free up enough money to pay for socialized medicine but, you can't how those three programs AND social medicine. Social security alone will start eating up the budget and money will be harder to move around and the idiots in the federal government will just raise taxes again and again as if that is some miracle solution.

For America: Bigger Government is NEVER the answer. The government can't handle the money it has properly. How are we to expect that they will get their act together for a program like that. The current state of our country is so pathetic that people are actually trying to find a way to migrate onto the open ocean to get away from the madness that has infected the populace.

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/05/seasteading

Does that mean I love you too? In fact I think that would imply most of us love you.

Anyway you may make good points or whatnot (I didn't really read everything you posted as I have things to do today) but you still don't provide any solutions as far as voting is concerned. You can claim we should vote for a third party all you want but that's just like not voting at this point in time and you know it. You also probably know enough to know that a republican president is worse for us at this point that a democratic one is.

I've always wondered, why only two political parties?