Political Question

[zeg]

Nothing that's socialist has ever worked... It's socialist, nuff said.

Please, please tell me you're kidding here. Please.

The GOP has mainly been banning embryotic (spelling?) stem cell research. If an adult would like to contribute stem cells to the research, go for it. But when it's embryos that don't have a voice, it is violating human's rights.

It's violating "embryotic rights" if anything at all... whether an embryo has rights is obviously a contentious issue. My opinion (which no one asked for, but here it is anyway) is that it doesn't, any more than an ovary or a testicle has its own rights. In the embryotic stage, there's simply not enough material to even pretend that consciousness is present, so I don't see how rights can possibly be ascribed to the cells in question.

I'm in agreement with the post a few back -- generally liberal social and economic views, but I support gun rights (though don't choose to exercise them) and a few other issues that are typically "Republican."

[denver_nuggs_15]

He has some really intelligent speech writers and a great presentor. Do you think we would still be in a reccession if he would have cut taxes on business? That doesn't take time and our economy would be soaring if we would have taken that approach instead of creating a even bigger more corrupt government.

Are you an economist? Or do you just watch FOX News?

No offense or anything, but I'm going to take a guess that the people who Obama has working for him are a bit more qualified to decide what will work than just about anybody else. I don't think Congress as a whole is necessarily qualified to decide economic policies (since only 20% have a background in economics, finance, or business), so what Obama's experts say or think is probably more intelligent than any other idea an uneducated Congressman could come up with. As for having a government that's too large, that's been a problem forever. Our government is so large that it becomes ridiculously inefficient (some report said that a regular hammer costs our government $500 between the paperwork and labor required to get/order the thing...don't quote me on this one though as I really don't remember the exact number). But, I don't see how Obama's economic policies would make the government bigger. Maybe stronger, but that's what any liberal's policies would do. And our country has been sliding towards a stronger nat'l gov't. We're not socialist (go to Canada and see the differences between our "socialism" and their socialism) and I doubt we ever will be in my lifetime. But even so, not all socialistic policies are bad or ineffective.

[CG031]

Are you an economist? Or do you just watch FOX News?

Very well put. Our government is going to always be large, unless some really right wing Libertarian wins the Presidency and most of congress follows his lead, and he completely changes everything. It was big under Bush before, and it was "big" under Reagan too. It always has been. That's kind of how our country runs. I love what Obama said in his campaign speeches, "The question isn't whether or not government is too big or too small, it's whether government is doing it's job."

As far as the entire socialist thing, oh man, it's so funny when people claim Obama to be socialist, or to be honest, even close to it. Everyone wants to make him to be a "radical liberal." He's not. Yeah of course he leans more liberal than a lot guys, like Bill Clinton but the socialist charge is so ridiculous anyway.

[st0wgolf08]

Are you an economist? Or do you just watch FOX News?

How they would make the government bigger? He wants to nationalize everything, how would that not make the government bigger and less efficient? I still want someone to explain to me where that money is going to come from.

[PEZGolf]

just a curiosty, what % of people here and their political side, no fighting please

I am pleased to see that 34.48% of the respondents are independents like me. When I registered to vote at the age of 18, I came back home and my Dad and my Grandpa were waiting for me. My Dad was a lifelong Republican because of Franklin Roosevelt--he let the Japs snooker us with the sneak attack on Pearl Harbour. My Granda--Jaju---was a lifelong Democrat because FDR saved the country from the Great Depression. When they asked what party I registered under, I told them, "None. I am an independent." "WHAT?" they said together, "YOU are a disgrace to the family." I have been an independent ever since, and cannot vote in the primaries.

[Leftygolfer]

How they would make the government bigger? He wants to nationalize everything, how would that not make the government bigger and less efficient? I still want someone to explain to me where that money is going to come from.

China....

[zeg]

How they would make the government bigger? He wants to nationalize everything, how would that not make the government bigger and less efficient? I still want someone to explain to me where that money is going to come from.

Really? He wants to nationalize everything? That's news to me.

I see a lot of people complaining about the various bits of the bailout and related actions, but I don't see a whole lot of concrete ideas about better alternatives. At least, nothing more than half-baked ideas about "just lower business taxes." Sorry, sometimes even the best possible course of action has negative results -- it may be that all the other options are more negative. But, look at it this way. GM has been a private (well, public, but not government owned) company for a long time now. See how well that worked out? Private sector is not an automatic solution to every problem (not to say that the government should nationalize it, or at least not permanently, but it takes more than screaming "socialism OMG" to convince me that an option is unacceptable).

[st0wgolf08]

Really? He wants to nationalize everything? That's news to me.

See how well it worked out? Gm(besides the recent past) has been doing great, provided tons of jobs and set a standard for working conditions. Too bad our country decides they'd rather let someone get paid 3 dollars an hour and have a much worse life then the guy who gets paid 20 or 30 and lives in America. My money and my family's money goes to American car companies, which goes to America.

[st0wgolf08]

Also you haven't heard anything about nationalizing? I'm sure they were just kidding about health care then....

[CG031]

Also you haven't heard anything about nationalizing? I'm sure they were just kidding about health care then....

Nationalizing health care isn't a bad idea at all, as a matter of fact it makes perfect sense considering how many people go bankrupt each year beacuse they can't pay their medical bills...but we still have the best health care system in the world, right? wrong.

[st0wgolf08]

Nationalizing health care isn't a bad idea at all, as a matter of fact it makes perfect sense considering how many people go bankrupt each year beacuse they can't pay their medical bills...but we still have the best health care system in the world, right? wrong.

Sure it sounds perfect, but where is all this money coming from? Obviously obama would tax the upper income ranges to offset the cost of this, yet why should they pay? They already have have health care, so why should they pay for people in poverty to have health care, when the upper income already pays like 60 percent of America's taxes.

[Chilli Dipper]

Officially, I'm an independent, because my state holds open primaries and does not require voters to register with a party to participate. However, since my political views can be broadly classified as that of a moderate social liberal, I inevitably side with the Democrats most of the time.

[Chilli Dipper]

Nationalizing health care isn't a bad idea at all, as a matter of fact it makes perfect sense considering how many people go bankrupt each year beacuse they can't pay their medical bills...but we still have the best health care system in the world, right? wrong.

Personally, I think the best solution would be for the health care system to run by private providers operating on a not-for-profit basis, provided they cannot refuse coverage to or arbitrarily increase premiums on anyone based on their medical history. With the present corporate culture in America, though, I'm not holding my breath on that happening.

[TheNatural]

See how well it worked out? Gm(besides the recent past) has been doing great, provided tons of jobs and set a standard for working conditions. Too bad our country decides they'd rather let someone get paid 3 dollars an hour and have a much worse life then the guy who gets paid 20 or 30 and lives in America. My money and my family's money goes to American car companies, which goes to America.

Well put. The only exception would be american made cars. I have no prob with someone who bought a us built Nissan. Greedy Unions and corporate greed are to blame for the demise of GM and Chrysler. Union dues are the biggest waste of money I have ever seen. How can the UNION head make a $1,000,000 a year while his union makes $50,000? The US automakers will rebound. Whether the US buyer will check to see where their car was made is another question. Mine were made in Dearborn, Columbus and TN.

[st0wgolf08]

Well put.

Yes, but also think of where your money goes when you buy a nissan, even if it is made in the United States. I think labor is roughly 1/4- 1/3 of the total cost of the car, so if 100 percent of Nissan's labor is done here 1/3 of that money for your new car goes to America, while 2/3s goes overseas. People point out that GM uses overseas labor, which I don't deny. However, they don't use all foreign labor, as there are sheer towns in states that nearly everyone works for GM. Anyway so even if GM has everyone working overseas for them, 1/3 of the money goes overseas, and 2/3 goes to America. Gm sounds like the better bet for America, with a larger sum of money going to America.

I do agree with you completely though, from what I understand, Gm's bankruptcy lets them cancel things with the Union, which would greatly cut Gm's costs, but yet at the same time, I hate to see a man or woman who has worked for 20 years for a company, lose their health care or some other kind of benefit. People just need to realize how much Gm, Chrysler and Ford mean to this country.

[CG031]

Sure it sounds perfect, but where is all this money coming from? Obviously obama would tax the upper income ranges to offset the cost of this, yet why should they pay? They already have have health care, so why should they pay for people in poverty to have health care, when the upper income already pays like 60 percent of America's taxes.

Well that's the problem that we need to figure out is how can we make it work. Maybe not a complete Government Mandate Insurance overhaul - but something that moves closer to it for sure.

I recently read the book "Critical: How to fix America's Health Care Crisis." It's a pretty darn good book. South Dakota Ex-Senator Tom Daschle shares stories in the first few chapters of people who lost everything and their lives ruined because they couldn't pay their medical bills - and these people were just average citizens. They weren't people living on the streets. They were, you know, middle-class, bringing in about 75,000 a year income between both the husband and wife.

[st0wgolf08]

Well that's the problem that we need to figure out is how can we make it work. Maybe not a complete Government Mandate Insurance overhaul - but something that moves closer to it for sure.

Sure, it would be nice to have it and find a way to pay for it logically, but come on, if this ever happens, you know who is paying for it..

[denver_nuggs_15]

Sure it sounds perfect, but where is all this money coming from? Obviously obama would tax the upper income ranges to offset the cost of this, yet why should they pay? They already have have health care, so why should they pay for people in poverty to have health care, when the upper income already pays like 60 percent of America's taxes.

Can you prove that 60% stat. I've never heard that before and while I don't doubt it's true, I also have a feeling it's false.

And this thing about taxing to help other people really bothers me. First off, tax is designed to help the economy as it helps to limit inflation. So, if we don't have tax, inflation sky rockets. Also, a progressive tax like we (US) have means that people with a high discretionary income cannot spend too much of it...also limiting inflation. Then comes in the greed factor. Why help someone else? It should make you feel good. If that's not good enough, it may help you out economically. If you help a poor person to become say middle class, that's one more person who can buy stuff...good or services. That helps out the economy. If the US helps Africa to prosper so they can actually buy many goods from us, then we have a huge market to sell our stuff to. Maybe it's not feasable to help people out, but why the hell not try? We all know it's the right thing to do.