OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[Tifone]

@ Aezeal

I just wanted to quote you on everything you said. USA on those things is really a strange country seen from Europe
Like, reading at NTJedi's post and seeing how Social Solidarity isn't a Constitutional duty...
Not to talk about their Creationism in science classes and that strange, old right to have guns everywhere....
And damn, I can't talk about the so called "pro-life" crew (like if the pro-choice are pro-death, lol) because we have some here too...
Hope the Democrats will change something ^^

[rdonj]

Originally Posted by Tifone

@ Aezeal

I just wanted to quote you on everything you said. USA on those things is really a strange country seen from Europe
Like, reading at NTJedi's post and seeing how Social Solidarity isn't a Constitutional duty...
Not to talk about their Creationism in science classes and that strange, old right to have guns everywhere....
And damn, I can't talk about the so called "pro-life" crew (like if the pro-choice are pro-death, lol) because we have some here too...
Hope the Democrats will change something ^^

Part of the problem with this country is that religion plays far too large a part in politics. Theoretically there's supposed to be this thing called seperation of church and state, but democrats and republicans both continue to ignore this where it concerns major issues, such as abortion. On the bright side, I think this will die down a bit in 30 or 40 years.

[thejeff]

Well the flat tax should first be tested in two small sections of America. Then any problems/imbalances can be identified and adjusted and gradually expand into the rest of America. I've heard the flat tax has worked terrific for the Russian government. The purpose of the flat tax is so when someone like Bill Gates earns 12.8 billion in a year he would pay a solid flat tax... even an 8% tax means 1 billion dallors. In my opinion the flat tax should gradually increase depending on income, thus the single mom would pay 1%.

So you're not actually for a flat tax, but a progressive marginally increasing tax. That's what "should gradually increase depending on income" is called.
You just want the tax code simplified and the deductions removed?

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

Government running healthcare is not the way to proceed. First the working class should not pay for the healthcare of those who are lazy and choose not to work. I could understand those who are temporarily out of work or disabled, but not those who choose to remain out of work despite no health problems....

I am always confused by these sorts of arguments.

First, under a properly administered national health scenario, everyone would contribute equally to the health-care costs of the nation. Think of it like insurance - you pay the premium, never knowing if you are someone you love will fall ill. The premium is less than the cost of the care that you might need, and everyone pays it so that those who do fall ill, do not suffer needlessly.

Secondly, why do fiscal conservatives insist on looking at "welfare" in the mold of what it is today? Our entire welfare system is completely broken. There are few rational people who are demanding that everyone be taken care of whether they contribute to society or not. Though, generally the compassionate among us would say that everyone should be taken care whether they can contribute to society or not, so as to not leave out the young, the elderly, and the chronically ill. At any rate, a functioning system would have programs that would employ "marginally functional" laborers, enforcing their minimal contribution to society, in return for a marginal living. So if someone wanted to be horribly lazy, they could get by on 15-20 hours of menial government labor, and would be given dorm style living and a small allowance.

If you want to look at that oddly controversial quote in a more rational light - "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability." - then you can see that perhaps in the context of our modern society, all a terribly lazy and amotivational slacker needs is a case of ramen and a little dorm room, because all they con contribute is a little bit of mindless drudge work. The point is not to take from the motivated to give to the leech, but rather to reach a balance between contribution and reward. The only point at which any real action needs to be taken, then, is if someone resists contributing enough to account for their bare minimal survival needs (a small room and crappy food), at which point they are put to work in places no one else wants to toil (scrubbing subway toilets, anyone?).

You can point at the throngs of homeless in America, and claim that they prove that I am wrong. However, I would argue that if you actually looked at these people, you would find that at least 99% of them fall into 2 categories - those who would gladly contribute but can't find work, and the mentally ill. So the former will work if we find something for them to do, and the latter need to be dealt with in some humane fashion, rather than condemning them to rot and fester in a dark alley, haunted by schizophrenic nightmares.


I'm just going to stop typing now. Hopefully I've made enough sense for this morning.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

First, under a properly administered national health scenario, everyone would contribute equally to the health-care costs of the nation.

Now see this is where the problem begins... the government has a proven history of problems spending our taxes and thus does not qualify for taking new responsibilities. If a college student is failing the majority of his classes you don't sign him up for another 4 credit class.

Originally Posted by thejeff

Secondly, why do fiscal conservatives insist on looking at "welfare" in the mold of what it is today?

Until our government can fix existing problems I don't have any faith in them controlling more of my life... such as healthcare. To blindly believe a huge government with many problems can run healthcare is like not buckling your seatbelt when the driver is heavily drunk... it's like asking for a trouble.

Originally Posted by thejeff

If you want to look at that oddly controversial quote in a more rational light - "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability." - then you can see that perhaps in the context of our modern society, all a terribly lazy and amotivational slacker needs is a case of ramen and a little dorm room, because all they con contribute is a little bit of mindless drudge work. The point is not to take from the motivated to give to the leech, but rather to reach a balance between contribution and reward. The only point at which any real action needs to be taken, then, is if someone resists contributing enough to account for their bare minimal survival needs (a small room and crappy food), at which point they are put to work in places no one else wants to toil (scrubbing subway toilets, anyone?).

Yes everyone should contribute to society when possible.

Originally Posted by thejeff

You can point at the throngs of homeless in America, and claim that they prove that I am wrong. However, I would argue that if you actually looked at these people, you would find that at least 99% of them fall into 2 categories - those who would gladly contribute but can't find work, and the mentally ill. So the former will work if we find something for them to do, and the latter need to be dealt with in some humane fashion, rather than condemning them to rot and fester in a dark alley, haunted by schizophrenic nightmares.

The mentally ill should be helped, the homeless have shelters and programs which are to get them back into being useful into society. I've done volunteer work at these locations and they are given opportunities for returning back into society and some make this progression. The problem is many choose to remain homeless because they don't want any responsibility(cleaning dishes & answering phones) or they have bad habits such as stealing, violence and leeching off others.
Universal healthcare also opens the door to all the drug addicts who would now get free insurance allowing them to fake pains at the hospital so they can receive a fix of free drugs. At least today they need to provide their own insurance before abusing this option.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

The mentally ill should be helped, the homeless have shelters and programs which are to get them back into being useful into society. I've done volunteer work at these locations and they are given opportunities for returning back into society and some make this progression. The problem is many choose to remain homeless because they don't want any responsibility(cleaning dishes & answering phones) or they have bad habits such as stealing, violence and leeching off others.
Universal healthcare also opens the door to all the drug addicts who would now get free insurance allowing them to fake pains at the hospital so they can receive a fix of free drugs. At least today they need to provide their own insurance before abusing this option.

The "shelters" are understaffed, and very limited in capabilities. Unfortunately, the majority of people who are helping the "needy" are also religious groups, that withhold most of their aid unless you enlist in their church. And still, very few if any of these "shelters" and other aid programs provide effective counseling to help reintegrate people into society. Many of them have been through traumatic events on their way to living in the streets, and more still experience traumatic events once there. It's kind of silly to postulate that they are actually just lazy or uncooperative, when many of them are scared, confused, conflicted, and deeply depressed - if not outright mentally ill. It is our society, and our economy that allow them to reach bottom, it is sort of our collective responsibility to help them up.

As far as people leeching off of a health care system, sure, people abuse organized systems all the time. I can imagine it's unlikely you have worked at a single place that did not have at least one employee who did not pull their weight. They were abusing their employment situation, earning the same wage as you while expending less effort. Did this mean that your employer in each case was incompetent, and should not be allowed to manage workers? Maybe it just meant that not enough care or attention was put into minimizing the abusability of the workplace, and/or disincentivizing the abuse itself?

We created these problems ourselves. We unleashed this monster of a "federal government" upon our prosperous land. 100 years ago, this was an entirely different world, with different needs, different concerns, and different ideals. 100 years later, everything has changed, but our government is still essentially the same.

A man whom I hold in high regard warned us to keep changing and improving our methods of governance, because he felt that ANY system, if left in place in any given incarnation for too long, would become abused beyond usefulness. He helped make our country, and he told us to keep changing it, to keep innovating - or we would allow ourselves to become burdened with self-interested bureaucrats and bankers.

The people who stand to lose power, will try to convince you that it is un-American to want to change our mode of governance, to want to become something greater than we already are - but in truth, it is the highest of American ideals that we have the ingenuity and the sense to form a more perfect union, each form more perfect than the last.

<3

[quantum_mechani]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

Government running healthcare is not the way to proceed. First the working class should not pay for the healthcare of those who are lazy and choose not to work. I could understand those who are temporarily out of work or disabled, but not those who choose to remain out of work despite no health problems....

All I can say is I am slightly boggled by this point of view. Is it really worth letting innocent but unlucky people go without health care just because a few people abuse the system? I mean, abuse of the system is unfortunate but a little more taxes won't kill anyone, as opposed to the alternative. And it's not like the vast majority of people that can't afford health care don't work, either.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by quantum_mechani

All I can say is I am slightly boggled by this point of view. Is it really worth letting innocent but unlucky people go without health care just because a few people abuse the system? I mean, abuse of the system is unfortunate but a little more taxes won't kill anyone, as opposed to the alternative. And it's not like the vast majority of people that can't afford health care don't work, either.

If you ever worked in a community health clinic you'd know it wasn't a few people. Its a never ending stream.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by quantum_mechani

All I can say is I am slightly boggled by this point of view. Is it really worth letting innocent but unlucky people go without health care just because a few people abuse the system? I mean, abuse of the system is unfortunate but a little more taxes won't kill anyone, as opposed to the alternative. And it's not like the vast majority of people that can't afford health care don't work, either.

It's not simple to understand, but the fastest explanation is we have to look at long term solutions and not the short term solutions. The united states is a huge country with millions of homeless and its not just the homeless that are currently without healthcare. A universal healthcare would not only be more costly, but it would introduce several new problems.

First and probably least important would be everyone paying higher taxes. As I've written before our government has problems with existing departments and giving them a new responsibility would only bring new problems.

Second our doctors would be changed to a fixed government income, currently many of the best doctors from Canada move to America because of much higher pay which is the result of competition from doctor offices and specialized treatment centers. What do you think will happen within the USA to doctors once they're told the government is now the source of their future fixed income. As mentioned in other forums they will be moving out of the country to setup their offices and treatment centers.

Third and quite serious would be massively longer waiting times when going to the hospitals and offices. Currently the waiting period is 3hours at the hospitals for Urgent Care, yet this will drastically increase. There's plenty of reports describing how Europeans travel to other countries for healthcare because the waiting times are unreasonably long. The next time I have a kidney stone I don't want to discover the average waiting time is now 24hours.

Fourth is the government will never release healthcare responsibility once started, because its another source for taking money from the people. This means IF the universal healthcare changes everyones healthcare into a nightmare we will be permanently stuck under government control. The people won't be able to say, "WAIT... change it back because I didn't expect X and Y to be one of the side effects."


I believe that someday... it's possible for our government to be wise enough and experienced enough to handle a great responsiblity such as universal healthcare. Without a doubt our government cannot handle such a responsibility today and it would be a mistake.

[Edratman]

Many well written and thought provoking posts in this thread. Thank you all. It is a demonstration, that this game appeals to a bright and intelligent set of gamers.

I believe that is a significent factor in the substantial lead Obama has in this very small poll. I am referring to the Republican party's demonizing of intellectuals and pandering to "Joe Six-Pack" as a new definiton of the line seperating loyal Americans and (I am not sure what we are in that definiton; terrorists, socialist, dis-loyal Americans?).

While I do think the line defining intellectuals would have to be lowered and blurred quite a bit to include me, I am for sure a well-read, open minded, thoughtful and learned chap who considers himself branded as outside the Republican definition of a true and loyal American.

And that bothers me beyond description. Primarily because I think of myself as someone with a foot on both sides of the line between blue-collar and white-collar. I was raised in a lower middle class, urban, ethnic family, attended college, not by choice but really because it was the dream of my parents and grandparents that my generation would go to college.

My career is in manufacturing management, but I am very pro-union and an out spoken critic of corporate abuse of the working man. My beverage of choice is beer and I am very capable with my hands. That pretty much sums up my adherence to the Democratic party.

But it appears to me that the Republicans realized that they needed traditional Democratic supporters to achieve a plurality and they concocted a plan to achieve this objective. Yet many components of this plan are divisive, hateful and demeaning to many of the people in the classification that they wished to appeal to. On the other hand, it was successful enough to seperate adequate numbers of voters from the herd to achieve their objective.

I personally felt alienated and demonized. So I am voting, not for Obama (I do think he will do a very fine job), but against the Republican hate machine. I would vote for a yellow dog if it was running against a Republican hate monger and I also hear the echoes on 1930's Germany in the Republican "message".