Your belief that humans are inherently evil and that the people need a government to protect one another from everyone's evil is a cornerstone of socialist systems. Conservatives believe that most people are inherently good and that big government is evil. We believe that a government that forcibly redistributes income under the treat of imprisonment and breeds dependency among large numbers of its citizens in exchange for their votes is fundamentally a negative force in society.

 

People do good deeds without being coerced. Nobody made the Carnegies, Rockefellers, Fords, Vanderbilts, and other well known philanthropists set up large charitable trusts. Those wealthy philanthropists, who politicians of today would demonize in the name of class warfare, were great Americans who achieved greatness because of the individual liberty that this nation allowed them to keep.

 

Rags to riches stories used to be associated with our country. Now, such stories are increasingly likely to come from China or some other country having only recently embraced the capitalism that Democrats (and, sadly too many Republicans) disparage on a regular basis.

 

Socialist programs aimed at controlling human behavior have chased jobs from our shores, but if voter turnout for Hillary and Obama are any indication, Democrats believe that we still enjoy too much freedom. We still enjoy the freedom to leave, and today's Carnegies and Fords are looking elsewhere first for the next great investment opportunity. The jobs are following their money.

 

I do not think people are inherently evil but I do think many people will take advantage of power. Why do I think this? look at history?

Monarchies - raised taxes & took advantage of people

totalitarian gov't - took advantage of people

democracies were a step to let the people rule so the advantage of power was shifted to everyone

 

I do not think that business is bad or people are bad but there are bad people and some that will abuse power. In this instance, there power needs to be checked. Our gov't is founded on this system. Its called the 3 branches of gov't & checks and balances.

 

Jobs have left b/c of regulations. Regulations like minimum wages, safety conditions, EPA, etc. Companies leave b/c they can go to other countries & not have to deal with these regulations & make more money. could they make $ here, sure but htey make more in other places but they also do not provide the same quality of conditions for their workers.

So, I feel government is here for everyone & we're in it together. To make sure things are as good as possible for everyone, not just Bill Gates. t!

 

Lets take Bill Gates out of the equation since he's so far out of the norm of "rich folk."

 

You'll agree that many of the "rich" got that way through starting their own businesses, right? They took a chance despite the high failure rate of start-ups. Most people in this country are employed by privately owned businesses, correct?

 

Are you saying that these "rich" business owners who used their own capital to get started and who ulimately employ America would simply hoard any tax savings that resulted from a tax cut? If you subscribe to the theory that the rich are looking out for themselves would it NOT make sense then that they would use those extra dollars to put back into their business in order to make MORE jack? How would they make that jack? They would need extra output which probably means both buying other companies' products (made by your neighbor) and by hiring more of your neighbors to produce the goods.

 

Is that a bad thing?

I would not have one single problem, if they overturned Roe v. Wade but the main point to me is that over the past 30 years under Republican or Democrat control they have did nothing. During Bush's first 6 years when we had a Republican president, Republican Senate and Republican house. When no bill was vetoed by GW. During that time period & others in the past that were the same, was there an Amendment or bill that was written, approved & sent to the President?? I do understand your position, but I am not going to base my vote on a topic that politicians both Democrat (do not have to do anything since the Supreme Court has ruled) and Republicans (could have an amendment & have majority conservative Supreme Court) do not deme necessary unless there is an election at stake. IMO, Republicans play to voters like you, to get your vote on one issue but will do nothing for 3 years, then bring this topic back up.

 

You are mistaken. In the 90's, the Republicans passed a partial birth abortion ban. The Clinton administration vetoed it. When GW was in office, the Republicans passed it again and GW signed it into law. It was upheld by the courts.

 

To overturn Roe v Wade, two things have to occur. Constitutional Amendment or a different Supreme Court decision. A change in the setup of the Supreme Court is leading to the possibility of the latter.

 

This subject is not as easily handled as simply passing a law as the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade saw to that.

Lets take Bill Gates out of the equation since he's so far out of the norm of "rich folk."

 

You'll agree that many of the "rich" got that way through starting their own businesses, right? They took a chance despite the high failure rate of start-ups. Most people in this country are employed by privately owned businesses, correct?

 

Are you saying that these "rich" business owners who used their own capital to get started and who ulimately employ America would simply hoard any tax savings that resulted from a tax cut? If you subscribe to the theory that the rich are looking out for themselves would it NOT make sense then that they would use those extra dollars to put back into their business in order to make MORE jack? How would they make that jack? They would need extra output which probably means both buying other companies' products (made by your neighbor) and by hiring more of your neighbors to produce the goods.

 

Is that a bad thing?

 

I don't think a lot of people would agree with the bolded. They see Paris Hilton types that did nothing to get there. They see all the athletes who are rich by playing a child's game. They see grossly overpaid actors and such. And then add in the corporate/CEO, think Ken Lay, types that are seen as lining their pockets at the expense of workers and consumers.

How do you achieve "universal healthcare" without a government mandate? You can't make everybody pay into the system unless you force them.

 

Also, if you don't have health insurance and you get sick aren't you responsible for paying the bill today? Everytime somebody in my family went to the hospital I received a bill. Insurance covered most of the charges but I was responsible for the rest. If I didn't have insurance I am quite certain that the hospital would have sent a bill for the full amount. How would someone be "penalized" more than they are "penalized" today?

 

Also, to be "scamming" the system implies you had the money for insurance today but decided against getting it. However, that implies that should have the money to pay the medical bills today and as I stated above, I am quite certain the doctor or hospital will be sending you a bill. So how have you "scammed" the system? Finally, if you can't afford the medical bills today then you probably couldn't have afforded the insurance under the new system.

 

Every recent healthcare proposal I have seen is nothing more than a new tax on young adults disguised as a social program.

 

You are right, I have been completely mislead. You have corrected me. Our economy is in great condition. Our healthcare system is PERFECT. Our government is tip top. Our education system & NCLB is the best in the world. Retirement programs and social security are terrible ideas b/c they are socialist programs and I plan to work until I die & if I can't work, we'll that my fault and I'll just starve.

 

Listen, many talk of problems or have concerns. Some of my ideas or others may not be the best but instead of not doing anything, I am for making necessary changes or modifications for a broken system, law or program.

 

Obama's stated that he wants to try to make insurance available for anyone that can afford it without mandating it. This is a philosophy that I completely support. In the greatest country in the world, over 45,000,000 people should not be uninsured.

You are right, I have been completely mislead. You have corrected me. Our economy is in great condition. Our healthcare system is PERFECT. Our government is tip top. Our education system & NCLB is the best in the world. Retirement programs and social security are terrible ideas b/c they are socialist programs and I plan to work until I die & if I can't work, we'll that my fault and I'll just starve.

 

Listen, many talk of problems or have concerns. Some of my ideas or others may not be the best but instead of not doing anything, I am for making necessary changes or modifications for a broken system, law or program.

 

Obama's stated that he wants to try to make insurance available for anyone that can afford it without mandating it. This is a philosophy that I completely support. In the greatest country in the world, over 45,000,000 people should not be uninsured.

 

That is a sad number. And the saddest part of that, a good portion of them brought it on themselves by not taking their education important and preparing themselves for what it takes to have things in life.

 

Kids leave school everyday dropping out because they don't need no stoopid education and their parents just sign them out. And then 10 years later they are going on and on about not having this and not having that, when they are in the position they are in because of their own accord.

 

NOT ALL get there that way but a good number do.

 

I think it is important to designate that there is truly needed and that is trying who should be helped. I am not sure about the others that are there of their own accord.

 

My faith and my worldly view bash heads here.

That is a sad number. And the saddest part of that, a good portion of them brought it on themselves by not taking their education important and preparing themselves for what it takes to have things in life.

 

Kids leave school everyday dropping out because they don't need no stoopid education and their parents just sign them out. And then 10 years later they are going on and on about not having this and not having that, when they are in the position they are in because of their own accord.

 

NOT ALL get there that way but a good number do.

 

I think it is important to designate that there is truly needed and that is trying who should be helped. I am not sure about the others that are there of their own accord.

 

My faith and my worldly view bash heads here.

 

Agreed but while these may not take their education seriously, many also dont have the support of good parental figures. While many can overcome this, it is very hard to come from nothing when all you hear negatives from the people that should care more about you.

 

some other examples:

your more like to smoke, drink, abuse drugs, abuse children, abuse spouse, join the same politcal party, etc as your parents. While these children do have a choice, it is sometimes very hard for a 13, 14, 15, 16 year old to take the steps to change their path b/c there is a lack of support.

 

I am not making excuses but many do not have the same privileges that you and I have and have had.

Agreed but while these may not take their education seriously, many also dont have the support of good parental figures. While many can overcome this, it is very hard to come from nothing when all you hear negatives from the people that should care more about you.

 

some other examples:

your more like to smoke, drink, abuse drugs, abuse children, abuse spouse, join the same politcal party, etc as your parents. While these children do have a choice, it is sometimes very hard for a 13, 14, 15, 16 year old to take the steps to change their path b/c there is a lack of support.

 

I am not making excuses but many do not have the same privileges that you and I have and have had.

 

:thumb: On this 100% agreement with you.

I cannot support any candidate that thinks it is acceptable for this country to allow the taking of unborn babies lives.

 

And to make matters worse he did not stand up and say no when the matter was being debated on whether a baby should be allowed to receive medical treatment if it survives an abortion attempt.

 

If a candidate cannot stand to defend the most innocent and defenseless of us, they don't deserve my vote.

 

If Obama would be pro-life, he would probably get my vote. As it is, he is not and he won't.

 

Do you agree with his social policies other than abortion?

That is a sad number. And the saddest part of that, a good portion of them brought it on themselves by not taking their education important and preparing themselves for what it takes to have things in life.

 

Kids leave school everyday dropping out because they don't need no stoopid education and their parents just sign them out. And then 10 years later they are going on and on about not having this and not having that, when they are in the position they are in because of their own accord.

 

NOT ALL get there that way but a good number do.

 

I think it is important to designate that there is truly needed and that is trying who should be helped. I am not sure about the others that are there of their own accord.

 

My faith and my worldly view bash heads here.

 

Agreed but while these may not take their education seriously, many also dont have the support of good parental figures. While many can overcome this, it is very hard to come from nothing when all you hear negatives from the people that should care more about you.

 

some other examples:

your more like to smoke, drink, abuse drugs, abuse children, abuse spouse, join the same politcal party, etc as your parents. While these children do have a choice, it is sometimes very hard for a 13, 14, 15, 16 year old to take the steps to change their path b/c there is a lack of support.

 

I am not making excuses but many do not have the same privileges that you and I have and have had.

 

This is more of a continuation of your dialogue...and I think that you will be on board with this.

 

What about the children of those that have made choices not to support themselves? Since it is of no fault to the child, most support health and financial services for these kids. I don't think that anyone wants a 1 year old infant dying because her parents are drug addicts and wouldn't pay for her healthcare.

 

However, when does it end? The moment they turn 18? When they graduate high school? In my position as a teacher, I am supposed to understand and make allowance for children in poverty (heck, I should understand...I was one myself!). However, the same people that want me to help them as students are the first ones to bash adults that do not take responsibilty for themselves. This is incredulous to me. Treat them with special kindness when they are students, but bash them when, as adults, they continue to expect handouts and exceptions.

You are right, I have been completely mislead. You have corrected me. Our economy is in great condition. Our healthcare system is PERFECT. Our government is tip top. Our education system & NCLB is the best in the world. Retirement programs and social security are terrible ideas b/c they are socialist programs and I plan to work until I die & if I can't work, we'll that my fault and I'll just starve.

 

Listen, many talk of problems or have concerns. Some of my ideas or others may not be the best but instead of not doing anything, I am for making necessary changes or modifications for a broken system, law or program.

 

Obama's stated that he wants to try to make insurance available for anyone that can afford it without mandating it. This is a philosophy that I completely support. In the greatest country in the world, over 45,000,000 people should not be uninsured.

 

 

How do you propose he make insurance affordable?

Are you saying that these "rich" business owners who used their own capital to get started and who ulimately employ America would simply hoard any tax savings that resulted from a tax cut? If you subscribe to the theory that the rich are looking out for themselves would it NOT make sense then that they would use those extra dollars to put back into their business in order to make MORE jack? How would they make that jack? They would need extra output which probably means both buying other companies' products (made by your neighbor) and by hiring more of your neighbors to produce the goods.

 

Ahh, and don't forget that those people who started their own businesses take risks with new innovations and products, which helps keep the standard of living for the American "poor" exponentially better than anywhere else in the world.

How do you propose he make insurance affordable?

 

One of the philosophical differences is to work on preventive care instead of corrective care. Also, insurance companies really help but the thought of "pre-existing conditions" are very vague.

 

There are also things like this that are touchy but need to be address. You have the right to smoke but if you smoke, you have a higher chance & risk of getting cancer. If you get cancer, then you care will cost quite a bit. Those costs will also affect others & there premiums, etc. There are also people like my nephew who got cancer when he was 7. I dont know how he got it but he did. There isnt always a sure sign to what happened.

 

I personally dont have all the answer but i'm sure a progressive leader like Obama and 535 Congress people plus the experts of the United States can find more answers than myself. I want them to do that. I dont want them to be complacent like many people (in the world & on here) that are okay with the things as is.

Ahh, and don't forget that those people who started their own businesses take risks with new innovations and products, which helps keep the standard of living for the American "poor" exponentially better than anywhere else in the world.

 

These arguments & discussions are philosophical differences between Republican and Democrat; between left and right; between liberal and conservative.

One of the philosophical differences is to work on preventive care instead of corrective care. Also, insurance companies really help but the thought of "pre-existing conditions" are very vague.

 

There are also things like this that are touchy but need to be address. You have the right to smoke but if you smoke, you have a higher chance & risk of getting cancer. If you get cancer, then you care will cost quite a bit. Those costs will also affect others & there premiums, etc. There are also people like my nephew who got cancer when he was 7. I dont know how he got it but he did. There isnt always a sure sign to what happened.

 

I personally dont have all the answer but i'm sure a progressive leader like Obama and 535 Congress people plus the experts of the United States can find more answers than myself. I want them to do that. I dont want them to be complacent like many people (in the world & on here) that are okay with the things as is.

 

So he hasn't said how he is going to try to make it affordable?