U.S. Presidential Election 2008

These quotes sound nice, but pragmatically speaking, it's a way to hide behind words. truth is, it's not an even playing field. People aren't alike, despite being entitled to the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, and should be offered help for their weaknesses, and asked for help amongst their strengths (one interpretation of this would be taxes for the rich/financially strong). As a result of the unique nature of us all, some people simply aren't personally responsible, some disabled even, some suffer from mental illnesses and don't even know it (for example). How are they expected to be personally responsible, or on an even playing field? How does the mentally ill man receive treatment when he can't even pay for a diagnosis? (Please don't get nitpicky about this simple illustrative example, that's not the point here.)

What you've said above I've also heard associated with the Republican set of values, but to me it seems like a convenient way to wash your hands of social problems, by saying well "personal responsibility... he shouldn't have allowed himself to get into that situation, and now I'm expected to help?!" Not exactly the mentality that I think makes for a good society, in my view. All the while, these people are stereotypically "the christians" (yes, I know there are other religions in the Rep party too, but in this case I specifically refer to the bible belt). Hardly Christian values.

True, social programs are often mismanaged and they can seem like a waste of money. But without them, without helping the poorest people, how can Americans ever expect to be able to call their country "A Great Nation"? To me, these are also just empty words without much to back it up. Oh my god, blasphemy. You can now arrest me, kill me, or call me unpatriotic, but please don't give it any thought as to whether the US isn't the greatest nation on earth.

Indeed there is and for the most part it does not affect whether or not a politician is fit to govern, which is why most countries over here in Europe ignore it unless a law has actually been broken. 15 years ago, the UK press and population had the same bizarre prurience about the sex lives of politicians but thankfully that seems to have passed now mostly.

I did not say we should get rid of safety nets. Modern society requires the children and those suffering have some sort of help.

As you point out, amazingly, people are not alike!! Some people run fast on the playing field, others just jog or walk. Some people are talented and other are not. We should not be made to handicap all people on the playing field just to make things even.

Edit: found link to Vonnegut's short story on equality

So it is the job of the government to take over if people are not personally responsible enough? Maybe Europeans really are sheep. Individualism has been a strong point in America for centuries. However, a democrat friend of mine expressed this similar idea: people are not generally smart enough to get by and the government must do the thinking for them. That seems crazy to me, but I have never claimed to be a Democrat/socialist/communist/other leftist. Joe everyman may realize he is not a rocket scientist, but he probably thinks he can get around on his own without gubberment telling him what to do.


Sleeping with a subordinate intern seems wrong, even if it is not illegal.

Lying about it under oath in a criminal trial is illegal and will get you disbarred if not indicted.

Sleeping with underage congressional pages is illegal.

Sleeping with a man then appointing him in charge of homeland security in NJ is unethical at best.

Cheating on your wife gives people an insight into your moral character. It is not illegal, but it may influence elections. In this case, it may be a negative for McCain if people see his divorce as cheating. Did he do the right thing by his first wife 30 years ago? By accounts, she is not angry with him, they are on decent terms. How many other divorced couples can say that?

in what way? Do you think that eeveryone who has an affair is immoral and unfit for political office? How strange.

Evaluating whether something is immoral or not is completely subjective, however having an affair shows weakness and lack of character.

And it can be difficult to gain favor from your base when your party supports "family values".

However, cheating on your spouse is often overlooked, accepted, or celebrated if your party does not have moral vitrtue as a party plank.

Immoral? Yes. Unfit for office? not automatically

It arguably tanked Giuliani from the get-go.


It was certainly part of JFK's appeal. It can even be a way to muscle your way onto the ballot as the long-suffering spouse!

@Jules

hmm I'm wondering which of the following people you see as having "weakness and lack of character":

Francois Mitterand
Thomas Jefferson
John F Kennedy
King Charles II

etc etc etc

Heh, maybe it's just me, but doesn't the media already do the thinking for most people, right now as it is? I would generally say finding good info in the US is tough as the whole place seems to be under a propaganda war of the news agencies. The "truth" is often constructed by media moguls, and what they choose to report. So we are swayed by campaign ads, documentaries from questionable sources (e.g. M.Moore), and so on.

Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "let the government do the thinking". Letting the "government do the thinking" to me would imply legislation. And if we go from here, making legislation is in my view necessary for issues such as climate change - make a law, and watch the companies change to accomodate the law. Let's face it - business is business. The goal is to find a way to make as much money as you can, usually as far as the law will allow. So businesses will first resist new laws, then adapt, and then see that there are markets they haven't before seen, seeing as they report to shareholders and are thus often risk averse. Look at the music industry - they didn't embrace the MP3 and are now just finally catching up. They ignored an untapped market whilst trying to preserve "the way it's always been done" (That's off topic, but for those interested... here )

And it's not fair to talk morality on the one hand, and less government on the other hand, because big businesses aren't obliged to behave "morally" and less government would only help big business run amok. In fact, big businesses often behave psychopathically (some TT'ers will cough at this, but on this topic the documentary "The Corporation" is rather thought-provoking.)


Cheating on your wife has to do with whether or not you are sexually satisfied. 30 years ago makes it even more irrelevant to how well a candidate could govern. By holding someone to something that happened 30 years ago implies you believe that people are incapable of learning, changing, and acquiring wisdom. (Which makes me then think that based on that implication, if McCain hasn't become president already, why should he now? )

Mitterand was a political genius, but a complete prick, as shown, among other things, by having an illegitimate child (!?). Then again, he showed "weakness and lack of character" in other instances in his life, such as his dodgy involvement with Vichy which was also swept under the rug. Naturally he was a socialist and therefore he has gotten a free pass on things which would have ruined others - I wouldn't want to go OT though...
Thomas Jefferson's contributions to political philosophy have been so great that they have outweighed his undoubtedly dubious personal behavior.
If JFK had not been assassinated, he would have gone down as a very mediocre president, regardless of his alleged chronic philandering.
I don't know enough about Charles II to comment.

Charles II was prodigious in his appetites for courtesans and maintained several mistresses (all with full public knowledge) thoughout a rein that was typefied by a substantial growth in the wealth, prestige and power of Britain and its emerging empire.

But at least you can make the choice on what media you listen to. CNN, Fox, preacher, KOS.

You generally can't change countries easily (at least in the US).


Yes, business typically must be regulated. But regulation of the people seems crazy to me.

Did I hear the French dictate your career / college major based on your testing? Here you must have a significant amount training / licensing to get a sailboat license. I must register at the Rathaus when I move.

Smaller federal governemnt = less laws and restrictions on your life.


You can not be sexually satisfied yet still remain faithful to your spouse. It is an indication of your sense of morality and dedication. Like McCain refusing to leave his Vietnam prison camp for early release. I can't imagine making that decision, I am a much weaker man.

Don't know about the French. Most modern countries have licenses for big objects that travel and could potentially kill/destroy. I think they function merely as an idiot filter. You don't *have* to register at the Rathaus, though you should. Never heard of police raids looking for Anmeldebestätigungen...

On Gov't - I beg to differ. Less laws perhaps, but how are they policed? America has the highest percentage of its population in jail, according to a UK Home Office research report. here

Jail is a significant restriction to my life!

Forgot about your insult of Christian values-

Some people think the community should pull together and help out the helpless. Churches and non-profits can do a lot of the social outreach, then the government can fill in the gaps with a safety net.

People can directly support causes dear to them by personal donation. Plus, they are not required by the government ot donate to their church of choice (which also seems odd).

Everyone has a different view of "good society". I personally think big federal government is too ineffective to manage large social programs that should be left to private, state, and local groups.

And on-topic (and humorous) BHO gallery of political cartoons.

Some registration/licensing is a good idea. But requiring all motorists to have driver's ed classes? I hear it costs thousands to get a license here. My dad took me out in a parking lot, then a new subdivision, then slow roads etc for free. Requireing weeks of instruction to sail a boat? Don't hit anyone, if you sink it you owe us, good luck...

It is about balance. And America is (usually) about freedom. Freedome to shoot yourself in the foot if you want.


Don't like jail, then don't break the laws.

I might concede some points on drug laws, since I have some Libertarian leanings. But that goes back to personal responsibility, which apparently some people don't believe in.

@gatzke

do you not have to have lessons and pass an exam before you get a drivers license in the USA? Really???!!!

I'm astounded if this is true

You have to pass a written test and a road test administered by a state police officer ... but how you prepare is up to you.

You can become a lawyer if you pass the bar exam regardless of whether you actually went to law school or not. I actually know a guy who did exactly this on a bet.

Convincing people that they're unqualified to teach their own children to drive in the automobile they're likely to be driving for the first few years is a very european concept.

Lessons are not required by law. They do have a written exam and driving exam, both of which can be completed in about half an hour (in most places).

Generally, 15 year olds get reduced ability (drive with parent, time limits) then you can get a full license at 16. You can get a permit without a driving test (just written), then go learn on your own, then take your driving test when you are 16.

Responsibility falls on the parents to make sure you can drive before you go out and crash or kill someone. In this case, it is not the responsibility of the government (Gasp!).

PS, I wish they gave Ameris a quick exam in Germany as a refresher on signage/differences. Initially I did not realize "right on red" was not universal. But unlike others, I accept personal responsibility for my actions.

is it?

I actually learnt with my Dad and a friend of his. Don't think there was a requirement for me to have a set number of lessons or anything but a general recommendation to at least do a practice test in advance.

With statements like this, I understand why black people might hesitate to vote republican. They don't usually enter this world with the same freedoms as the white man, and they have disproportionately high amounts of incarcerations, despite what laws were broken and by whom. I don't hope to turn this debate into one of race, but the republican viewpoint seems to me to be one that only considers "the status quo", which only serves to further marginalize the marginalized.

I believe taxes used for social programs (and healthcare) are a better way to help people that haven't occurred to you that you should help. Relying on churches or individuals to help (from a government point of view), is making a loose connection between church and state, and, in the land where you have to look out for number 1, donating probably won't be effective as getting money via taxes.

An illustratory example: The british monarchy costs the british taxpayer about €1 per year. I doubt they would receive that money if it had to be made by donation. Yet, since €1 is just €1 I think most people are fine with that ("I don't really give a feck about the queen, but whatever - one euro. Take it. Please give us a scandal for our troubles...")

That's the thing about taxes - you get used to them. You never see them (because they are automatically deducted). Lump sums are the things you have to save for, and "personal responsibility" (to save money for these lump sums - doctor's bills included) is not everyone's strong suit. And even if it were, you never know when that rainy day is gonna come along (accident requiring medical attention) and wash away your vacation fund. So from a certain point of view, what I am saying enables one to have more freedom. It also enables a more even playing field.

I think Americans (or just Reps?) are so opposed to taxes because they are portrayed as bad in the same way that socialism somehow got equated to communism... EVIL

The whole place was founded by religious wackos, gun nuts and people who just got sick and tired of having to pay taxes to the kings, queens and jacks back in Europe without feeling they were getting anything in return but exploited. Imagine this becoming ingrained in the culture ... shocking!

Self responsibility, like organized religion, used to be a european trait as well until people were taught that they couldn't think for themselves and simply had to start sending everything they make before July of every year to the "experts". Dependence is taught rather than learned. Mostly, the aversion to taxes goes back to a deep-set US settler/frontier view that if you give a man a fish he'll eat for a day, but if you teach a man to fish he'll feed himself for a lifetime ... and even more that one isn't entitled to a middle-class life just for showing up. Europe wants a medieval craft guild-style infrastructure of professional fisherman and a bureaucracy of fish regulators and distributors, and a very different sense of "entitlement" (often depressingly ethnicaly or racially-based). They are two fundamentally different world views.

Socialism: Your cows are cared for by former chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs the regulations say you should need.

US capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.


That's the whole thing in a nutshell ... you either believe that you're your brother's keeper or not. The sympathy drops when the recipient of the first six months of one's working year wages is sitting watching a flat panel TV drinking beer in a nicer apartment than most people in big cities have while you're slaving away on the job.

What is the all time TT record for the number of posts for a single thread? Just curious.

I, for one think this one should be closed already. Let's just call the election a tie. McLame can have the White house on weekends and alternate Tuesdays and Osama gets it during the week. However, the silverware will be counted regularly and the Lincoln bed room is off limits to Barbara Streisand. All in agreement say "I".

Just remember, you can't milk a bull!

No ... but if you're willing to scrimp and save through those first start-up years, your chances of having a herd of cows at the end are clearly a lot better than sticking with the two-cow business model!

You have my vote. I say 'I'

Yeah, and the dude who has neither cow nor bull sells rock on the corner. That's American capitalism today.

Hey, rocks can be commodities too. Let's think a little outside the box, o.k.?

Now, is it "I" or "Nay" on my previous question?

I. We're talking about cows, crack and Barbara Streisand. SHUT IT DOWN.

What freedoms are prohibited by law for black people in the US?

Maybe more black people are in jail because they commit more crime? Maybe the commit more crime because they are economically depressed. Maybe they economically depressed because they commit more crimes? So the solution is throw money at the problem to break the cycle? I doubt it.


I still remember the first time I ever met someone that wanted more taxes. Shocking to me.

And you obviously don't understand separation of church and state. There is way more connection in Germany than the US (mandatory tithing?)

And you have no clue about charitable giving in the US. We give more than anyone, both total and as percent of GDP. You are clueless, I can't believe I am replying to this tripe.


Does that include costs of lost tax income? I doubt it.


We do have safety nets in the states, but you are not guaranteed free healthcare, much less a vacation fund.

How exactly do more taxes give you more freedom? Or even the playing field? That is idiotic. You must be screwing with me, nobody is that inane.


So please explain to me the difference between socialism and communism, nobody will do this for me. Communism = total control of economy by govt, socialism = not quite total control.???

@gatzke Getting a little wound up apparently... Anyway,


It's quite something to label my opinions as inane, when you write the above in the exact same post. In one of the previous links I posted, I quote:


On paper, they are missing out on no rights and freedoms. In practice however, come on, be pragmatic. Like I said, it's convenient for Republican minded people to find "quick solutions" to complex problems, and wash their hands of it, rather than to look deeper and find more than a superficial cause/solution. I suppose you think that violent video games cause violent crime. But sorry, I don't want this to turn into a classic american mud-slinging fight, because that's a) counter-productive, and b ) not very sophisticated.


No, I don't. I'm not American. Sorry to disappoint you, but it's a bit out of order to fling insults because I'm not american. It's like me asking you to tell me what the capital city of Nova Scotia is. "What do you mean you don't know you dumb redneck fuck?!" Not helpful.


Please take it easy. Anecdotal example:

- You plan a holiday, you save for months
- Holiday around the corner, can't wait to unwind and enjoy the beach/whatever
- 2 weeks before, daughter falls out of tree, breaks collarbone.
- "Oh shit, how do I pay for the medical bills?" "Honey, I guess we could cancel our vacation..."
- Vacation money gone. used to pay bills.
- Freedom to take holiday gone, no money for freedom.
- "Wouldn't this have been better if healthcare were free? Then our holiday money would still be there. Man, I'd pay more taxes for that."

Be practical - most people live to within their means, so if you deducted money via taxes, for various programs (health, social, etc), people would get used to it, since most people (google it) live to their means, if not a bit beyond.

It levels the playing field because there would be an infrastructure available to everyone, regardless of socio-economic class. I don't understand how you didn't get that before, but ok.

The fact of the matter is, the way you are writing, it would seem you can only see in a narrow field in front of you. The world has a lot of diversity in it, the question is, do you vote on the basis of "what is good for me and only me", or do you vote in a "what would i like to see happen in this country, regardless of me"? I find Republicans in the US, and conservatives in Canada tend to be like minded, which is to conveniently ignore the marginalized people of society, then try to claim they have the best country in the world.


Well, it's certainly not like the propaganda videos shown at various points throughout the cold war!! In a modern, pop culture sense, socialist-leaning thought basically means everyone puts in their part for the betterment of society as a whole. Simply put, taxes for social infrastructure. Taxes for (good) safety nets. Knowing that if the shit hits the fan, the result won't be THAT bad. He's a crap source of documentaries, but some of the stories that M.Moore has presented about people's problems show people things about the way America works that makes you go "Wow". I'm not supporting his films and the WAY he presents his argument, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - some of the things shown (unless the everyday americans interviewed were all actors...) are quite thought provoking.

Okay let's take a look at your anecdote:

- You plan a holiday, you save for months
- Holiday around the corner, can't wait to unwind and enjoy the beach/whatever
- 2 weeks before, daughter falls out of tree, breaks collarbone.
- "Oh shit, how do I pay for the medical bills?" "Honey, I guess we could cancel our vacation..."
- What are you crazy, we have health insurance which takes care of things like this!

- Vacation money still there.
- Freedom to take holiday exercised (wild monkey sex on a Mexican Beach also exercised)
- Good thingwe don't have to pay 50 % of what we earn in taxes so we can afford to both save for a vacation and buy health insurance (or not, it's our choice!)

(Personal responsibility means ensuring you prepare and plan for events which may occur in your life, rather than relying on someone else to manage things for you)

...

Ah yes, and we know how well people take personal responsibility. That is just going to work out so well and everybody will live happily ever after.

Thanks for the link- I was trying to find statistics on the US's charitable giving, but couldn't find the articles I had previously read.

Note how when tax rates go down, people choose to donate some of their extra funds to charities and organizations they feel are important, rather than the government taking their money and using it to inefficiently fund corrupt programs.


Accidents happen. Why should the money I earn be taken away by the government because a girl fell after stupidly climbing a tree, hurt herself, and the family still wants to go on vacation? And before you say it's not the best example and I'm reading too much into it, the fact is I'm paying for another family's vacation. How is that fair? I want to be able to control how I spend the money I worked hard to earn.

Sanwald's argument is the other side of the rebuttal. Essentially, people should have the freedom to make their own choices and demonstrate personal responsibility. They don't need the government to undermine their intelligence.

And Americans don't get used to paying high taxes. If we did, then we'd still be paying the highest tax rates from the 1970s.

So people can not be held accountable for their choices?

I have no problem subsidizing low income families so they are not thrown out in the cold. I dont think children should suffer completely in education and health care because their parents are fuckups.

If you could have afforded health insurance but chose not to, it shouldn't be societies job to bail your dumb ass out.

Well, you appear to be doing a good job of it, I'm not doing so bad either. What's wrong with expecting others to step up?

edit:that's for eurvol.

So this pre-existing condition stuff really doesn't happen that often? Why should a person be denied treatment at all? Because you were sick before, we can't help you now from becoming sicker.

I just think privatized health care as a title, indicates already how it's not in the best interest of people. Let's derive profit models from dealing with the treatment of sick people? That to me is morbidly sick. My company "succeeds" when I can avoid treating a client. That's what sounds f*cked up about healthcare. I guess you guys are used to it, so it doesn't sound so completely insane like it does to many canadians, brits, french, maybe even germans.

but anyway, the republicans here have clarified alot of what it means to think republican. As such, I could never vote that way. The mentality just seems very selfish, and it's easy to be a republican when you are on the upper half of the socio-economic ladder, but to me it's just asking for people to get left behind. Perhaps that's the appeal of the American dream - free to do anything. Sink or swim. Dog eat dog, and so on.

Finally you get it. There is no right to a vacation, you are free to make your own decisions.

Anyone has the potential to do anything or become anything. The deck may be stacked against you, but the potential exists for you to come out on top.

Remember, we do have safety nets and limitations that will save you from sinking to the bottom or being eaten by the dogs.

You are free to go to school to get a good job. Or work three jobs to get ahead. Or work three jobs so your kids can get ahead.

You are free to buy health insurance. If you can't buy it, the safety nets kick in. The US pays for healthcare for the poor. The hospitals cannot refuse you treatment for emergency care (even for illegal aliens). There are free clinics. If you roll the dice and decide to not have healthcare, you are free to lose your vacation fund.

It still boils down to setting limits. Who is really poor and deserves to be in the safety net? Can a person be too rich so that we must take away their wealth through progressive rates, inheritance taxes, double taxation of dividends?

BHO wants to take money away from successful people and redistribute it to those in "need". Sounds like a very socialist agenda, and the US typically has stayed away from far-left leanings in the past. Maybe today is a new day?

The problem with your scenario is that you assume everyone has the ability to pay the exorbatent medical bills THAT ARE NOT COVERED by health insurance, regardless of premiums payed. The biggest problems in the US families face other than being unisured ... is being UNDERinsured. The statement that I bolded assumes that no matter what, insurance will pay for it. Not the case, and certainly not reality. I find it interesting that you think most of America gets payed enough to 'save for unexpected events' .. especially since even minimum wage jobs allow you to just get by. Please don't go into the Church and charity thing, lord knows there are not enough resources to handle the demand.

I got it before, I just don't understand how Americans can stand together and say "God bless America", or "America is the greatest nation on earth", because it would seem the only people who could say that are the ones who started with a good deck, or succeeded when the deck was stacked against them. How many black people are inclined to say that? If you're black, you had better be a good athlete, a good singer, or a funny muddafugga. Outside of that, the chances to "integrate" into "white society" don't look too good.

It really is about the individual then. That's what you're saying, right? That's a bit anti-social. No wonder the US cooperates with the UN whenever it feels like.

There's another typical misunderstanding from an American. What most other developed western nations have, you have called "far-left leaning". Dude, healthcare. That's not far left. That's not socialist. There's that whole "socialism = communism = therefore BAD" vibe again.

Help your neighbour. Does that sound bad? Help the neighbour you don't know, because the abstract form of neighbour means fellow human being.

I just find that Republican thinking tends to be christian far-right in many cases, which are help the ones of your flock, but those other people can burn in hell. Otherwise, I don't see why Republicans wouldn't want some more reform in the area of social policies (be it healthcare, or whatever).

But anyway, there are a variety of viewpoints amongst the 300m Americans, which still makes me think it's rather strange to have only 2 major parties and non-representative voting. Another time, another topic perhaps.

I would agree that everyone has the potential, I would disagree that that potential is nurtured equally across the board for everyone. Starting from kindergarden ... basic discrepancies exist. If this was not the case, every American would have their 40 acres and mule. Realistically speaking, that's not true now is it. Some have and most don't.

The Rep mantra seems to be that everyone who doesn't have should manage life on the basis of 3 or 4 jobs, just to pay rent in a fairly decent neighborhood, forgo health insurance, eat from a food pantry if you cannot afford it otherwise, and go to Church, because it's all about traditional family values.

Just to clearify, Obama has only proposed increasing capital gains tax on the extremely wealthy (about 1% of the population) and provide tax relief for the middle class. I hardly think taxing the trillionaires (who have enjoyed years of low/no taxes under Bush - and would continue as such under McCain) of the Nation will make much of an effect on the average joe in terms of following any socialist agenda.

So while I can understand your view, your take of the other side is not so accurate.

So your answer to help these minimum wage earners who are barely getting by iis to increase their Tax burden? I don't get the math here, if the Government takes more in Taxes from them (to finance this healthcare scheme which they can't afford now but will somehow be forced to afford by the government), then they will have less to live on each month, how will they then get ahead? or even maintain where they are now?

Wait, I get it, those with more money will simply pay more to make up for those earning less. Why work to improve your situation in life, the others will carry you.

America has one of the worst-value health systems in the world - you spend a great deal more (paid for by insurance) than you would if you embraced a little socialism. For services where consumers have little ability to disciminate sensibly between offerings (how much extra should you pay for a better surgeon than a good surgeon?) and have a provably poor record in estimating their own likely future costs (how much insurance should I pay based on estimate of future costs) then paying taxes to the goverment and letting them negotiate with the health care providers makes a lot of economical and practical sense.

Edit:After a little reading to refesh my memory - the overhead costs of a fragmented health care scheme are enormous. For instance, you spend something like 31% (according to wikipedia) of your health dollars on administrivia, twice what Canada pays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States)

The problem I see with the GOP is that their claim to 'no new taxes' is what got America in this mess. Sure, they won't tax, they'll just divert funds and deplete them..oh, and add to already ballooned National debt. Americans are kinda crazy you know, they want a lot of services and don't want to pay for it. I read somewhere that Europeans hear of a tax increase and think, 'I'll be getting more for my money'.. Changing the perception of taxes is in order, don't you think?

America will never know universal healthcare the way and type it is practiced in Europe. However, that does not mean that Americans should not have basic health services guaranteed under the Federal gov't and through employer-based plans.

Here's an idea thou to answer that minimum wage concern, why doesn't the Federal government actually provide a living wage increase?

I get it again! Now I'm too stupid to choose my own coverage so I should simply give the government my money and let them figure it all out for me, especially since governments are universally known for their economic sense and practicality. That arrogance is just one of the aspects of socialism that confounds me.

Here's something I don't understand about these socialized medical plans, why is it that those who have more pay more, but those that use more don't?

Why don't people make life choices that will enable them to get a job above the minimum wage level?

Plans are income based...one of the reason why it kills me when I hear people saying 'why don't they just get on Medicaid' .. medicaid only serves (for example) one person earning less than 10,000 a year approx. Only the poorest of the poor are eligible ... so what about everyone else?

Ayn Rand, is that you?

Do you know why that's true? Because it's been the Democratic Party model since Roosevelt's New Deal: increase the number of Americans paying little or no taxes, and institute huge government programs that provide a cushion to those who don't see 20-40% of the pay check deducted every month. Where's the incentive to earn money and get out of the government programs?

Why don't we all live in a perfect world? Utopia is heaven.
Reality dictates that America doesn't treat everyone equally.
Why does that seem to be okay with you?