Quote:
Quote by: xyzer  Hey techno, who pays the bills for the national healthcare program(which we really don't need)? Who gives up income as the Bush taxcuts are rescinded? Are you a taxpayer or are you a freeloader? McCain isn't the best but he might at least be a check against the runaway socialism espoused by both Democrats?
What real change do you think Hillary is going to make in the Legislative agenda? A Democrat President amidst a Democrat Congress can cost us tax payers our shirts, maybe even our socks?
Who will carry the hankies, and white feathers into the international war against terrorism? Who will pay for losing "face" internationally if we abruptly give up in Iraq before the terrorist tide is turned? Should we wave like a flag in the breezes with every foreign expression of disfavor and bow before some weird sort of foreign disapproval? Is our foreign policy in our own interests or is it in the interests of some forein dicatator? Just what is this "change" that Clinton and Obama promise? Have either defined it? Who confronts the environmental lobby and allows research and development of new and cheaper domestic oil sources?
Who will seriously address the illegal immigrant problem? Not Hillary or Barack I fear.  |
National Health Care. It simpley means that health care insurance will be affordable for everyone without a reduction in the quality of coverage.
Therefore people will be buying that insurance based on income and so forth, the math is that you have millions paying into the insurance and a far less amount of people needing health care and so the you get a balance. The main difference between the governmental plan and totally private insurance is that the gov one does not need to make a hugh profit and can operate more of less as a non-profit idenity, to reduce the middle-man costs (as a non-profit indentity) which we now pay for, ( both insurance and medical care as needed ).
Paying for it does not mean we must raise taxes as Republicans try to misslead people into thinking. Any extra money needed would be paid for by taxes but the budget would be reconstructed as well as the way taxes are collected to balance things out. By removing the loopholes so that the wealthy people pay their fair share of taxes instead of it all being paid for by the middle and lower income groups would solve the problem without any new taxes being added to fund that program, plus we would be reducing the amount of budget money now used to fight the war in Iraq so that it can be used for domestic things like health care which is more useful for Americans here at home. Bottom line, this is about creating a new national budget that is affordable as well as making taxes fair for everyone who must pay their fair share under law. Using a standard that we all pay taxes based on our total income.
The Republicans under Bush mandated thousands of new governmental jobs and so you cannot blame things on runnaway socialism, otherwise we would not have education and other things so deeply underfunded.
The only way to reduce socialism is to let everything go to pot, to allow for a poor education system, a poor interstucture for transportation needs (highways, etc.), a miss-managed system for affordable energy power, and a spread in poverty that would turn our nation into a 3rd world country, not to mention a non-abilty to control the spread of diseases here. ( a very short list ). A reduction in emergency rescue and fire departments, police, national parks, and so forth.
The war on terrorism is made worse by the Bush war on Saddam (which war reached it's goal a long time ago), or mission is to capture or to kill the actural individuals responsible for 9-11. Common belief is they are in an area close to or within Afganistan. Bin Laden outfoxed Bush by pretending he is fighting us in Iraq so that we will concentrate on that country as a distraction form concentrating our efforts on flushing him out where he is located, far away from Irag. Our military is stupid if they would fall for that deception (oldest trick in the book). Our other effort is about intelligence collecting to prevent any plots that might be directed at our homeland soil.
The war and the occupation of Iraq is not favored by most all of the democratic governments of the world, this has nothing to do with dictators. It was not favored by the U.N. from the get-go. It is not even favored by the Pope who has influence in many "free" countries around the globe. To think otherwise only means you are out of touch with the rest of the world. We should not use our miltiary to become the dictators of the world. That gives our Commander and Chief way too much power. We must get over this "one person rulership idea" and take a more humble seat among the people of our nation and the world.
The change recomended by Hillary Clinton who was the first to set the the agenda for the Democratic platform for change is about changing how we deal with the terrorist problem, our occupation of Irag, and how we deal with domestic problems such as the downturn in the economy, as well as trade agreements. Plus a change so that the government gets more in touch with what voters are saying rather then "going it alone" within a small circle of people in the White House staff. The change is about making things better instead of the current trends where things are getting worse. Obama agrees in large part with the Hillary plan and has grabbed ahold of her shirtails but is attempting to suggest he is the better person, with better judgement, to put into effect the Hillary perspective. He is a smart cookie and knows the plan well, but has the disadvantage of miss-speaking and is trying to overcome his lack of communicating his ideas clearly.
Who confronts the oil lobby so that we can have a decent environment to live in?
The developement of domestic oil and to make that source productive will cost three times as much as buying cheaper oil from other countries, due to union wages and so forth. It would take about 20 years to do that and then the supply would only last for about 40 to 60 years tops, and then we would be dry. It would be wiser to wait until everyone else goes dry and then we would have the last of the un-tapped resources. Meanwhile we can develope bio-fuels and other alternative energies which would also create thousands of new jobs to boost our local ecnomony. That would also reward us with cleaner air, and less polluted soil and water.