Official 2004 Presidential Election Topic

[Juliet]

Bah, go eat a crumpet... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Prince Toad]

It's times like this, and also idiots like this, that make me really, really wish I was born in Europe. I'm fairly certain most European countries don't put up with flagrant retards like Elphaba, Ace, and Lava.

No one said Kerry was a moron, you dumbass, just that he's not anything great. The Democrats hate Bush because he's a horrendous President, in almost every conceivable fashion.

Yes, providing for the health of needy Americans is such a terrible thing.

Let's see, who needs more help from the government: someone who can't find a job and is living on the streets, or someone who lives in a mansion? Help the one, and he has food and health care; help the other, and he can remove the water from his swimming pool(s) and fill it back up with money. Hmmmmm.

[William Huff]

If it makes you feel better I wish you were born in Europe too.

Nothing great, moron, dull, idiot, whatever you call him everyone knows he isn't getting support for having good ideas.

If it's such a damn noble cause pay for it with your own money. How is it your business to take what I earn and give it to those who refuse to work. Maybe John Kerry can start the program off with his $1 Billion before lecturing us on the evil rich of America.

Hmmm...Democrats say all these people can't find a job, but will take any job they can find; and on the other hand they say illegal immigrants take jobs Americans don't want. You realize people in America who are classified as poor are considered middle class in many European countries and have multiple color TV's in their air conditioned homes right?

And Koga, maybe if you get together with some UN leaders, you can pass a resolution against us.

[Flamethrower Mario]

Even lazy ass scum deserve to live and be healthy, though.. and it's not just the lazy ass scum that benefits from social healthcare either. It's the people who, for whatever reason, were extremley unlucky with life - it seriously does happen.

Forcing people to pay to limit other people's suffering is exactly the same thing as forcing other kinds of morals, like, say, enforcing het only marriages, or outlwaing abortion. There is no difference. If you believe abortion is murder, great, but I also believe if I don't help someone who needs it desperatley, and I'm easily able to, I am at fault.

And what are you talkin about? America may be one of the richest nations in the world, but they poor are still poor...

Hmmm...Democrats say all these people can't find a job, but will take any job they can find; and on the other hand they say illegal immigrants take jobs Americans don't want

If a computer programmer gets laid off and takes a job at McDonalds, he certainly doesn't want that job.

Maybe John Kerry can start the program off with his $1 Billion before lecturing us on the evil rich of America.

Though this is an excellent point. It sucks that in our system, only the wealthy can become President. Still, it does speak highly of Kerry that he would be willing to pass resolutions against the rich when he himself may be the richest President ever.. I'd hardly label him a hypocrite for that.

[ July 25, 2004, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: The Standing Man ]

[Prince Toad]

No, boy, there's a pretty clear difference between "nothing great" and "moron." Just because Dems want Bush out of office in any way possible doesn't mean no one likes Kerry. If no one liked Kerry he wouldn't be the front-runner, duh.

Uh... no. Poor people don't have multiple color TVs. Shh, the adults are speaking.

[Koga]

And Koga, maybe if you get together with some UN leaders, you can pass a resolution against us.

EDIT: So Ace is little Huffy. Figures.

[Pieist]

I'm fairly certain most European countries don't put up with flagrant retards like Elphaba, Ace, and Lava.

Oh I'm a flagrant retard because I enjoy hunting? I'm a flagrant retard because I shoot a coon and make myself some money? I'm a flagrant retard because I shoot a deer and give it to a butcher so I can eat some deer meat? A**hole.

[Prince Toad]

^No. I forget why you were, I think I had a reason.

Oh yeah, that KKK bit you had in your PDN.

The other two don't need explaining. Throw Philip on, although he's plainly trolling.

[Ditto McCloaker]

EDIT: So Ace is little Huffy. Figures.

What about me? I'm hurt.

Yes, lazy-arse scum have the right to be healthy and well-fed. It is NOT moral to insist everyone pitch in an do this for them. If you support them, they most CERTAINLY will never change. However, when that little rumble starts in their tummies, they're not going to sit there and starve. They're going to grudgingly get up and find a job. Or commit a crime, in which case we have something ELSE for them.

It is immoral to force everyone in a society to foot the bill for people who won't help themselves. Aid to people who can help themselves is fine, provided it works and they do so. But we also have charities, churches, and families to help these people. There's no justification for the billions we spend on the poor, for such meagre returns. THAT'S what the American people (and people around the world) are growing sick of. The people are sick and tired of politicians buying votes by lavishing largesse with our hard-earned tax-money. We're NOT GOING TO STAND FOR IT ANY LONGER.

We're not against affordable health care. We're not out to kick people to the curb. That's a sick, filthy lie by hateful, angry liars. It's just we can see a little further down the Godd*mn road and know that price fixing or excessive bill-footing will not solve the problem, but merely raise the rates, and end up hurting more than it helps. We're tired of dishonest politicians ignoring economic sense so they can buy votes with guilt, and we're not buying into the lie.

We recognize why the European economy is a joke compared to ours, and why so many nations are economic basket-cases with half our GDP, lower standards of living, higher percentages of poor people, and less lavish medical care. WE DON'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN HERE!

We KNOW that you can't solve poverty by giving people money. It's an economic truth that's resulted from watching billions go down the toilet, leaving us slack-jawed, eye-popping, exhausted, and dumbstruck, as millions remain poor.

We know D*MN WELL that money is NOT the root of all evil, but that poverty and oppression is. This is why we are trying to give people education and opportunity, and trimming down safety nets. (it's ALSO why we believe in bringing down oppressive regimes, but we're not going to do that debate here). You can't just treat symptoms. You have to treat the DISEASE.

The only way to beat poverty is to let people get rich and stay that way. This basic truth has eluded economists for centuries. No longer.

I'm getting sick of perverted people saying that those of us who want to impose sensibility and restriction on government aid programs just want to cut all aid to the poor, and give it all to the rich. Such people are sick, twisted, bigoted liars, and must be defeated.

It's rare people who'll consistently stand up and raise their voices against those hate-driven lies.

We're not going to stand for being called hateful bigots any longer. It's over. Done with. We're mad as Hell, and we're not going to take it any more!

You take it, Ace, Huff.

[Pieist]

Originally posted by Prince Toad:

Oh yeah, that KKK bit you had in your PDN.

I don't support the KKK. It was just something I put in my PDN that day.

[Flamethrower Mario]

^^If you were replying to me, then you missed my point completley. I wasn't talking about social welfare, I was talking about social healthcare. There's a difference, mainly being that lazy ass scum can't live off of social healthcare, so they will still have an incentive to get a job. Furthermore, even though it's not right for you guys to be forced to pay for the lazy ass scum, in that pool there's still many good people who had some bad luck. And I'm not mad as hell, so you shouldn't be either [img]smile.gif[/img]

[El Barto]

It is possible to be poor without being a lazy ass, you know. Maybe some homeless people think, "Well, sleeping in a dumpster is unpleasant, but it beats the hell out of working," but not many. And really- fair or not, wouldn't you prefer that people's very survival not be used as an incentive to contribute?

[Ditto McCloaker]

Health care counts as social aid, Stan. What kind of health care aid can you propose? It boils down to either footing the bill for people, or controlling the prices. Either path you choose, it doesn't solve the problem long-term.

Everyone wants everybody to have health care. There's no issue there. The question is, how do you do it? For some reason, people seem divided over whether we have "Reform" (a generic, catch-all term), or not. That's as deep as they go.

Here's the in-depth guts of the health-care issue.

You can try, if you like, to offer funds for the poorest, but the question arises: Where do you draw the line? How high do you set the boundary bar such that they won't be scared to leave that income level and pick up the expense themselves? This is a problem with many social aid programs. You get complaints that "I lost my benefits because I took that good job! Now I'm living worse than I did before!" The fact is, that's almost ALWAYS going to happen, because as people's incomes go up, they naturally begin spending more on other things as well, so you have to set the bar HIGH before they can leave the program and still live comfortably. Heck, they could be making 30,000 a year and they'd still be worse off as soon as they lose benefits, because they're still spending that money on a nicer house, nicer clothes, nicer car, TV, and other amenities.

You can't offer government medical insurance, because that undercuts private insurance agencies, and besides, that's almost like government controlling the price of insurance. People flock to the artificially cheap insurance. Government is still beholden to cover the costs, costs rise above insurance revenues. Government spends more. Hospitals realize they can charge whatever they want, and costs go higher. Government tries to control costs. Down the road, hospitals will find themselves unable to cope with costs, since free market rules no longer apply. Health care costs in our country gets worse for EVERYONE.

That's basically the argument against any government price control, really.

The only things you can do are provide people with money to get education so they can get that good job, and work towards lowering medical costs by some prudent deregulation of the medical industry.

The reason prescription drugs treatments cost so much are because there's little to no competition between medicines. The reason for this is because there is a years-long waiting period for any medication to be released. Once it is, though, it's a dead money maker, since any other similar medications have to wait equally long. We've got to introduce competition to lower health-care costs. We've also got to reduce the red tape and buearacracy that costs health care providers at every level billions each year.

Athough if anybody else has any other ideas, I'm sure we'd all like to hear them.

Please note that all socialists will be gassed.

[ July 29, 2004, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: Ditto McCloaker, Nintendo Loyalist ]

[Prince Toad]

Hey, Ditto. Who's this "we" you're talking about? Americans? Cause uh... no. You're wrong.

[Flamethrower Mario]

I still don't see how social heatlcare can be strongly compared to other forms of social aid. They're different because everyone should have equal healthcare, wheras everyone should not have equal pay.

You can try, if you like, to offer funds for the poorest, but the question arises: Where do you draw the line? How high do you set the boundary bar such that they won't be scared to leave that income level and pick up the expense themselves? This is a problem with many social aid programs. You get complaints that "I lost my benefits because I took that good job! Now I'm living worse than I did before!" The fact is, that's almost ALWAYS going to happen, because as people's incomes go up, they naturally begin spending more on other things as well, so you have to set the bar HIGH before they can leave the program and still live comfortably. Heck, they could be making 30,000 a year and they'd still be worse off as soon as they lose benefits, because they're still spending that money on a nicer house, nicer clothes, nicer car, TV, and other amenities.

Social Healthcare is social aid, yes, but all it should do is help people when they have no other options. What you've described isn't what I'm trying to get across. Footing the bill, as you've described it, does not mean giving money to people so that they can stay unemployed. It means paying the cost of their healthcare, and only their healthcare, when they have no other options. That's it. You don't have to tell me that socialism's bad, but healthcare is different. They still need to motivate themselves because you can't live off of social healthcare. The scenario you described is irrelevant because you can't live off of social healthcare. It can save you, but it can't pay your bills. That's all it is.

[El Barto]

Please note that all socialists will be gassed.

Hiel.

[Link47]

Locking this topic and opening a new one to talk about election night coverage on the forums.