This is the USA, not the USTS!!!

[cameronhu]

I meant for them to stop wanting the world to love/like/respect us, and realize that this is not the way to go

I want them to stand up and lead, instead of being led.......

I want them to support our allies such as Israel

I want them to treat dictators like dictators, not like long lost buddies--Chavez, Ortega, etc......

Doesn't seem too much to ask, does it??

I gave some serious thought to ignoring this thread all together. Bite my tongue, and all that... but there are a couple things I can't help myself from interjecting:

First, the United States is not a democracy, it's a republic. We don't spread democracy unless it's in our interest. This leads to certain inconsistencies, not the least of which is in the manner of how we chose our allies.

Second, a list of our "allies" from the not so distant past includes Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The last two on the list are still our "allies". I'm not sure what constitutes standing up for our allies, but we sure the **** have been standing up for Israel for a _long_ time. And the kind of standing up we do ain't cheap.

Third, if the rest of the world doesn't like, love or respect us, it causes certain problems. I've got eight years worth of examples if needed.

Fourth, we are nowhere close to being a socialist country. You want the country to be less socialist? Abolish Social Security. Privatize the interstate highway system. Sell the dams, privatize BPA and get ready for your electric bill to climb through the roof - unless you can buy some of Chavez's oil to heat your home like they do in the NE.

Fifth, why is healthcare such a taboo thing for a government to address? In my mind when you're losing more Americans to disease than to any other threat source, you ought to re-prioritize your budget. Personally, I'd rather see universal health coverage for all under those under 18, than social security, medicare and medicaid for those over 60 who've had the opportunity to take advantage of our "capitalist" system.

Sixth, We Have Rights. The government doesn't give them to us. They are ours. I'm with you on this one. But, in order for us to keep these rights, it requires a certain amount of tolerance. Tolerance for those we disagree with. Tolerance for the rights of others.

Seventh, Extremists don't bother me. Many of us on this board could be considered extremists by someone. It's people who have no respect for human rights or human life that bother me. That includes those in this country as well as those in other countries.

 

[CastleFox]

Edited to be more Politically correct so as not to offend the Admins, Moderators, or members. I forgot how TOUCHY FEELY America has gotten now.

 

[Stomper]

A fantastic (& civil) debate on an IMPORTANT issue (for sure)... KUDOS to all of you, but the de/merits of the American healthcare system doesn't have anything to do with the purpose of this PARTICULAR forum. (Yes I know, I'm not a moderator... I'm just sayin')

 

[PDXGS]

I gave some serious thought to ignoring this thread all together. Bite my tongue, and all that... but there are a couple things I can't help myself from interjecting:

First, the United States is not a democracy, it's a republic. blah blah blah-shortened for posterity blah blah...no respect for human rights or human life that bother me. That includes those in this country as well as those in other countries.

Well said...you get a 10

 

[Wierzbowski]

I gave some serious thought to ignoring this thread all together. Bite my tongue, and all that... but there are a couple things I can't help myself from interjecting:

Thanks for contributing! The more the merrier!

First, the United States is not a democracy, it's a republic. We don't spread democracy unless it's in our interest. This leads to certain inconsistencies, not the least of which is in the manner of how we chose our allies.

This is true. The US should always act in its own best interests when choosing its allies and otherwise interacting with other countries.

Second, a list of our "allies" from the not so distant past includes Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The last two on the list are still our "allies". I'm not sure what constitutes standing up for our allies, but we sure the **** have been standing up for Israel for a _long_ time. And the kind of standing up we do ain't cheap.

A minor point, but I think all four of the Islamic nations you cite are still technically considered "allies". It's a term that isn't as easily defined as it used to be, that's for certain. The world has gotten more complex since the end of the Cold War. China, for instance, is a leading trade partner, yet hardly an ally and not an overt enemy.

Third, if the rest of the world doesn't like, love or respect us, it causes certain problems. I've got eight years worth of examples if needed.

I'd posit that the other governments of the world genuinely doesn't like or love the US. They resent our wealth, trading power, influence, and frankly, the freedoms enjoyed by its citizens.

Fortunately, like and love aren't necessary. Respect is necessary, and a healthy fear is often useful. We haven't been attacked since 9/11, but not because the Islamic terrorists like or love us. It's because they poked the bull in the eye and got the horns.

Fourth, we are nowhere close to being a socialist country. You want the country to be less socialist? Abolish Social Security. Privatize the interstate highway system. Sell the dams, privatize BPA and get ready for your electric bill to climb through the roof - unless you can buy some of Chavez's oil to heat your home like they do in the NE.

Abolish Social Security! That's the best idea I've heard all day. Fortunately, it's going to abolish itself. The money that I pay in SS taxes to the SS trust fund has already been raided and spent by the congress. When the number of people collecting the SS benefit is too large to be supported by the workers of society, the Ponzi scheme collapses and society is disrupted. Why do you think both political parties want illegal aliens streaming across the border to work and pay taxes in the US?

Privatizing the Interstate System and utilities would make sense, as long as government keeps its hands off both industries. Remove restrictions on coal, nuclear, and gas-fired generation plant construction. Relax environmental laws. Remove restrictions on oil exploration, drilling, and transportation. Basically, cut federal government regulation and watch as prices drop.

Fifth, why is healthcare such a taboo thing for a government to address? In my mind when you're losing more Americans to disease than to any other threat source, you ought to re-prioritize your budget. Personally, I'd rather see universal health coverage for all under those under 18, than social security, medicare and medicaid for those over 60 who've had the opportunity to take advantage of our "capitalist" system.

"A government that has the power to give you everything has the power to take it all away." I'm not sure who said it, but it's true. The more things that the government gets itself involved in (and it's a lot of things... read the Constitution sometime to see what the federal government is actually supposed to be doing) the more rights we lose. Health care is especially taboo because once the government begins spending its money to provide you with health care, it will begin making decisions about how its money is spent. Are you 80 years old and you require an expensive operation to stay alive? The government might, at a whim, decide that you've already lived enough life and decline your request. Are you a newborn baby that has a 20 percent chance of living through the next six months in the hospital? Could be the odds aren't good enough for Uncle Sam to continue funding your treatment (unless your uncle is connected to someone in the Politboro, er, congress.) Having a federal or state bureaucrat make my health care choices for me is not very appealing. See the UK for a living, breathing example of this.

You propose that the government fund universal health care for all those (citizens, I presume) under 18. Who's going to pay for that? The government is out of money ("The One" said so just the other day.) That leaves raising taxes, borrowing money, or printing money to pay for the new government program. I work hard to pay for my kids' health care through insurance premiums, co-pays, and payments directly to hospitals and doctors. Now I've got to pay for other people's kids' health care as well? People who aren't as lucky or hard-working or educated or tall or short or healthy or whatever as I am? How's that fair?

What would be more appropriate, to my way of thinking anyway, would be to keep the government out of the business of health care. I propose that all who want to pay for other people's health care should voluntarily pay into a charity fund that does exactly that. This way, the government has no control over the industry or people's lives and poor children under 18 get free health care. Problem solved.

Sixth, We Have Rights. The government doesn't give them to us. They are ours. I'm with you on this one. But, in order for us to keep these rights, it requires a certain amount of tolerance. Tolerance for those we disagree with. Tolerance for the rights of others.

Yes, we have rights granted to us by our Creator (so says the Constitution.) Could you explain how my keeping my divinely-granted rights is predicated on my tolerance for those I disagree with and their rights? That's a confusing statement.

Seventh, Extremists don't bother me. Many of us on this board could be considered extremists by someone. It's people who have no respect for human rights or human life that bother me. That includes those in this country as well as those in other countries.

I agree. Human life is sacred, and should be held as such by all people regardless of their nationality.

 

[SheepDog223]

For all the crying about universal health care being socialism, I have as yet to hear someone offer a better alternative. The health care system in the US is so broken it's a pitiful disgrace and continuing to let it go on as is with HMOs and insurance giants raping and pillaging paychecks and giving nothing but sub-par service and constant attempts to screw people over in return just reaffirms my theory that the United States is no longer a country but a giant conglomerate run by an amalgamation of corporations looking out only for their bottom line.

And the fed gov will run things so much better?

 

[CastleFox]

A fantastic (& civil) debate on an IMPORTANT issue (for sure)... KUDOS to all of you, but the de/merits of the American healthcare system doesn't have anything to do with the purpose of this PARTICULAR forum. (Yes I know, I'm not a moderator... I'm just sayin')

It does if you shoot yourself in the foot and can't see a doctor for 5 weeks!

 

[BillCh]

... fire fighters...

A perfect example of socialism.

When I think of all of those money grubbing power mongers walking around with badges on, driving expensive government owned vehicles
in the name of public service, it just makes me want to whack them with a rolled up copy of the constitution.
What's wrong with a' la carte fire protection.
Pay or burn! A free market fire protection service would be great. A free market is freedom.
Furthermore, instead of sending our money to the city for water service, we'd be dealing with some company who could charge how ever much we could afford. That would no doubt thin out the neighborhood. People just won't over pay for water...right?
We could even get back to a for-pay police department. If you want help, you pay.
No freebies, have money or be tough.

Long live capitalism.

 

[Buddhalux]

Well, war is the next step. Ballot boxes aren't doing anything, and I don't remember getting to vote my say on this CHL information thing.

So, take up arms. Oh, but wait. That's the wrong thing to do. Violence won't solve anything. I forgot, we should keep debating back and forth. Things get done faster.

LMAO Joe!

I don't mind the idea of nationalized health insurance. However, if the government wants to step in then they need to regulate the cost of the insurance. It also should not be available for illegal immigrants PERIOD. If you pay taxes then you're entitled.

 

[cameronhu]

I work hard to pay for my kids' health care through insurance premiums, co-pays, and payments directly to hospitals and doctors. Now I've got to pay for other people's kids' health care as well? People who aren't as lucky or hard-working or educated or tall or short or healthy or whatever as I am? How's that fair?

It's not fair. But I believe it's better than the alternatives. I pay taxes for public education. If you have eight kids, all eight get to go to public schools. You get a disproportionate amount of tax-funded education. When I lived in South Carolina, anyone with money sent their kids to private school. The result was that no one with any influence (i.e. those with money) wanted to fund public education. The schools there were abysmal; 49th in the nation, I believe. Many of the trailers they used for classes closed down in the winter because of lack of heat. Those kids were Americans. To me, funding those kids education is more in keeping with the US interest than paying Israel and Egypt to not attack each other

We generally don't complain about military spending. This, despite the fact that Eisenhower warned us of a growing military industrial complex. But we all own guns. We have more guns in this country than anywhere in the world. Why not privatize the military and have those who want military protection pay for it? -- In my mind, this is similar to the health care question. Many people don't see it this way.

My ideal government: Ensure the peoples rights are protected. Provide defense. Provide health care. Provide education. Provide safe reliable transportation infrastructure. Mandatory armed forces service at age 18. -- That's it. Nothing else.

Yes, we have rights granted to us by our Creator (so says the Constitution.) Could you explain how my keeping my divinely-granted rights is predicated on my tolerance for those I disagree with and their rights? That's a confusing statement.

I apologize for the confusion. The statement was related to the first amendment rights of others. In order for our first amendment rights to endure, our society must practice a measure of tolerance for speech we disagree with. The majority view must "tolerate" the minority view. That is what I meant.


Thanks for the conversation.

 

[Wierzbowski]

It's not fair. But I believe it's better than the alternatives. I pay taxes for public education. If you have eight kids, all eight get to go to public schools. You get a disproportionate amount of tax-funded education. When I lived in South Carolina, anyone with money sent their kids to private school. The result was that no one with any influence (i.e. those with money) wanted to fund public education. The schools there were abysmal; 49th in the nation, I believe. Many of the trailers they used for classes closed down in the winter because of lack of heat. Those kids were Americans. To me, funding those kids education is more in keeping with the US interest than paying Israel and Egypt to not attack each other

I agree that public education funding is unfair. I believe that the solution is eliminating public education. It's the single largest budget item in most (if not all) state governments, and costs the tax payers billions of dollars each year in Oregon. Privatizing education will eliminate waste and will ensure that nobody is taxed unfairly. The free market model would do wonders for education in this country.

We generally don't complain about military spending. This, despite the fact that Eisenhower warned us of a growing military industrial complex. But we all own guns. We have more guns in this country than anywhere in the world. Why not privatize the military and have those who want military protection pay for it? -- In my mind, this is similar to the health care question. Many people don't see it this way.

The Constitution specifically tasks the federal government with "providing for the common defense", and in fact, it is one of the few things that I (and the founding fathers) believe that federal government is good for. Everyone in the country benefits equally from a strong military.

My ideal government: Ensure the peoples rights are protected. Provide defense. Provide health care. Provide education. Provide safe reliable transportation infrastructure. Mandatory armed forces service at age 18. -- That's it. Nothing else.

My ideal federal government involves doing what is outlined in the Constitution. Everything else should be left to the states. That way, if Oregon (for example) wants to implement public education, public health care, welfare, and public transportation, and tax its citizens to death to pay for it all, I can move to a state that chooses not to do all of those things (that I don't need) and fend for myself.

I apologize for the confusion. The statement was related to the first amendment rights of others. In order for our first amendment rights to endure, our society must practice a measure of tolerance for speech we disagree with. The majority view must "tolerate" the minority view. That is what I meant.

I whole-heartedly agree. When free speech and freedom of religion are hampered, we cease to become citizens and become relegated to being subjects. "I may not like what you say, but I'll fight to the death to preserve your right to say it."

Thanks for the conversation.

Thank you! It's been great!

 

[sillyrabbit]

Just a thought.....
I ask; When is it the governments job to supply anything except a military for national defense?
When is it the governments "job" to supply healthcare?
When is th the governments job to regulate interstate commerce (it all started over a wheat farmer wanting to sell to another state and the fed's stepped in and said we'll regulate that..... and on and on and on....including regulation of firearms, sound familiar?)
Notions of this (that) nature is exactly what started all this government power and "entitlement" BS to begin with.
In a free society and a capitalistic country (we still are aren't we?) the government doesn't, can't and shouldn't supply everything to everyone.... that's called socialism!
True, not everyone will share in all that's good in a capitalistic society, but everyone has the opportunity to work at it, strive for it ("it" being anything better than you've got or your parents had).
One simple and last thing.......... regulating (taking away) a companies right to succeed by more and more government regulation, control and meddling........ is that any different than trying to take away our gun rights or stifling our 1st amendment rights? A free and fair society is supposed to be free and fair for all...... individuals and businesses (including HMO's and the like!) If we don't like them.... don't frequent them.
Just a newbie and my two cents.

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

No where in the constitution is the right to health care guaranteed.

More government is not the answer.

 

[cameronhu]

I agree that public education funding is unfair. I believe that the solution is eliminating public education. It's the single largest budget item in most (if not all) state governments, and costs the tax payers billions of dollars each year in Oregon. Privatizing education will eliminate waste and will ensure that nobody is taxed unfairly. The free market model would do wonders for education in this country.

I agree with you in theory. In practice, it doesn't seem to work so well.
The free market has done horribly in South Carolina for the majority of students who can't afford private school. This trickles into all aspects of the economy. It's frustrating trying to buy 3/4 lb of sliced turkey when the person working the meat counter can't convert decimals to fractions.

The Constitution specifically tasks the federal government with "providing for the common defense", and in fact, it is one of the few things that I (and the founding fathers) believe that federal government is good for. Everyone in the country benefits equally from a strong military.

Common defense is pretty ambiguous. I agree a strong military is a good thing, but I believe it outgrew it's purpose as a defense institution following the second world war; and it could easily be argued that it has been primarily been used as a tool for imperialism in the last 5 decades.

My ideal federal government involves doing what is outlined in the Constitution. Everything else should be left to the states. That way, if Oregon (for example) wants to implement public education, public health care, welfare, and public transportation, and tax its citizens to death to pay for it all, I can move to a state that chooses not to do all of those things (that I don't need) and fend for myself.

Again, I agree in theory. The problem, I believe, is in the long-term results from such a strategy when practically applied. There is a tendency for a growth in inequality among social classes and between geographic areas which claim natural resources for local use. This typically results in dissolution of a state, or civil war.


Thanks again!

 

[PeakResources]

Just a thought.....
When is th the governments job to regulate interstate commerce (it all started over a wheat farmer wanting to sell to another state and the fed's stepped in and said we'll regulate that..... and on and on and on....including regulation of firearms, sound familiar?)

Wickard v. Filburn always bugged me. The farmer produced wheat in excess of his allotted quota for personal consumption. Even so, the US Supreme Court reasoned that it "affected" interstate commerce because otherwise he would have bought wheat on the open market.

The Court has allowed Commerce Clause of the Constitution to be a catch all for government regulation. Thankfully US v. Lopez refused to extend the Commerce Clause to cover Federally-created "gun free zones" which would have given nearly unlimited regulatory power to the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, government will do what it must do. That is, it must continue to grow and aggregate power & taxes to itself. All governments do it; the Founding Fathers knew this and tried their best to protect us with the Constitution. Unfortunately, after hundreds of years of chipping away, we have fewer & fewer of the freedoms envisioned for us.

 

[Wierzbowski]

I agree with you in theory. In practice, it doesn't seem to work so well.
The free market has done horribly in South Carolina for the majority of students who can't afford private school. This trickles into all aspects of the economy. It's frustrating trying to buy 3/4 lb of sliced turkey when the person working the meat counter can't convert decimals to fractions.

The problem is not that the free market has failed in SC, rather the problem is that it's not been tried. The government's lock on the education "market" is guaranteed by its legislated refusal to relinquish its monopoly (thank you, teachers' unions.) If the government stopped collecting taxes to fund public education (or provided school vouchers) and instead became just another education option, then students from all socio-economic strata could choose the education provider that they felt would do the best job of educating them. If public education were forced to compete for funding with other schools, it may suddenly find an incentive to start performing.

What the current system of government education does is ensure that the wealthy elite remain well-educated, generation after generation, while the proles remain in the mediocre (or downright failing) government school system, generation after generation. As it stands now, only the affluent can afford to both pay taxes to the government for public education AND the tuition required to send their kids to top-tier private schools. The members of the ruling class seem to want to make sure it stays that way.

Common defense is pretty ambiguous. I agree a strong military is a good thing, but I believe it outgrew it's purpose as a defense institution following the second world war; and it could easily be argued that it has been primarily been used as a tool for imperialism in the last 5 decades.

I don't believe that the military has been used as a tool for imperialism since the Spanish-American War. In the 50 years following WW II, the primary role of the military was to act as counterbalance to the Marxism-inspired, aggressive totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and China by developing a nuclear deterrent, fortifying Western Europe against direct invasion, and funding and/or fighting proxy wars in such places as Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Angola, and Nicaragua.

Again, I agree in theory. The problem, I believe, is in the long-term results from such a strategy when practically applied. There is a tendency for a growth in inequality among social classes and between geographic areas which claim natural resources for local use. This typically results in dissolution of a state, or civil war.

I would argue that a centralized government's redistribution of states' wealth presents the shortest path to secession and/or civil war. When the government takes from those states that produce wealth and gives to the states that don't, it discourages producers and encourages freeloaders. After a while, the producers realize that they're better off without having to pull along the boat anchor that is the non-producers.

Before Obama was elected, close to 50% of the population didn't pay federal income taxes. Now, the president is promising to increase taxes on "the rich" to fund his new social programs. How much longer are those that DO pay federal income taxes going to put up with that? How much longer SHOULD they put up with that?

Not to get too Randian on you here, but I believe that human nature dictates that those who produce will separate themselves from those that only consume the wealth produced by others. All it will take is an awakening and a realization amongst the producers that their burden has become too great. Obama may get us to that point. Already, we've seen Tea Parties across the nation and the Governor of Texas has mentioned secession in at least one speech.

Thanks again!

Thank you. I'm greatly enjoying our discussion.

 

[Rugerbub]

For all the crying about universal health care being socialism, I have as yet to hear someone offer a better alternative.
There r many alternatives to fix our problems. First of all we have become one of the laziest countries in the world, we need to get off our a-- and be more active( work out, hike) lay off the fast food. If we change our life styles as a country than the need for universal health care will be thrown out hte window. Second the we as a people need to make the government stop paying people to have kids. What i mean is people in to get off welfare. I understand that people need help to get on there feet but we need to place limitations on welfare. We need to make them get jobs and work to take care of there own problems. Do you guyr realize how much money the goverment could and would save if we mad people responsiple for the actions. WE need to stop giving people hands out both here in the USA and in every other 3rd world country.
GIVE A MAN A FISH AND HE WILL EAT FOR A DAY. TEACH A MAN TO FISH AND HE WILL EAT FOR A LIFETIME. We AMERICAN people need to take responsibilty and make the changes ourselves.

 

[watchman]

The health care issue raises an even more ominous issue for us gun owners. I am surprised that nobody here has touched on it yet.

So you think that the govt. may start to dictate what we eat, how much exercise we should get, whether we can smoke or drink alcohol, as a means of deciding whether they provide services?

Should they provide coverage for cancer treatment, when they know that the patient was a smoker? Will the govt. institute pollicies that would rate a patient, based on their healthy lifestyle (or lack thereof), Issue a "grade", and use that as a factor in determining whether someone gets their treatment or proceedure covered, or whether it is denied?

What about gun owners?

How will the govt. factor in the fact that you own guns?
They are already positioned to use the issue as a public health issue.
Many pediatricians already ask your kids if there is a gun in your home.
How will that affect your rating, or your kids?
Will they even cover you? Will they claim that owning guns puts your family, or even your neighbors, at too much risk?

What if they deny you coverage altogether, unless you agree to turn in your guns for destruction?

Beware of govt. run health care. It puts too much power in their hands. The power, literally, of life and death.

 

[Rugerbub]

So you think that the govt. may start to dictate what we eat, how much exercise we should get, whether we can smoke or drink alcohol, as a means of deciding whether they provide services?

They already have look at the law in oregon where it states no smoking or tobacco in public buildings, It my right to use tobacco where ever i want. There is a law in Florida that states that if u r a Firefighter or Cop u can not us tobacco as long as u r employeed. Also most insurances will not cover u if u lead an unhealthy life style.

 

[gunnoob75]

Not sure about chewing, other than it's gross as ****.

But it's YOUR right to smoke it. It's not YOUR right to make people inhale your bubblegum second-hand.