America: What it should and should not be

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

America IS a great country, but it could and should be better. The only way to ensure that America continues to be the best is to take the power out of the hands of the corporations, interest groups, and politicians and put it back in the hands of the people.

There are some fundamental facts that we should all be able to agree upon. We want lower taxes, greater personal responsibility, security, safety, and prosperity. It is these things that promote the pursuit of happiness.

We have to understand that in our two party system we are never going to become the nation we desire to be. The reason is simple. Both parties have ideas that are great and both have ideas that are horrible.

We should focus on the things we have in common and grow from that point. If the term didn't have negative connotations, I would say we should develop the "Peoples Party".

I don't want to live in a nation that is controlled by religious interests, but I don't want a 'godless' state either. I don't want a nation that prohibits homosexuals from entering into government contracts equal to those geared towards heterosexuals, but then again I don't want to live in a nation where churches are forced to recognize these contracts.

I don't want to live in a nation where I am spending 50% or more of my income on taxes, nor do I want my children taxed to death in other forms because of the debts my generation and generations before me have incurred.

I don't want to live in a nation that is disinterested with defending itself nor do I want to live in a nation that is eager to go to war. I don't want to live in a nation where we have to decide between guns and butter.

I want to live in a nation that respects individual rights and enforces individual responsibility. I want to live in a nation that is willing to help those less fortunate without punishing those most fortunate.

I want to be able to sit in a room with the most conservative and most liberal and be able to come to an agreement on how we can improve this nation.

While there are debates about how good or bad Barack Obama is, one thing he says should ring true with every single American. Our future is completely dependent upon us and our ability to work together. We have allowed ourselves to be taken advantage of by the major parties. The Republicans have pandered to the religious right, war zealots, and socially irresponsible business leaders while the Democrats have pandered to the radical left, 'politically correct', and 'intellectuals'.

Their divide and conquer strategy has worked. Listening to Nancy Pelosi and Karl Rove, one would be under the impression that a liberal homosexual and a conservative Christian have nothing in common. Nothing is farther from the truth.

We should challenge ourselves to do something different. We should challenge ourselves to take a hands on stance in dealing with politics to create a government with a hands off stance in dealing with the people.

Kizzume · Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 am Post subject:

When you said

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

archangelm · Joined: 07 Dec 2007 Posts: 49 Location: Ohio

Debateman, you might want to bone up on things like Social Security. It was never a retirement plan; it was set up as a safety net to guard against the economic securities of old age -- to provide the essentials for life after one's ability to work has gone. The system is already solvent, and it is in no danger. The GAO and CBO both estimate, conservatively, that full benefits can still be paid out through the middle of the century. And there are things that can be done, such as raising the income ceiling to $250,000, to help keep Social Security solvent well into the 22nd Century. Privatizing the program shall only destroy it, just as partially privatizing Medicare has already weakened that institution.

You confuse socialized insurance with socialized medicine. In the former, you only have public insurance; doctors still work in private practices. An example of this is Canada. The latter is where doctors work for the government. Examples are Britain, the U.S. military, and the V.A. According to every study done, public health insurance and public medicine are far more efficient and cost-effective than private systems. [Source]

Kizzume · Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject:

Kizzume · Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:27 pm Post subject:

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

Kizzume · Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject:

I don't know how to argue this, but I'll try:

I believe in SS as both a retirement plan AND a form of welfare. I also believe in socialized medicine. I don't think the medical industry should exist PURELY to make money, I think it should exist as a service that everyone has the right to. These are the issues that I am VERY left wing in.

Life shouldn't be about positive returns on investments, life should be about living--working, paying bills, eating, having a good time. People shouldn't have to constantly think about what kind of investments they're making so they can survive when they get old--that's like requiring everyone get involved in the stock market--if this country started requiring that kind of crap, I'd get the heck out of dodge because I would die on the streets because I have as much business sense as a half-burned piece of paper with scribbles on it, and there have never been FREE classes people could take on how to both fuck people over in the business world and how to make a killing in the stock market, and if they were there, I'd probably have to take them 10 times. The snake oil salesperson just isn't in me, neither is a stockbroker, and this country shouldn't require that people become those things to survive and have a roof over their heads.

Privatizing SS and keeping healthcare under the thumb of the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies has not given us good coverage. Most insurance programs are antiquated, and they won't pay for many life-saving procedures and medications. We need to remove that element from healthcare, and keeping it based on insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies is just going to give us more of the same crap we've been seeing the past 16 years of the decay of ethics and values in the corporate world.

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

Kizz, I love you man but you're spouting hog wash.

1. We don't have a private social security system.
2. The public social security system is prone to corruption.
a. Democrats and Republicans have been raiding the social security coffers for years.
b. The administration of the program is obtuse and virtually non-responsive to dependent needs.
3. Public social security will fail.
a. The ratio of taxpayers to dependents has dramatically decreased over the years. When social security was created, twelve taxpayers supported one dependent. Today, three tax payers support one dependent. This means that individual taxpayers tax liability has increased four fold in the span of 75 years. Not inflated values, real values. In addition, the baby boomers are just now starting to enter the social security system.

Partial privatization of social security will fix the problem.

1. There are two major investment methods into social security.
a. Personal withholding - this is what you see taken from your check.
b. Corporate withholding - this is what the employer pays for you, equal to the amount you pay.

If we were to allow individuals to take their personal withholding and put it in a government monitored index fund, we will actually be increasing the quality of life for all concerned.

People would not be required to privatize, but we should give people the option.

Healthcare is much the same issue. Complete socialized is bad but so is the status quo. There is a happy medium to be reached where we maintain the quality of care/competitiveness and are servicing everyone.

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:26 pm Post subject:

Point 2--Non-responsive to dependent needs? What? I know a number of people who survive on SS benefits, some are seniors, some are disabled--physically or mentally. How would partially privatizing it be more responsive to dependent needs? The ones who know how to invest well and could invest it somewhere else?

Point 3--Why not make more people pay for it so it doesn't fail. Privatizing it, even partially, is like tearing it down. It's like announcing charter schools that can be religious as being the answer to the public school problems--yeah, it gives choice, but the overall plan of that type is to actually destroy public schools, just like partially privatizing social security is a plan to completely privatize it, because once that pool of money is no longer pooling in the same place, it becomes less and less for those who use it the regular old way until it completely crumbles away and people have to start thinking about investments.

I am unable to see your vision in this. Sad

I wish I could. I don't see how we can keep corruption out of the picture with what you're saying, and I don't see how your plan wouldn't eventually completely and utterly destroy public social security. It seems like a libertarian plan, one of those plans where they want to tear down most of the programs little by little. I'm not saying that's what it is--as I think I probably don't fully understand what you're getting at. I'm trying, but I don't think I get it--I just can't see your vision at all, in any way right now.

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

It would take days and days to lay out I'm sure. I'll get back to it once I'm done with finals.

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:39 pm Post subject:

Like I hinted at in the other thread--I think you view people as generally good and not greedy and that it's the exception to the rule that people are greedy, your political viewpoints seem to tilt at that. It assumes that corporations will do the right thing, it assumes that individuals will do the right thing. I assume that corporations will always do the wrong thing and that people will always do the wrong thing--it's the exception to the rule that they won't do the wrong thing.

This is purely hypothetical however, since I need to wait until you can properly respond. Smile

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject: