|
so did McCain just blow it? (pg. 142)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Zoso |
I suppose I'll just vent here, and I assume I'll take at least a little flaming, but I've got to hash out my thoughts, opinions, and concerns somewhere to get some insight.
I'm one of these "critical" "undecided" voters. I'll admit that the older I get (32 in two months), the more conservative I am by nature. I'll assume that this is just a combination of: 1.) a natural part of the aging process and 2.) being responsible for two young step-children.
I'm torn, really. On the one hand, I feel that I should lean Republican, as they are supposed to be, afterall, the "conservative" party. They are supposed to be the party of "smaller" government. They generally do not support abortion (I could only see myself supporting abortion in a number of extreme, limited circumstances). And so on, and so on.
Where healthcare is concerned, I'm torn. I understand the importance of having healthcare for any many people as possible. I was bitten by a poisonous snake in August, and all told that would have cost me over $4,000 without insurance. As a result of having insurance, it cost me just a few hundred dollars. However, my concern is this: the government has shown time and again that it is damned near inept when it comes to administering damned near anything (Iraq and current foreign policy, e.g.)! So what good does universal coverage do us if the thing is so mismanaged and slow and bureaucratic that it defeats the entire purpose?!
I'm also torn on foreign policy. I fully support Obama's position that we should be willing to sit down with rogue nations and have full on diplomatic intercourse. By refusing to talk to a nation and its leaders, I think we further isolate ourselves and do more harm than good. But my understanding is that the Democrats did favor the "Republican" troop surge in Iraq which seems to have genuinely helped (please correct me if I am wrong here).
I really don't know who to vote for at this point. On the one hand I support Obama's foreign policy, but on the other hand I do not relish the idea of a bigger government. I know he's assuring tax cuts for "95%" of us, but I can't seem to figure how on earth we will pay for MORE social programs with LESS tax revenue. On the one hand I support the idea of smaller government and more private sector, but on the other hand I've seen what the inability to get private health insurance does to hard working families (my wife has a heart condition, and it was very hard for us to insure her, and it is very expensive).
In closing, I'm torn between my desire to be more conservative, which I fear may result in four more years of the same. I'm torn between wanting to see what changes, if any, a Democratic presidency would bring, which I can't help but associate with Social policies and, in the end, bigger government.
Any other fence sitters out there? If so, what brought you from one side to the other? |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zoso
I suppose I'll just vent here, and I assume I'll take at least a little flaming.... |
No flaming necessary, I'm just really, really happy/proud to see any American thinking as hard and carefully about how they spend their vote.
I don't think it's my place to try and sway you here, or critique every one of your concerns and tell you why Obama is the better pick - you're doing your homework (or at least really trying to), and that's all I can ask for.
As for my remarks about McCain getting SukGuy9397 all bent out of shape - I'm just glad something I said without even a hint of seriousness managed to get someone so riled up.
The only point seems to be one everyone else has gotten - sitting/being tortured/etc. in a war I don't see much historic reason for doesn't earn anyone any "street cred" with me - especially as a political candidate. As far as the election is concerned, John McCain's history, his "distinguished service record", and anyone who thinks that's worth more than a pinch of when it comes to leading our country in one of its darkest moments.
This election is a big deal, regardless of who thinks American politics are a joke or not - and seeing people who are clearly not taking it seriously (*cough* Palin *cough cough*) absolutely disgust me. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | | ..how on earth we will pay for MORE social programs with LESS tax revenue.... |
By stopping the waste of billions in war missiles? |
|
|
| Alex |
12 billion a month will pay for a lot of social programs when the Iraq war is re-organized.
There is no reason why Iraq cant start paying for this themselves, with the massive surplus they currently have. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zoso
Where healthcare is concerned, I'm torn. I understand the importance of having healthcare for any many people as possible. I was bitten by a poisonous snake in August, and all told that would have cost me over $4,000 without insurance. As a result of having insurance, it cost me just a few hundred dollars. However, my concern is this: the government has shown time and again that it is damned near inept when it comes to administering damned near anything (Iraq and current foreign policy, e.g.)! So what good does universal coverage do us if the thing is so mismanaged and slow and bureaucratic that it defeats the entire purpose?! |
This is a very valid concern. However, this is one area where the government has (surprisingly) proven itself exceptionally competent.
For example:
| quote: | | Other disturbing evidence from privatization is the rise in bureaucracy. The latest HCFA data show that administrative costs for beneficiaries in HMOs have skyrocketed to 9.1% while traditional Medicare's administrative costs are 2%. |
http://thomas.loc.gov/medicare/robinstest.html
I'm not a traditional liberal in that I don't believe that welfare and entitlement programs should automatically be consumed by the government. I have no real strong position on Social Security. However, I do believe that healthcare is a universal right - and evidence suggests that by privatizing it, costs go up and quality goes down.
If we could just put all citizens on Medicare we would have the cheapest possible form of healthcare - imagine 2% administrative costs for all policies!
| quote: | | I'm also torn on foreign policy. I fully support Obama's position that we should be willing to sit down with rogue nations and have full on diplomatic intercourse. By refusing to talk to a nation and its leaders, I think we further isolate ourselves and do more harm than good. But my understanding is that the Democrats did favor the "Republican" troop surge in Iraq which seems to have genuinely helped (please correct me if I am wrong here). |
The Republicans and Democrats are using very different bars to judge the success of the surge. Republicans simply point to a general decline in loss of life (which has indeed slightly declined). So in that sense, the surge was a surprising success.
The Democrats point to the original intention of the surge, as argued by President Bush, which was to increase the political space necessary for reform of governance and reconciliation between Sunni and Shia. That hasn't happened. So for Democrats, the surge hasn't been so successful.
The point about the Democrats having not been originally inclined to support the surge is important. Democrats were not willing to support doubling down on a failed policy. Did it decrease violence? Perhaps. Violence eventually did decrease. Did it create political space? Maybe. But the administration sure didn't take advantage of it.
The nomenclature "surge" is misleading as well. A surge suggests a temporary increase in the number of boots on the ground in Iraq. Yet, here we are 18 months after the surge and we still have more troops in Iraq than we did before the surge began. That's not a 'surge' - that's an escalation.
In any case, I conceded that the surge has decreased violence, but that is a very contentious issue as well when you factor in other things, like the Sunni Awakening, which called for widespread cessations in violence, as well as the fact that many Iraqi neighborhoods are now completely purged of minorities (the original targets of much of the violence).
| quote: | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.
The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed. |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080919.../iraq_lights_dc
So is McCain taking credit for creating an effect that was actually created by ethnic cleansing caused by the original decision to go to war in Iraq? It could appear so.
| quote: | | I really don't know who to vote for at this point. On the one hand I support Obama's foreign policy, but on the other hand I do not relish the idea of a bigger government. I know he's assuring tax cuts for "95%" of us, but I can't seem to figure how on earth we will pay for MORE social programs with LESS tax revenue. |
We'll be saving $10 billion a week on Iraq. And he's also proposed a streamlining of bureaucracy through legislation in the Senate, which would further decrease administrative costs.
It's entirely your decision of course, but those are just some extra things to think about. |
|
|
| Zoso |
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
By stopping the waste of billions in war missiles? |
Point taken. But I do think it will be quite some time before we could get far enough out of Iraq and Afghanistan to divert those funds to social programs. And this assumes we don't pursue a military "solution" to Iran, which I am afraid we will at some point. :(
And why is it that any hint of social policies/Socialism makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on end? Is it because we're raised from birth to believe Capitalism = good but Socialism/Communism = bad? Or is there a legitimate fear there? I mean, we have social programs now, so why the almost inborn fear? |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zoso
And why is it that any hint of social policies/Socialism makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on end? |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zoso
[B]ecause we're raised from birth to believe Capitalism = good but Socialism/Communism = bad. |
|
|
|
| Zoso |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
This is a very valid concern. However, this is one area where the government has (surprisingly) proven itself exceptionally competent.
For example:
http://thomas.loc.gov/medicare/robinstest.html
I'm not a traditional liberal in that I don't believe that welfare and entitlement programs should automatically be consumed by the government. I have no real strong position on Social Security. However, I do believe that healthcare is a universal right - and evidence suggests that by privatizing it, costs go up and quality goes down.
If we could just put all citizens on Medicare we would have the cheapest possible form of healthcare - imagine 2% administrative costs for all policies!
The Republicans and Democrats are using very different bars to judge the success of the surge. Republicans simply point to a general decline in loss of life (which has indeed slightly declined). So in that sense, the surge was a surprising success.
The Democrats point to the original intention of the surge, as argued by President Bush, which was to increase the political space necessary for reform of governance and reconciliation between Sunni and Shia. That hasn't happened. So for Democrats, the surge hasn't been so successful.
The point about the Democrats having not been originally inclined to support the surge is important. Democrats were not willing to support doubling down on a failed policy. Did it decrease violence? Perhaps. Violence eventually did decrease. Did it create political space? Maybe. But the administration sure didn't take advantage of it.
The nomenclature "surge" is misleading as well. A surge suggests a temporary increase in the number of boots on the ground in Iraq. Yet, here we are 18 months after the surge and we still have more troops in Iraq than we did before the surge began. That's not a 'surge' - that's an escalation.
In any case, I conceded that the surge has decreased violence, but that is a very contentious issue as well when you factor in other things, like the Sunni Awakening, which called for widespread cessations in violence, as well as the fact that many Iraqi neighborhoods are now completely purged of minorities (the original targets of much of the violence).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080919.../iraq_lights_dc
So is McCain taking credit for creating an effect that was actually created by ethnic cleansing caused by the original decision to go to war in Iraq? It could appear so.
We'll be saving $10 billion a week on Iraq. And he's also proposed a streamlining of bureaucracy through legislation in the Senate, which would further decrease administrative costs.
It's entirely your decision of course, but those are just some extra things to think about. |
Thank you for that. See, this is exactly the type of discourse I was hoping to get here. I appreciate the information and the maturity. Venting thoughts and conflicts of interest in the political arena often result to immediate flaming and name calling followed by blind faith and devotion. I thank you for not resulting to such tactics. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zoso
Point taken. But I do think it will be quite some time before we could get far enough out of Iraq and Afghanistan to divert those funds to social programs. And this assumes we don't pursue a military "solution" to Iran, which I am afraid we will at some point. :( |
Well, one administration would be more likely to pursue that war than the other. And as for Afghanistan, we have spent $200 billion there in eight years... roughly a quarter of what we spent in Iraq's five years.
| quote: | | And why is it that any hint of social policies/Socialism makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on end? Is it because we're raised from birth to believe Capitalism = good but Socialism/Communism = bad? Or is there a legitimate fear there? I mean, we have social programs now, so why the almost inborn fear? |
Well you're from the South... state's rights and fear of national government are in your blood. :p |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zoso
Thank you for that. See, this is exactly the type of discourse I was hoping to get here. I appreciate the information and the maturity. Venting thoughts and conflicts of interest in the political arena often result to immediate flaming and name calling followed by blind faith and devotion. I thank you for not resulting to such tactics. |
Well I think good table manners beget good table manners. You entered the thread showing an openness to discuss issues - compared to Sukhoi who came in calling Obama a Muslim and his supporters anti-American. |
|
|
| Zoso |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Well, one administration would be more likely to pursue that war than the other. And as for Afghanistan, we have spent $200 billion there in eight years... roughly a quarter of what we spent in Iraq's five years.
Well you're from the South... state's rights and fear of national government are in your blood. :p |
Good point on Afghanistan. I had not considered that fact.
And I would agree that state's right and fear of national government is indeed stronger in the South, potentially, but couldn't one successfully argue that the Founding Fathers felt this way, too, having fought for liberation from a strong central government? So, in a sense, I suppose I feel like those fears are indeed well placed. Again, I'm open to any interpretation and insight here. |
|
|
| woscar99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Well I think good table manners beget good table manners. You entered the thread showing an openness to discuss issues - compared to Sukhoi who came in calling Obama a Muslim and his supporters anti-American. |
+1 |
|
|
|
|
