News Why Did Americans Re-Elect Bush?

[franznietzsche]

if i needed an operation- I would rather be in Sweden than Philadelphia- and so would you Franz-


it always puzzles me how people rationalize social-darwinism when fitness is too complex to measure in humans- we all have weaknesses and strengths- and you cannot justify discarding PEOPLE- what do you have to say about people that are disabled and cannot work? do we throw them to the wolves? what about the working poor- like black single mothers working two jobs that still can't pay for her children? do we let her family suffer instead of helping? do you relay on the private sector and hope they aren't greedy? what about the homeless who ar 90% too mentally ill to even make decisions? do we restart the zyklon ovens or do you try to help them?

1) The disabled.

There are few people so disabled that they cannot find some work. The majority of the "disabled" (by that i mean people turning in disability checks from the government) are people who could function just fine, and are complaing of something like Carpal tunnel's synndrome, which while painful is not generally debilitating. Those people should be getting nothing.

People who in fact are so disabled that they cannot provide for themselves, which to truly be that disabled they would have to be very nearly unable to survive on their own, are what i would consider a special case, and an exception.

2)Working poor

Maybe you've never worked with the working poor (I worked in San Fernando for a while, largely hispanic, in fact you can't work there without speaking spanish so many people don't speak english. ), but there are two groups of them:

Immigrants who moved here. I've met people who moved here from Mexico, legally, and have held the same job for 15-20 years. The same minimum wage job, working to support their families. And those jobs suck, i know, i was working right there next to them for a while. I have enormous respect for them as people who have worked to earn what they get. Help them. I would support that wholly.

Young, second or third generation poor. I worked with these people too. Almost everyone of them sold or did drugs (about 3/4). Some of them were single mothers pregnant at nineteen. They are irresponsible people. they have no sense of responsibility, honor, or dignity. They had bad attendance records at work, wasted their paychecks within days. These people deserve exactly what they've gotten. They can rot. AS for their children, get them the hell away from their parents. try to save their children from them. But they themselves deserve nothing.

3) The Mentally ill homeless

If they are severely mentally ill i consider them to fall under the section of truly disabled. that does not mean you hand them money though, you ahve them committed.

 

[Political Prodigy]

That's the point though isn't it? The poor in the US are infact some of the worst off people in the Western world.

I feel badly for poor people but at least they have a better chance to make a living in the U.S than in a communist or socialist country because it is very hard for them to move up and it causes many problems throughout the government.

Take Canada for example. Their health care is terrible because of socialism. For those of you who do not know, doctors (who make a lot of money in the United States) are state employees in Canada because of the socialist system. They get payed very little, compared to what they are payed in the U.S and many of them move to the United States, especially in neighboring states such as mine. (NY) When I went on a trip up North, I met many Canadian people. Also, while medicine is cheaper in Canada, it also is not as new and they haven't the money to make much new medicine or medical technology because most of their funding comes from taxes which are not enough to supply money for everything.

 

[franznietzsche]

No socialism does not favour depedning on the state, it's odd that you should be against the Sweedish model as for many years it consistent;ly deloivered one of the highest standards of living the world, ceratoinly higher than the standard of living in the US.

Most socialists views believe in helping other people to some extent and it seems to me that this is what you are against! Personally I would not like to live in a soceity of scoipaths (if such a thing can be called a society) were no-one lifts a finger o help anyone else. Ypou seem to think that if you work hard you will not be poor and you will always be able to afford helathcare, this is quite frankly naive (I infact used to work for the UK Department of Work and Pensions so I can tell you this view is completely wrong).

I don't know why you bring up the Democrats as they are not by amny strecth of the imagination socialist and there is no consistent view on immigration among the many different beliefs that are called sometimes called socilaist. Socialism does not favour depwendcy on the state, a feature genrally shared by these ideas (again I sya it is stupid though to talk about Stalisim and the Swedish model as if they share any common ground) is that evryone should contribute.

The point is that you seem to be launching a blind attack against views that you are not famlir with.

Actually i don't think i am going to be able to afford healthcare by just working hard. But i do expect that i will get what i deserve for my work. That is the bottom line. I do not want more than i deserve. I don't want a house on the beach, i don't want a flatscreen tv, i don't want a $50,000 car, i don't want money from the government. I want what i earn. If i earn those things, then so be it. If not, i wouldn't accept them for free.

Again socialism is taking form people to give others more than they deserve based upon what they have done, what they have contributed, their work. I am against this.

 

[franznietzsche]

I feel badly for poor people but at least they have a better chance to make a living in the U.S than in a communist or socialist country because it is very hard for them to move up and it causes many problems throughout the government.

Take Canada for example. Their health care is terrible because of socialism. For those of you who do not know, doctors (who make a lot of money in the United States) are state employees in Canada because of the socialist system. They get payed very little, compared to what they are payed in the U.S and many of them move to the United States, especially in neighboring states such as mine. (NY) When I went on a trip up North, I met many Canadian people. Also, while medicine is cheaper in Canada, it also is not as new and they haven't the money to make much new medicine or medical technology because most of their funding comes from taxes which are not enough to supply money for everything.

Yes whoever said socialized medicin is of higher quality because it is not driven by competition was wrong. Economic competition is what drives up quality.

 

[setAI]

Yes whoever said socialized medicin is of higher quality because it is not driven by competition was wrong. Economic competition is what drives up quality.

medical science is driven by academic/intellectual competition- like all science- and is mosly funded by govt grants [I know-my job is to administrate funds and budjets for the University of California Regents- UC is the largest source of medical research on Earth] economic competition only plagues pharmaceuticals- to be honest- all of our economical worries are aout GOP cutting our funds- not competition with for-profits or other non-profit orgs- that's all about status and ego

 

[jcsd]

I feel badly for poor people but at least they have a better chance to make a living in the U.S than in a communist or socialist country because it is very hard for them to move up and it causes many problems throughout the government.

Hardly, OK if you comapre to a country like China yes, but if you comapre to somewhere like Western Europe you see that the US has less oppurtunites open to the poor in general due to the fact that there are more obstacles in obtianing a decetn eductaion in the US if you are poor.

Take Canada for example. Their health care is terrible because of socialism. For those of you who do not know, doctors (who make a lot of money in the United States) are state employees in Canada because of the socialist system. They get payed very little, compared to what they are payed in the U.S and many of them move to the United States, especially in neighboring states such as mine. (NY) When I went on a trip up North, I met many Canadian people. Also, while medicine is cheaper in Canada, it also is not as new and they haven't the money to make much new medicine or medical technology because most of their funding comes from taxes which are not enough to supply money for everything.

Actually Canada frequently tops QOL assemsemnts because of it's healthcare system which is one of the best in the world.

The US spends much, much more per capita on helathcare than any other country, but because of it's privatized system this infact entails paying more for less.

 

[franznietzsche]

medical science is driven by academic/intellectual competition- like all science- and is mosly funded by govt grants [I know-my job is to administrate funds and budjets for the University of California Regents- UC is the largest source of medical research on Earth] economic competition only plagues pharmaceuticals-

Medical science is not medical practice. Science is driven by a desire for knowledge, not competition. Practice is a business, and that is driven to quality by competition.

 

[franznietzsche]

Socialized medicine and poverty programs are mostly smart becasue they are axiomatic- but socialism itself is dead and gone-

socaialized medicine will always be pushed- becasue IT IS A HUMAN RIGHT to have equal access to the best healthcare available-

God this makes me sick. As a future Health care professional, I will want to kill myself the day I lose the right to run a private practice the way I want, the best way I can for my patients.

Socialized medicine isn't the only alternative. It's the only alternative for those who:
1>Haven't researched the issue enough
2>Don't have a problem forcing OTHERS into government servitude, so long as they don't have to be forced into the same thing

Quoted for emphasis.

 

[jcsd]

Yes whoever said socialized medicin is of higher quality because it is not driven by competition was wrong. Economic competition is what drives up quality.

Then why do countries like Canda, sweden and Norway with socialized medicine beta the US on ALL core helath indicators?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I keep hearing that people like myself are wrong for criticizing individuals who voted for Bush. I have criticized with logic and valid beliefs, and others like me have as well. I didn't see any of my points countered in any way by my critics.

A system of government is supposed to be the best for the majority of people. How many people are unhealthy, uneducated, poor, ect? - quite a few are. The majority of people don't know how to choose what is best for them. That is where the U.S democracy is failing. Propoganda has infested U.S politics making the average person unable to decifer the correct candidate to vote for in any election.

How can you claim my post to be ignorant logically? All points should be justified otherwise they are just impassioned rhetoric. I enjoy the twisting of English diction and the use of glittering generalities too; however, it does make the debate futile after awhile.

 

[wasteofo2]

I don't know about lots of Bush voters not being stupid.

My science teacher said he voted Bush because he felt like he could "Sit down and have a beer with him". He elaborated that if he had a beer with Kerry, he felt that Kerry would be speaking down to him, wheras he feels Bush is at or below his level of thinking, so he relates to him better.

Little did he know, Bush has stopped drinking since his wife almost left him because he drank so much...

 

[franznietzsche]

Then why do countries like Canda, sweden and Norway with socialized medicine beta the US on ALL core helath indicators?

Because it is easier to get there, not because quality is higher. That means that the average care received is higher, yes. But, we have Mayo, Johns Hopkins, UCLA, and Bethesda, the best hospitals in the world. The socialist systems do have a higher averageof care. But they do not offer the best care.

 

[franznietzsche]

I keep hearing that people like myself are wrong for criticizing individuals who voted for Bush. I have criticized with logic and valid beliefs, and others like me have as well. I didn't see any of my points countered in any way by my critics.

A system of government is supposed to be the best for the majority of people. How many people are unhealthy, uneducated, poor, ect? - quite a few are. The majority of people don't know how to choose what is best for them. That is where the U.S democracy is failing. Propoganda has infested U.S politics making the average person unable to decifer the correct candidate to vote for in any election.

How can you claim my post to be ignorant logically? All points should be justified otherwise they are just impassioned rhetoric. I enjoy the twisting of English diction and the use of glittering generalities too; however, it does make the debate futile after awhile.

1)And they call me pretentious. As if you know what is in the best interests of all the people who voted for Bush. not everyone has the same priorities as you.

2) You are contradicting the basics of democracy. refer to mencken quote.

3) You talk about people being uneducated and unable to decide what is best for themselves, but then say "ignorant logically"? Who is the uneducated one? Furthermore, the basis of democracy is they get what they want, not what is best for them.

4) Again, and they call me pretentious. I don't pretend to know what is best for everyone. I don't claim people are too stupid to decide what they want.

 

[Political Prodigy]

Hardly, OK if you comapre to a country like China yes, but if you comapre to somewhere like Western Europe you see that the US has less oppurtunites open to the poor in general due to the fact that there are more obstacles in obtianing a decetn eductaion in the US if you are poor.

Actually, I admit I was thinking of China. However, what I mean is that the poor in America can rise in social class where as in communism the government decides what you are what you own and what your salary is. It's totalitarian.

For example, say one of my classes in college is a communist country. Let's also say I have a 4.0 GPA. If one day my professor comes in and says we will all receive a 3.0 GPA for the rest of the year, do you think me and many of the others in my class (with the exception of those with less thana 3.0) will work as hard? What would the point be in working hard if we can't get a better grade anyway? That is why communism so often fails. No motivation for work, no room for improvement, no freedom . In America, we have that.

 

[Evo]

I'm closing this thread because too many insults have been made and we can't seem to get past it.