Me, the Democrat and my boyfriend, the Republican

[Erin]

So we (he) is just now learning how to have a debate about politics with me without feeling personally attacked. We are opposites in so many ways that this difference is not surprising. After a couple weeks of trying to convince the other to understand our points of view, we boiled our differences down to one major overwhelming difference. How the government spends our money.

Democrats are okay with giving their money to the government and trusting how they think it should be spent.
Republicans want to keep their money and determine for themselves how that money should be spent.

This is a concept I don''t know how it would work. My boyfriend says, If I want to carry car insurance that should be my choice, not government mandated. Sure there has to be some taxation in place in order take care of roads and police... But basically in all the ''guy at the coffee shop who can''t afford to get new shoes because all his money goes to health care scenarios'' his answer is simply - Tough. Everybody is accountable for themselves. If I bust my but working to earn a decent wage - I shouldn''t be doing it to support those who didn''t apply themselves and are skating through life on my government issued handouts. No social programs or education or health care, no insurance, minority rules or immigration services. If you want it, buy it through privitization.

Is there any truth to THIS being on of the biggest differences between the two sides of the fence?

Also, his outlook on the war is that we should stay there as long as possible. The Middle East KNOWS this country is dependent on them for their commodities and with crazy extremists in power, it is our responsibility to keep them in a peaceful situation to remind them, they are but a global resource, period. Without it, their country does not support itself. However, because we are so dependent on it, they know we''ll buy no matter the price. So it IS our job to keep our troops there - to teach the right people how to run their trade. If we pull out, $100 a barrell will look like a bargain.

I can''t believe I''m dating someone so different

 

[strmrdr]

Right those in control of both parties want to spend every dime they can take from the American people then borrow more.
There is no real difference between them right now as a group in overall outlook.
The specifics is a little different but neither speak to me or for me.

 

[tanuki]

You should ask your boyfriend "why roads and police?". What is so sacred about them as a public trust?
Shouldn''t every person driving on the road be charged per mile for the use of the road, and if you can afford hire their own private security?

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Wow, Starset, that must be very challenging! DH and I both have very strong political views and I think we would both find it challenging to be with somebody who believed the opposite. Not that it would keep us from loving one another or that we wouldn''t be respectful, but I think we would constantly be discussing political issues and I think that for us, it would lead to many arguments. I think it would be very difficult to live in a James Carville/Mary Matalin household, haha. Heck, I agree with your boyfriend about social welfare/tax issues, but not about the war and even that would be tough!

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 6/9/2008 11:05:00 AM
Author: tanuki
You should ask your boyfriend 'why roads and police?'. What is so sacred about them as a public trust?
Shouldn't every person driving on the road be charged per mile for the use of the road, and if you can afford hire their own private security?

The underlying issue here is that roads and defense are the only things can be constitutionally taxed by a national government because they touch all states. Under the 10th amendment, the states are supposed to have the power over other isssues, so they would be covered by state taxes, not a national tax.

 

[luckystar112]

Your boyfriend and I would get along very well. lol

ETA: I disagree with him on the healthcare issue. I think everyone is entitled to healthcare. Especially working citizens!

 

[Erin]

Date: 6/9/2008 11:37:13 AM
Author: luckystar112
Your boyfriend and I would get along very well. lol

ETA: I disagree with him on the healthcare issue. I think everyone is entitled to healthcare. Especially working citizens!

What makes Health Care so different from Education? Is it not a right to receive a proper education?

If we had a national health care system, like those in Canada or Denmark where they complain heavily about, then everyone would want to go to the best doctors.
Does that mean the better doctors cost more? Do those doctors get paid better for being better? If everyone wanted to see Dr. Smith because he''s the best then the waiting line will be forever - no matter how much money you have. This goes back to the original issue we debated. If I work hard for good wages and am willing to pay extra to get better service, then it should be afforded to me. Instead, since Dr. Smith''s waiting period for an appointment is three months, I am forced to go to Dr. Jones, who doesn''t have to be a good doctor because he WILL get patients because not everyone can see Dr. Smith.

 

[Delster]

Starset we have a public health system and no one needs health insurance but still 50% of the population have it. The reason is not the quality of care, which is excellent once you get in to see someone, it's the waiting to see someone. The waiting lists even for diagnostic tests is months, even years. There was a very highly publicised case last year of a woman whose GP referred her for diagnostic tests to check for colon cancer. By the time she got the tests, the cancer was untreatable and she died a few months later. Meanwhile, if you have insurance you can have those tests within weeks. Days, even. Such is how wealthier people here anyway circumvent the less desirable aspects of the public health system. I'm not familiar with the Canadian system.

NEL if I follow you correctly then you have no issue with individual states choosing to establish public health/education systems along the European/Canadian lines and tax accordingly? Just once it's not done at a federal level?

We are taxed for use of the roads here actually, you have to display a current 'motor tax' certificate on your car along with an insurance certificate and a vehicle roadworthiness certificate. The revenue from the motor tax goes to local authorities for the upkeep of the roads, but road-building is financed by the national government.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 6/9/2008 11:54:09 AM
Author: Starset Princess

What makes Health Care so different from Education? Is it not a right to receive a proper education?

If we had a national health care system, like those in Canada or Denmark where they complain heavily about, then everyone would want to go to the best doctors.
Does that mean the better doctors cost more? Do those doctors get paid better for being better? If everyone wanted to see Dr. Smith because he's the best then the waiting line will be forever - no matter how much money you have. This goes back to the original issue we debated. If I work hard for good wages and am willing to pay extra to get better service, then it should be afforded to me. Instead, since Dr. Smith's waiting period for an appointment is three months, I am forced to go to Dr. Jones, who doesn't have to be a good doctor because he WILL get patients because not everyone can see Dr. Smith.

I agree with you Starset, It definitely is a right to recieve proper education! I guess I got confused...what exactly does your BF think should change about our current educational system???

As for healthcare...I really don't know what should be done.

I've heard arguments on both sides of the spectrum, and there is no easy answer. All I know is that it's not working now. If I say, "I think it should be mandatory for all employers to offer health insurance to their employees", I don't know how that would work out. Would all businesses suffer, or would it ignite competition in the insurance market and benefit everyone with lower health care costs? I hate that people have to pay ridiculous amounts of money for health insurance every month just to be told that certain things aren't even covered! Why not put the money in my own account then? Well, because it would take a long time to save up for that 40k operation.

So, I don't know what to do.

But I agree with your boyfriend in that I think this country makes it TOO easy for you to sit at that bottom of the barrel and collect aid. There needs to be more incentives to get off your butt and be productive.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 6/9/2008 12:07:48 PM
Author: Delster

NEL if I follow you correctly then you have no issue with individual states choosing to establish public health/education systems along the European/Canadian lines and tax accordingly? Just once it''s not done at a federal level?

Yep, exactly, Delster.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

I forgot to add that those policies which are enacted by the states should not come from taxes that are unconstitutional like the income tax...whether it is state or federal.

 

[FrekeChild]

I don''t know how to fix the healthcare either, but I do know that it needs to change. BF is a PhD student who will either work for the government or be a professor one day, but for now he''s a TA, a research assistant and a mentor. So you can say he''s being a productive member of society.

Well, two years ago in July, BF had open heart surgery to correct a birth defect that would kill him in five years if something wasn''t done. If not done within one year he would require a heart transplant-even more expensive and more potentially harmful. This was an otherwise healthy 24 year old (I say was because he''s 26 now).

As a student he only had student health insurance, that would cover anything up to $25k. Anything over that, and they wouldn''t pay at all, and that wouldn''t cut it for a $100k operation. So BF dropped his student health insurance and tried to pick up an HMO. Well the HMO that he got, wouldn''t cover his current Cardiologist and Surgeon. So he began to look into other possibilities, with both the Cardiologist and Surgeon doing everything they could to help him. But he couldn''t find any ways to pay for it-and he certainly couldn''t pay for it out of pocket. Finally he had to turn to a state organization who provides surgical funding for poverty stricken individuals. Well at $17k a year, he qualified. But not before the surgery had to be postponed twice (May and then June). After the second cancellation, his surgeon told him that he''d waive his fee because he needed to get it done already, and postponing it was putting BF at higher and higher risk. So finally he was able to secure that funding and have the surgery. What they didn''t tell him is that while it covered the surgery in general, it did not cover the anesthesiologist, which is a bill that he''s putting $40 a month towards, and will be until around the same time he graduates in 2011. What was even harder is that he was out of work all of that summer, leaving him with this bill from the anesthesiology people in the thousands and him with no way to pay it. Another bit of bad news is that what they did to his heart (porcine valve replacement) will only last for about 10-15 years-in which he''ll have to have the same surgery again and again.

This is the much abbreviated version. But he isn''t a free loader, someone who is collecting welfare or anything. Someday we will hopefully have insurance that will cover those surgeries-and it''s more likely that if he works for the government his insurance will be pretty outstanding.

Another mini horror story is how my dad sat in the emergency room for 5 hours waiting to see someone, bleeding profusely from the head and almost passing out from the infection-causing him to have to have a (what would have been unnecessary) operation, had he been seen in time. Not to mention the week he then proceeded to have to stay in the hospital afterwards.

Something needs to be done, I''m just not sure what would work...

 

[luckystar112]

Freke, that last line of my post was supposed to be unrelated to my health care rant (not sure if that''s why you mentioned that he wasn''t on welfare). But those are two extremely sad stories!

And actually, that''s exactly what I mean (this is going to be a rant toward the government, not poor people). I''m in the same situation as your boyfriend right now (except he obviously had it way harder than me) in that I don''t qualify for govt aid, and yet, health insurance would consume about 75% of my income right now as I am a full time student with a part time job working only 20 hours a week. I think that there are a lot of people in the same situation. I think that''s why I am SO bothered by people who cheat the system.

 

[diamondfan]

I think that makes the differences simplistic on a certain level.

I am mostly a Republican, and think people should have more personal responsibility, but I am for SURE not against affordable insurance and a good education for all. I agree with some things being merit based but it is a fine line. I also think costs for medical procedures, hospitalization, etc doctor check ups, should be a bit less, some of the fees charged are insane. And the fact that a college education costs so much is nuts too. I think certain things should be the purview of the gov''t, but not as much as the Dems might think should be. But I do not have a tough patootie view and I think we need to help our citizens who deserve help and have lunch programs etc. The insurance issue is tough because in economics things trickle, so the person without it misses work when he is sick and cannot get to the doctor, productivity is affected, costs increase, etc. And I think one should have to have car insurance too, as those costs can trickle around too.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 6/9/2008 4:19:15 PM
Author: diamondfan
I think that makes the differences simplistic on a certain level.

I am mostly a Republican, and think people should have more personal responsibility, but I am for SURE not against affordable insurance and a good education for all. I agree with some things being merit based but it is a fine line. I also think costs for medical procedures, hospitalization, etc doctor check ups, should be a bit less, some of the fees charged are insane. And the fact that a college education costs so much is nuts too. I think certain things should be the purview of the gov''t, but not as much as the Dems might think should be. But I do not have a tough patootie view and I think we need to help our citizens who deserve help and have lunch programs etc. The insurance issue is tough because in economics things trickle, so the person without it misses work when he is sick and cannot get to the doctor, productivity is affected, costs increase, etc. And I think one should have to have car insurance too, as those costs can trickle around too.

Diamondfan - the above reminded me of an article I read a couple of months ago. Thomas Sowell (love him) asserts that government subsidies have driven up the costs of college education. http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell042408.php3

 

[Erin]

Date: 6/9/2008 4:19:15 PM
Author: diamondfan
I think that makes the differences simplistic on a certain level.

I am mostly a Republican, and think people should have more personal responsibility, but I am for SURE not against affordable insurance and a good education for all. I agree with some things being merit based but it is a fine line. I also think costs for medical procedures, hospitalization, etc doctor check ups, should be a bit less, some of the fees charged are insane. And the fact that a college education costs so much is nuts too. I think certain things should be the purview of the gov''t, but not as much as the Dems might think should be. But I do not have a tough patootie view and I think we need to help our citizens who deserve help and have lunch programs etc. The insurance issue is tough because in economics things trickle, so the person without it misses work when he is sick and cannot get to the doctor, productivity is affected, costs increase, etc. And I think one should have to have car insurance too, as those costs can trickle around too.

Look how often you use variable terminology. That''s what''s so hard. I think my boyfriend''s point of view makes sense. But for which items and to what degree does one say - We will never, or always, all or none, black or white, up or down... I cannot jump on board with his ''tough'' attitude because that''s how staunch he is about his viewpoints. Fine. I agree that everyone who works should be accountable for themselves. If you choose to drive you pay the tax that repairs roads and bridges. Therefore it is up to you whether to pay that tax because you choose whether or not to drive. But what about the situations where people are left to suffer? He says that''s where good old fashion neighborly/community support comes in. These people know if your help is being used or abused. Hand-outs from your friends, church, neighbors won''t last forever so you''d better get a job doing something, or be more responsible about getting pregnant if you cannot afford it, or learn how to make quilts if you''re immobile, or have a rich child to take care of you.

 

[tanuki]

My reply is "if you want to see what no government looks like - you only have to look at the third world".

In the third world people don't pay a lot in income taxes. That's fine - they don't make a lot of money.
No one requires them to carry car insurance - it's your tough luck if you are in an accident - also the ones I've been in had very scary drivers.
The average person is illiterate (no public education system).
The people with health problems generally die (note the infant mortality statistics and the average life span).
The country is typically hugely in debt to the world bank for "defense" which is money borrowed by whatever ruler is in power at the time (to prop up their friends in the military) and debt is passed on to the next generation - which as we can see cripples the country's future.
They have little or no investment in infrastructure. Sure, there may be roads for "defense" (such as your roads that cross state lines - although I would then ask is a road from (say) Atlanta to Burmingham covered in its entirety if it extends on to Macon?) When you get away from the few roads that meet the criteria you better have a vehicle that is able to make its way across country because you are driving on dirt.
There isn't a lot of government oversight or regulation - so if your dog food turns out to be poison, there is lead paint on your child's toy, or if your child's school collapses in an Earthquake where stronger building codes could have saved them - it is your tough luck - you should have been a more careful consumer.

Of course in the event of a natural disaster - say Hurricaine Katrina - the state is responsible for maintaining its OWN response - despite the fact that by definition the area hardest hit is being required to respond to their own disaster.

There is a lot of talk in the right wing radio shows and among their pundits about how wonderful the world would be - but I just don't see it. Also I have a hard time forgetting that the salaries of the people who spend hours on the radio every day promoting this stuff are paid by the very people who would be in the best position to take the money and run - leaving America holding the bag .

And I would ask, "Isn't Denmark or Canada a democracy?. If they were so dissatisfied by their public health system- why haven't they just voted it out?"
They could have done so for years and yet . . . . .

 

[diamondfan]

Well, Starset, I am someone who does not say always or never in most cases because it just would not make sense. Things are often true most of the time but rarely are true all of the time or never. I think you can say something works a large percentage of the time, or a majority of the time, but I simply do not believe one can make absolute statements. There are gray areas to things, variables that occur and change things. Solutions are tough to come by, if things were easy all our issues would have been fixed by now.

I think yes, as a nation, all Americans should be able to see a good doctor when they are ill, get quality treatment if needed, and not go broke over it. It is ridiculous that insurance rates are thwat they are, and that good doctors are being driven out of practice. I think all qualified students should be able to go to college, and they and or their folks should not go broke trying to do so. I believe schools should serve a hot lunch and maybe even breakfast, which is a critical meal, as there are low SES kids who do not get to eat balanced meals otherwise. I think that music and art should have funding so all people can enjoy artistic beauty and not just those who can afford it. I think while we need alternate fuel sources and cars that do not guzzle so much gas, oil company profits must be lowered so gas does not go even higher, which is a disgrace. I hate that we are in the war, do not really think we should have gone there to begin with, lives are being lost in tragic numbers and we are draining money like crazy, but I have no good solutions as I am not there and I am not a military strategist, though I certainly object to the bloodshed of innocents and the costs to our country.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 6/9/2008 6:33:37 PM
Author: tanuki
My reply is ''if you want to see what no government looks like - you only have to look at the third world''.

While this is true--third world countries have no system, it doesn''t really argue any point of a public system vs. a private system, which I think is what many of these threads boil down to.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 6/9/2008 1:12:58 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
I forgot to add that those policies which are enacted by the states should not come from taxes that are unconstitutional like the income tax...whether it is state or federal.

You miiiight want to ask Wesley Snipes about that one. And you might want to actually read the document that contains this:

Amendment XVI

The sixteenth amendment, adopted by the sixty-first Congress, held in 1909, was reatified by thirty-eight of the forty-eight states, and made a part of the Constitution, February 25, 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

God I LOVE being married to a history/government teacher.....he gave me my very own pocket Constitution, just like Dennis Kucinich....

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 6/9/2008 4:12:23 PM
Author: luckystar112
Freke, that last line of my post was supposed to be unrelated to my health care rant (not sure if that's why you mentioned that he wasn't on welfare). But those are two extremely sad stories!

And actually, that's exactly what I mean (this is going to be a rant toward the government, not poor people). I'm in the same situation as your boyfriend right now (except he obviously had it way harder than me) in that I don't qualify for govt aid, and yet, health insurance would consume about 75% of my income right now as I am a full time student with a part time job working only 20 hours a week. I think that there are a lot of people in the same situation. I think that's why I am SO bothered by people who cheat the system.

No worries luckystar. I said it because I think it was relevant to the thread (and the story) not because of anything you said.

I am also bothered by people who cheat the system. But sometimes I think it's necessary because the system can't or won't work for them otherwise-when they really need it.

BF's mother and father were high school graduates and were able to make enough money to raise two kids, and to buy a car-but they never owned any of their own property because they couldn't afford it. They didn't have any money to spare-they would literally eat beans and chile (hey, we're New Mexicans right?) for dinner every night for weeks on end. To this day BF won't eat chile (red or green-again, a NM thing) because it reminds him of his childhood and how hard things were.

Well, BF's mom had a bad heart(which was then passed onto her son). She took meds to try to help fix it/slow down the deterioration. Well, they didn't work that great and she ended up having a heart transplant. Of course she had to take other drugs for that as well. All of the drugs she took created the perfect climate for her genetic disposition for diabetes and cancer to take hold. She eventually died from a combination of pancreatic cancer and liver/kidney failure, the latter mostly caused by the heart meds. However, this is not the point of my story.

BF's parents were legally divorced before she had the heart transplant, even though they were still together-lived together, joint accounts, etc. Why? So that welfare and Medicaid would pay for her medical bills, because otherwise they couldn't afford all of the medication, the surgeries or any of the other stuff she needed to live. And they had an insurance plan that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. So they cheated the system, and in their case I can see why. It's people who cheat the system exclusively to cheat the system or to make some kind of profit off of it that really make my blood boil. Of course, there are always exceptions to everything, and everyone is in a different situation, but I think a system needs to be created that can help take care of everyone. Of course, personal responsibility plays a huge role in that.

Having said all of that, I'm glad that my parents have GREAT insurance and have the money for deductibles and everything because at the moment my mom is in just about the same situation as his mom was in, she's dying of cancer and medical bills would be stacked against her-if it weren't for my dad, his job and his insurance. I mean, who can really easily afford pills that cost $1,500 for 5 doses that cover only 5 days? Well, besides Bill Gates.

Ok. I'm done with story telling for now. I need to go look at cake recipes or something fun for a bit...

 

[ksinger]

Date: 6/9/2008 5:48:25 PM
Author: Starset Princess

Date: 6/9/2008 4:19:15 PM
Author: diamondfan
I think that makes the differences simplistic on a certain level.

I am mostly a Republican, and think people should have more personal responsibility, but I am for SURE not against affordable insurance and a good education for all. I agree with some things being merit based but it is a fine line. I also think costs for medical procedures, hospitalization, etc doctor check ups, should be a bit less, some of the fees charged are insane. And the fact that a college education costs so much is nuts too. I think certain things should be the purview of the gov't, but not as much as the Dems might think should be. But I do not have a tough patootie view and I think we need to help our citizens who deserve help and have lunch programs etc. The insurance issue is tough because in economics things trickle, so the person without it misses work when he is sick and cannot get to the doctor, productivity is affected, costs increase, etc. And I think one should have to have car insurance too, as those costs can trickle around too.

Look how often you use variable terminology. That's what's so hard. I think my boyfriend's point of view makes sense. But for which items and to what degree does one say - We will never, or always, all or none, black or white, up or down... I cannot jump on board with his 'tough' attitude because that's how staunch he is about his viewpoints. Fine. I agree that everyone who works should be accountable for themselves. If you choose to drive you pay the tax that repairs roads and bridges. Therefore it is up to you whether to pay that tax because you choose whether or not to drive. But what about the situations where people are left to suffer? He says that's where good old fashion neighborly/community support comes in. These people know if your help is being used or abused. Hand-outs from your friends, church, neighbors won't last forever so you'd better get a job doing something, or be more responsible about getting pregnant if you cannot afford it, or learn how to make quilts if you're immobile, or have a rich child to take care of you.

Diamondfan - THAT is a beautiful post. And I think you might be surprised just how much most dems agree with you. There seems to be this idea that democrats want to throw money at problems. They don't. I don't like my tax dollars wasted any more than you. I do think they tend to acknowledge more that circumstances can trump personal choice at times, and that not everyone in this country has the same opportunity.

Starset - may I suggest a book to you and your BF? It's called "The Way We Never Were - American Families and The Nostagia Trap", by Stephanie Coontz. While it IS about families, it blows through a lot of myths we have about welfare, and blows open some of the overblown ideas Americans have about how much they've accomplished on their own. It was such a good book btw, that the DH and I both owned a copy and had to give one away when we married.

As an aside, I've had 3 "iterations" with my man, and the in the first one, when I was dating him in college, one of the reasons (and I assure you there were many more than this) that we broke up (that time) was because we were so diametrically opposed in world view. He was not quite as extreme as your BF, but close, and it was difficult at times. But the good news is they can and do, mellow with time. He and I are on the same page now, with him still being a bit more "logical", while I still consider people in my equations more than he does. But it works...and we have a good time with it.

 

[tanuki]

The public system does default to a private system for those things which are considered necessities.

People didn't do without water in the days before public utilities - each household or neighborhood had to obtain access by paying to dig a well or for water rights. And as for the sewer - you dug an outhouse. There wasn't any pesky government regulation so whatever disease you got from poor sanitation was your problem.

If you are a businessman in Columbia - who pays for your security to protect you from being kidnapped? Someone does - but it doesn't come out of your taxes. You do or your employer does if you are considered valuable enough. If not - you just have to trust your luck.

Walls around your home, security doors, armored cars, guards - all these things exist for those who can afford them. Which increases their security and life expectancy - no different than the person who can afford their own angioplasty lives longer than the one who doesn't in a country where there is no medicare.

Many students in schools and universities around the world are there because they had families who decided to sent them away to private school from countries where there were no public school systems - and no one there was paying taxes. If you were born into a family which didn't have the means to send you to school - you would have to compete for a scholarship or not be able to go.

The county that I live in has privatized garbage collection - three or four trucks come thru the neighborhood with different company names on them - the trash doesn't go out all on the same day - each drives a different day so there is always someone's trash can at the curb. And I don't exactly think it is energy efficient compared to having the city do trash pickup - but it is all privatization in action around here.

And don't get me started on how our utility prices went thru the roof once we privatized the Gas for heating around here. Remember Enron? Those guys got plenty rich playing with energy futures at the expense of the customer - thanks to privatization.

Personally having lived thru it - I consider privatization a noble experiment which has at this point - failed.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 6/9/2008 6:33:37 PM
Author: tanuki
My reply is ''if you want to see what no government looks like - you only have to look at the third world''.

In the third world people don''t pay a lot in income taxes. That''s fine - they don''t make a lot of money.
No one requires them to carry car insurance - it''s your tough luck if you are in an accident - also the ones I''ve been in had very scary drivers.
The average person is illiterate (no public education system).
The people with health problems generally die (note the infant mortality statistics and the average life span).
The country is typically hugely in debt to the world bank for ''defense'' which is money borrowed by whatever ruler is in power at the time (to prop up their friends in the military) and debt is passed on to the next generation - which as we can see cripples the country''s future.
They have little or no investment in infrastructure. Sure, there may be roads for ''defense'' (such as your roads that cross state lines - although I would then ask is a road from (say) Atlanta to Burmingham covered in its entirety if it extends on to Macon?) When you get away from the few roads that meet the criteria you better have a vehicle that is able to make its way across country because you are driving on dirt.
There isn''t a lot of government oversight or regulation - so if your dog food turns out to be poison, there is lead paint on your child''s toy, or if your child''s school collapses in an Earthquake where stronger building codes could have saved them - it is your tough luck - you should have been a more careful consumer.

Of course in the event of a natural disaster - say Hurricaine Katrina - the state is responsible for maintaining its OWN response - despite the fact that by definition the area hardest hit is being required to respond to their own disaster.

There is a lot of talk in the right wing radio shows and among their pundits about how wonderful the world would be - but I just don''t see it. Also I have a hard time forgetting that the salaries of the people who spend hours on the radio every day promoting this stuff are paid by the very people who would be in the best position to take the money and run - leaving America holding the bag .

And I would ask, ''Isn''t Denmark or Canada a democracy?. If they were so dissatisfied by their public health system- why haven''t they just voted it out?''
They could have done so for years and yet . . . . .

The problem I see is that by focusing on the small number of people who abuse the system, those who want to do away with any and all social safety nets, can be in comfortable denial about the good those social programs have done. It''s truly throwing out the baby with the bathwater, not to mention the benefits to be enjoyed by not having a disaffected mass of have-nots coming to haul the haves off to the guillotine. It''s also helpful to deny that anything bad could ever happen to YOU. That way you can easily blame the poor for their own plight. It''s really nothing more than the old theory of social darwinism alive and kicking.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 6/9/2008 7:41:28 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 6/9/2008 1:12:58 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
I forgot to add that those policies which are enacted by the states should not come from taxes that are unconstitutional like the income tax...whether it is state or federal.

You miiiight want to ask Wesley Snipes about that one. And you might want to actually read the document that contains this:

Amendment XVI

The sixteenth amendment, adopted by the sixty-first Congress, held in 1909, was reatified by thirty-eight of the forty-eight states, and made a part of the Constitution, February 25, 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

God I LOVE being married to a history/government teacher.....he gave me my very own pocket Constitution, just like Dennis Kucinich....

Oh, it's most definitely an amendment--the arguments are around the constitutionality of the 16th amendment, which was never properly ratified. Nor does the 16th amendment say anything about taxing individual incomes vs. incomes as a whole. The latter point is completley moot to me, though, considering that I think it's unconstitutional to report one's income at all. People's incomes have nothing to do with the government and I think to force us to report them is a blatent violation of the 5th amendment. I would also attest, though I don't really hear this argument even from Ron Paul (who agrees the 16th amendment is unconstitutional), that the 16th amendment is in direct violation of the 13th amendment, which outlaws all forced, unpaid labor...yet four months out of the year I work solely for the government without seeing my wages against my wishes. So yes, it's an amendment, but it's not constitutional. I think everybody should carry a copy of the constitution with them, but more so know it and care about it.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 6/9/2008 10:09:39 AM
Author:Starset Princess
So we (he) is just now learning how to have a debate about politics with me without feeling personally attacked. We are opposites in so many ways that this difference is not surprising. After a couple weeks of trying to convince the other to understand our points of view, we boiled our differences down to one major overwhelming difference. How the government spends our money.

Democrats are okay with giving their money to the government and trusting how they think it should be spent.
Republicans want to keep their money and determine for themselves how that money should be spent.

This is a concept I don''t know how it would work. My boyfriend says, If I want to carry car insurance that should be my choice, not government mandated. Sure there has to be some taxation in place in order take care of roads and police... But basically in all the ''guy at the coffee shop who can''t afford to get new shoes because all his money goes to health care scenarios'' his answer is simply - Tough. Everybody is accountable for themselves. If I bust my but working to earn a decent wage - I shouldn''t be doing it to support those who didn''t apply themselves and are skating through life on my government issued handouts. No social programs or education or health care, no insurance, minority rules or immigration services. If you want it, buy it through privitization.

Is there any truth to THIS being on of the biggest differences between the two sides of the fence?

Also, his outlook on the war is that we should stay there as long as possible. The Middle East KNOWS this country is dependent on them for their commodities and with crazy extremists in power, it is our responsibility to keep them in a peaceful situation to remind them, they are but a global resource, period. Without it, their country does not support itself. However, because we are so dependent on it, they know we''ll buy no matter the price. So it IS our job to keep our troops there - to teach the right people how to run their trade. If we pull out, $100 a barrell will look like a bargain.

I can''t believe I''m dating someone so different

back to your original post: good luck. relationships are certainly easier when values.....which are reflected in political beliefs.....are shared. there are those that are able to do as you are, but i will admit to not being one of them.

movie zombie

 

[ksinger]

Date: 6/9/2008 9:16:56 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 6/9/2008 7:41:28 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 6/9/2008 1:12:58 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
I forgot to add that those policies which are enacted by the states should not come from taxes that are unconstitutional like the income tax...whether it is state or federal.

You miiiight want to ask Wesley Snipes about that one. And you might want to actually read the document that contains this:

Amendment XVI

The sixteenth amendment, adopted by the sixty-first Congress, held in 1909, was reatified by thirty-eight of the forty-eight states, and made a part of the Constitution, February 25, 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

God I LOVE being married to a history/government teacher.....he gave me my very own pocket Constitution, just like Dennis Kucinich....

Oh, it''s most definitely an amendment--the arguments are around the constitutionality of the 16th amendment, which was never properly ratified. Nor does the 16th amendment say anything about taxing individual incomes vs. incomes as a whole. The latter point is completley moot to me, though, considering that I think it''s unconstitutional to report one''s income at all. People''s incomes have nothing to do with the government and I think to force us to report them is a blatent violation of the 5th amendment. I would also attest, though I don''t really hear this argument even from Ron Paul (who agrees the 16th amendment is unconstitutional), that the 16th amendment is in direct violation of the 13th amendment, which outlaws all forced, unpaid labor...yet four months out of the year I work solely for the government without seeing my wages against my wishes. So yes, it''s an amendment, but it''s not constitutional. I think everybody should carry a copy of the constitution with them, but more so know it and care about it.

Sorry, but it doesn''t matter what you think in this matter. What you think will not change the fact that it''s in the constitution, and is treated as legitimate by the courts and the legislative body. At the very least it is the de facto law of the land and while it may give you pleasure to grouse about how unfair it all is, it''s a complete waste of time. We should at least be dealing in the politcs of the possible, not fantasy. Of all the things in this thread, tilting at the windmill that is the income tax is about the most fruitless and moot.

Wesley Snipes Gets 3 Years for Not Filing Tax Returns

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I agree that it would be extremely hard for me to be in a relationship with someone with diametrically opposing political views.

I think I am pretty much like Diamondfan. I teach too many poor children to not care a lot about them getting fed and educated. But I am also not for the federal government micromanaging everything. The paperwork we have to do to help a child at school is insane. All that time could be used in teaching if there weren''t a million pages of federal law rules telling us to fill out a ridiculous amount of paperwork.

But speaking of education, I do think the US educational system is very poor, and I think competition is the only thing that will change it. So I think all parents should have vouchers and school choice. American car quality was horrible until we started importing some high quality competition. The competition turned out to benefit everyone.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 6/9/2008 9:38:34 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 6/9/2008 9:16:56 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 6/9/2008 7:41:28 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 6/9/2008 1:12:58 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
I forgot to add that those policies which are enacted by the states should not come from taxes that are unconstitutional like the income tax...whether it is state or federal.

You miiiight want to ask Wesley Snipes about that one. And you might want to actually read the document that contains this:

Amendment XVI

The sixteenth amendment, adopted by the sixty-first Congress, held in 1909, was reatified by thirty-eight of the forty-eight states, and made a part of the Constitution, February 25, 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

God I LOVE being married to a history/government teacher.....he gave me my very own pocket Constitution, just like Dennis Kucinich....

Oh, it''s most definitely an amendment--the arguments are around the constitutionality of the 16th amendment, which was never properly ratified. Nor does the 16th amendment say anything about taxing individual incomes vs. incomes as a whole. The latter point is completley moot to me, though, considering that I think it''s unconstitutional to report one''s income at all. People''s incomes have nothing to do with the government and I think to force us to report them is a blatent violation of the 5th amendment. I would also attest, though I don''t really hear this argument even from Ron Paul (who agrees the 16th amendment is unconstitutional), that the 16th amendment is in direct violation of the 13th amendment, which outlaws all forced, unpaid labor...yet four months out of the year I work solely for the government without seeing my wages against my wishes. So yes, it''s an amendment, but it''s not constitutional. I think everybody should carry a copy of the constitution with them, but more so know it and care about it.

Sorry, but it doesn''t matter what you think in this matter. What you think will not change the fact that it''s in the constitution, and is treated as legitimate by the courts and the legislative body. At the very least it is the de facto law of the land and while it may give you pleasure to grouse about how unfair it all is, it''s a complete waste of time. We should at least be dealing in the politcs of the possible, not fantasy. Of all the things in this thread, tilting at the windmill that is the income tax is about the most fruitless and moot.

Wesley Snipes Gets 3 Years for Not Filing Tax Returns

Wow, KSinger, thanks a lot. I''ve spent years reading books about the constitution and its founders and forming what I believe is a fair and educated argument, but my beliefs are "a waste of time" and not politics, but "fantasy". How more than $300 billion collected in income taxes is "fruitless and moot" is beyond me.

I believe in what this country was founded on--that we have a right to our property and that we shouldn''t work for the government, but that the government should work for us. Obviously people being protected FROM the government is something that was important to our founders considering that is the SOLE purpose of our Bill of Rights. I get that nobody cares anymore, that the amendments are simply something to look up when trying to argue about the constitutionality of the income tax instead of KNOWING them by heart, but that doesn''t mean I have to stop caring.

No, I don''t think like the rest of the flock, but it doesn''t make my beliefs any less valid. And believe it or not, just because the court rules something does not mean it''s right.

Peace out, I''m done with the political threads. I have no interest in swaying others'' opinions--I''ve formed my opinions by reading tons and tons of books from both sides, but I don''t find it fun to be ridiculed for things I believe in.

 

[diamondfan]

DS, I agree. It is kind of like eating at a crappy restaurant and then complaining the portions are small! Meaning, we are rightly unhappy with how little we get but we should really be complaining at the poor quality in addition to the small quantity.

We, in the US, are not really educating our kids to our and their fullest potential. I know a few kids who I went to middle school with who then moved to Europe with their families and it was shocking how substandard our system was...kids coming in to these European schools, from supposedly good schools in the states, being so far being their counterparts in Europe. Really a shame, we have so much talent and so many resources here, and yet we are failing our kids, which is such a shame. And some teachers do not care if the kids leave their class having learned what they needed to. And I can''t say I always blame them, with terrible budgets, weak administrative support, low pay and often the barest parental involvement it is tough to really get charged up about making it better, and our kids suffer the consequences.

On taxes, I am glad I am not in countries that tax up the wazoo, since I like keeping some of my money!!! But really, taxes are necessary. I have nothing against them, I just wish the government utilized our dollars better in other areas so that we could begin to see daylight in regards to the deficit. And just upping taxes, throwing good money after bad in some cases, is not an answer. Roads and bridges and all infrastructure MUST be maintained, we have seen what tragedies can occur when this is not done. I want to know my water is clean and the pipes under the cities are in good shape and that bridge I am about to drive on has been inspected appropriately and is safe. Do I think generally that privatizing some things, bringing in the healthy spirit of profit CAN be a good thing? Yes. But I certainly do not think it should all boil down to a buck. I want the best most qualified people at the screening desks etc...many government workers do not fill me with a good sense of security, that is for sure. If running some things more like a successful business would help, great. But again I think some of this stuff is being over simplified, because many smart women and men have tried to come up with alternatives and have not totally succeeded. There is a delicate balance.