How likely are you to watch the CNN/You Tube debates tonight?

[1968]

Seven Democratic candidates are debating in Charleston, South Carolina tonight. How likely are you to watch the CNN/You Tube debates tonight?

[1968]

On the surface, I see no major ideological differences between any of the Democratic candidates. For those more familiar with the candidates, what major or minor differences should I be looking out for during the debate?

[Grubendol]

The differences as I see them:

Clinton: Corporatist in origin and leanings. Fairly centrist and not progressive enough for many democrats, despite her lead in the polls (mostly from name recognition I would guess)

Obama: Also fairly centrist in idealogy, but much more capable of thinking in a new way and trying to change the culture of Washington.

Edwards: The best idealist in the group and the most driven by labor issues and workers' rights. my favorite on issues, but I'm afraid he will not get the nomination, so i am hoping for a VP position again.

Kucinich: by far the most progressive and the one I agree with the most on most issues, but the press and public have already written him off for various reasons (chief among them his anti corporate stance...the same goes for Edwards I believe).

I'm not honestly all that familiar with the others.

I really want to watch it, but it's my wife's birthday tonight and we're going out to dinner with her friends and family.

[Judy Canty]

I'm watching "The Closer" tonight. There will be plenty of time to watch debates...at least a year or so...

[chip anderson]

Supprises the H*** out of me but I'm with Judy on this. Probably the only thing with social or political undertones we have ever argreed on.

Chip

[Judy Canty]

You know I love you Chip...!

[1968]

I'm watching "The Closer" tonight. There will be plenty of time to watch debates...at least a year or so...

It depends on how you define “debate”. “Super Duper Tuesday” is slightly over six months away and the nominees for each party will be effectively sewn up by then. Whatever debate of substance there is to be had is going to happen over the next few months.

For those who missed the debate last night, my favorite moment occurred when Hillary brushed-off the question asking how electing her would constitute a change in the Washington status quo. She proceeded to set-up a Democratic lovefest (i.e. “Any one of us would be a better president than our current president or the future Republican nominee.”) that Mike Gravel angrily shoved back in her face: “The Democratic Party used to stand for the ordinary working man. But the Clintons and the DLC sold out the Democratic Party to Wall Street. Look at where all the money is being raised right now, for Hillary, Obama and Edwards. It's the hedge funds, it's Wall Street bankers, it's the people who brought you what you have today. Please wake up. Just look at the New York Times of the 17th of July that analyzes where the money's coming from.”

Here’s the transcript:

COOPER: OK. Another question from a YouTube viewer.
QUESTION: Hi. My name is Chris Nolan and I'm a Democratic precinct committeeman from Mundelein, Illinois. And my question is for Hillary Clinton.
With Bush, Clinton, and Bush again serving as the last three presidents, how would electing you, a Clinton, constitute the type of change in Washington so many people in the heartland are yearning for, and what your campaign has been talking about?
I was also wondering if any of the other candidates had a problem with the same two families being in charge of the executive branch of government for 28 consecutive years, if Hillary Clinton were to potentially be elected and then re-elected.
QUESTION: Good luck. And, whoever becomes the nominee, I'm pulling for you.
QUESTION: Go Democrats!
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: The question is for Senator Clinton.
CLINTON: Well, I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: I actually thought somebody else was elected in that election, but...
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Obviously, I am running on my own merits, but I am very proud of my husband's record as president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: You know what is great about this is look at this stage and look at the diversity you have here in the Democratic Party. Any one of us would be a better president than our current president or the future Republican nominee.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: So I'm looking forward to making my case to the people of this country...
COOPER: Time.
CLINTON: ... and I hope they will judge me on my merits.
COOPER: Thirty seconds, Senator Gravel. Do you have a problem with it?
GRAVEL: Well, yes, I do, a serious problem. The Democratic Party used to stand for the ordinary working man. But the Clintons and the DLC sold out the Democratic Party to Wall Street.
Look at where all the money is being raised right now, for Hillary, Obama and Edwards. It's the hedge funds, it's Wall Street bankers, it's the people who brought you what you have today.
Please wake up. Just look at the New York Times of the 17th of July that analyzes where the money's coming from.
COOPER: Time's up.
GRAVEL: It comes from the bankers on Wall Street and of course hedge funds, which is code for bankers on Wall Street. And they're lock, stock and barrel in their pocket.
COOPER: Since you went to Senator Obama, we'll let you respond, if you want.
OBAMA: Look, I think every single question we've heard you see cynicism about the capacity to change this country. And the question for the American people, who desperately want change, is: Who's got a track record of bringing about change?
Who can unify the country, so that we're not just talking about Democrats and Republicans, but we're talking about Americans? And who can overcome the special interests in Washington so that we have a president of the United States who is fighting on behalf of ordinary people?

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldtmuZHVUWY
Transcript: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/...nscript.part2/

[DragonLensmanWV]

I read the stories, didn't watch.
I liked Obama's statement that we can't be as incautious getting out of Iraq as we were in getting in there in the first place.
Seems reasonable. We need to get out, but can't just pack up and leave.

[Grubendol]

Well, as Biden said (and I'm not really a Biden fan), it would take at least a year logistically to get everyone out anyway.

But, I did watch it on Tivo last night. I was a little irritated by the way Kucinich and Gravell were shoved to the side. The one (outside of those two) who spoke to the issues the party has traditionally stood for was Edwards. i really do like him alot and I do think he would be a better president for women's rights then Clinton.

[1968]

I was a little irritated by the way Kucinich and Gravell were shoved to the side.

I was going to bring that up, too, so thank you for noticing. It appears that they have literally been marginalized in these debates. (In case GOS_Queen is watching, CNN did the same thing to Ron Paul for the June 5th New Hampshire debate.)

From Chris Dodd's website, here is a "talk clock" for the South Carolina Democratic debate: http://chrisdodd.com/node/1878. At the high end, there is Obama (15:11) and Clinton (12:26); at the low end, there is Kucinich (6:01) and Gravel (4:10). If there is a bright side to this, the discrepancy was even worse at their previous debate in New Hampshire: http://chrisdodd.com/node/1377. And here is the counter for the Republicans in New Hampshire: http://chrisdodd.com/node/1382...only Wolf Blitzer got more airtime that Rudy McRomney!

Does anyone find this remotely fishy? One could argue that those polling higher should get more media coverage, but others might argue that some are polling higher because they get more media coverage. Are the major media outlets picking our candidates for us?

[Grubendol]

it's the second scenario, IMHO.

more press equals higher ratings. but those "fringe candidates" deserve even more coverage IMHO, even if they don't really stand a chance of winning. They are addressing the issues which the major candidates are afraid to talk about. I love Kucinich for being unabashedly liberal. the only one who said he would support gay marriage and using a biblical quote to support it, the same goes for reparations for slavery. That guy has serious cojones

[1968]

more press equals higher ratings. but those "fringe candidates" deserve even more coverage IMHO, even if they don't really stand a chance of winning. They are addressing the issues which the major candidates are afraid to talk about.

I think that is an excellent observation. There is certainly much more the major networks could do IF they were really concerned about challenging the front runners to reveal their true beliefs and intentions regarding various issues. I wonder how these debates are arranged behind the scenes. At the next debate, I would like to see Obama on the far right of the stage and Clinton on the far left of the stage... or Gravel placed smack dab between the both of them. And I would like to see Gravel and Kucinich get 15:00 minutes of airtime and Obama and Clinton only 5:00. Anyone think that is going to happen?

[Grubendol]

I’m telling you, it comes down to the corporate nature of the news we receive. The candidates most in line with corporate interests get the greatest coverage and get treated the best. Those who are most antagonistic towards corporate interests (read: Gravell and Kucinich) are tossed aside.

On a side note, the reason I’m not a fan of Biden is his ardent support of the credit card industry (he was one of the sponsors for the bankruptcy reform bill which made it almost impossible for those of us being buried in necessary medical debt to get out from under it).

In 1980 there were 50 registered lobbyists in Washington, today there are 35,000. The number in 2000 before Bush came into office was 17,000. Corporate interests and corruption rule these days.

[Pete Hanlin]

So what are the serious issues you see facing the next administration- and what role, if any, can the adminstration take in addressing them?

Personally:
1.) The war in Iraq- I'm not even sure what should be changed... However, the next President should give the American people his/her plan to turn control of Iraq over to an Iraqi government. The US has provided the opportunity for Iraqis to run their country as they see fit (with real elections to express their will). Whether they are successful or not is up to the citizens of Iraq.

2.) Social Security- Although there is not much a President can realistically do in this area, I would like to see some sort of plan to either offer a substitute plan- or some other plan that allows me to be responsible for my own retirement. At the very least, order FICA to note the total funds paid into the system by employer and employee, the projected age at which the payer will be able to draw benefits (taking into account the fact that the age will have to increase as the system is burdened in the future, and the projected payout the payer is expected to receive if they live to the median age).

3.) Taxes & Spending- First and foremost, tax rates need to stay where they are. Second, let's get another Graham-Rudman Act that constrains spending (only without the loopholes that doomed the first G-R Act).

4.) Education- I support the concepts found in "No child left behind." Now, let's push to evaluate teachers based on student performance (if a district accepts federal money, they should have to provide an accounting for the quality of education being provided by its teachers). There are certainly a lot of tweaks to be made, but the idea of testing and requiring certain levels of scholastic acheivement is sound.

5.) Healthcare- Assist in setting up large pools of lives for major medical plans (to be offered by existing insurers). No federal funding, but allow self-insured citizens to participate in buying groups.

First and foremost, it would be nice to have a candidate who can speak to the American public without resorting to mudslinging or anger. Sen. Thompson is probably my pick on that basis alone.

[Grubendol]

So what are the serious issues you see facing the next administration- and what role, if any, can the adminstration take in addressing them?

Personally:
1.) The war in Iraq- I'm not even sure what should be changed... However, the next President should give the American people his/her plan to turn control of Iraq over to an Iraqi government. The US has provided the opportunity for Iraqis to run their country as they see fit (with real elections to express their will). Whether they are successful or not is up to the citizens of Iraq.

2.) Social Security- Although there is not much a President can realistically do in this area, I would like to see some sort of plan to either offer a substitute plan- or some other plan that allows me to be responsible for my own retirement. At the very least, order FICA to note the total funds paid into the system by employer and employee, the projected age at which the payer will be able to draw benefits (taking into account the fact that the age will have to increase as the system is burdened in the future, and the projected payout the payer is expected to receive if they live to the median age).

3.) Taxes & Spending- First and foremost, tax rates need to stay where they are. Second, let's get another Graham-Rudman Act that constrains spending (only without the loopholes that doomed the first G-R Act).

4.) Education- I support the concepts found in "No child left behind." Now, let's push to evaluate teachers based on student performance (if a district accepts federal money, they should have to provide an accounting for the quality of education being provided by its teachers). There are certainly a lot of tweaks to be made, but the idea of testing and requiring certain levels of scholastic acheivement is sound.

5.) Healthcare- Assist in setting up large pools of lives for major medical plans (to be offered by existing insurers). No federal funding, but allow self-insured citizens to participate in buying groups.

First and foremost, it would be nice to have a candidate who can speak to the American public without resorting to mudslinging or anger. Sen. Thompson is probably my pick on that basis alone.

Pete I deeply respect you, but I disagree on your tact on each of those points.

1.)If you were to ask most Iraqis, I would imagine that first and foremost they would want us out ASAP. As one Iraqi doctor recently said, Iraq has thousands of years of experience on how to rebuild after war. Let them rebuild as they see fit. If we feel a moral obligation towards Iraq (as I think we should), let us provide funds to them, like the Marshall Plan, and let them rebuild the country themselves.

2.)Social Security is essentially fine as it is. It’s solvent for at least another 60-90 years assuming no changes at all, and things are always changing in the culture to impact this number. The only thing that ever put Social Security at risk was Reagan borrowing from it to fund the general funds when he gave his huge tax cuts which made the government run at unheard of deficits.

3.)Taxes can stay where they are….only if the burden is shifted from the middle class to the top 10%. In the 30’s-50’s the top tax bracket was 91%. Kennedy dropped that to 70% and increased taxes by doing so by closing loopholes. The rate stayed at 70% until Reagan and now the top bracket pays 17% while the middle class pays 35%. This is simply ludicrous. The top bracket gains the greatest benefit from using the commons (the court systems, employees educated by the public schools, the interstate highway system for trade). Taxes are simply the cost of admission to society. Also, Corporate taxes need to be enforced. Taxes are never passed onto the consumer when presented within a rational ceiling. The cost of goods is controlled by the market, not the taxes.

4.)My wife is a teacher and I can tell you that No Child Left Behind is a great idea in principle but in practice it is nothing more than a money grab for test manufacturers. Bush’s brother (Neil) has gained billions in profits from the creation of this program. And schools are punished, not praised. Negative reinforcement never works. Teaching to the test creates a society of people who do not question. That is dangerous. It makes everyone easier to manipulate and control.

5.)As a victim of the healthcare industry I can tell you the only way we can effectively fix the American system is to make it non-profit and/or eliminate health insurance companies. I had full medical coverage when I got deathly sick in 2003. True without the insurance my costs would have been close to $2 million. But, that is because of health insurance, not in spite of it. Even with insurance, I still was responsible for tens of thousands and had to declare bankruptcy. The most logical

[Pete Hanlin]

Likewise, I respect your opinions (and the well-thought out manner in which you express them).

I would imagine that first and foremost they would want us out ASAP.
That's fine with me- and was pretty much my point. If the people of Iraq feel they'll be fine without us at this point, then bring the troops home. Unlike our occupation of Japan after WWII, I don't think trying to run a government for Iraq is going to work out well in the long run. IMO, when we leave it will take less than a year for another dictator to spring up (either that or unrestrained civil war between the factions in that country). While I still think taking out Hussein was a good idea, the problem arose when the people of Iraq didn't clamor after democracy to the extent the admin thought they would.

Social Security is essentially fine as it is. It’s solvent for at least another 60-90 years assuming no changes at all, and things are always changing in the culture to impact this number.
I hope you're right- but I sincerely doubt it. Even if the system will stay solvent, I have a fundamental problem with the federal government involving itself in my retirement. 15% of my salary (when you count my employer's contribution) is being put into a fund that just sits there- its not invested in business or any other productive entity). At the most the government could perhaps force people to save for retirement in approved programs. Simply sucking up and redistributing 15% of my income simply can't be the best solution.

Taxes can stay where they are….only if the burden is shifted from the middle class to the top 10%.
As nice as "sock it to the rich" sounds, you can tax them as much as you like and it won't bring in that much money (relatively speaking, of course)- because the top 10% only have so much income to take. Also, I do not believe the top tax rate is at 17%- although without question the wealthy seem to enjoy plenty of loopholes and exceptions to shield income. In any case, I am in the middle class and when the current tax cuts expire, my taxes will increase- which is what I consider ludicrous.

My wife is a teacher and I can tell you that No Child Left Behind is a great idea in principle but in practice it is nothing more than a money grab for test manufacturers.
No doubt there are glitches in the system- but it is fundamentally sound to require testing to assure children are reaching certain levels of academic performance before moving on a grade. In fact, my daughter came up just shy on the Texas TAKS exam and will be repeating 5th grade next year (which I'd rather have than see her move on to 6th grade and fall behind).

As a victim of the healthcare industry I can tell you the only way we can effectively fix the American system is to make it non-profit and/or eliminate health insurance companies.
I cannot speak to the burden that undoubtedly occurs when one becomes seriously ill. However, if I have a choice between a for-profit industry (which is prone to market forces) and a government-conceived health plan, I'll take my chances with capitalism. That said, I've spoken with seniors who basically spent all their retirement on medical care and recognize this is a problem. That's why we need a system that allows individuals to join large groups to purchase major medical insurance. Going for an exam or a test needs to be private pay- major surgery and procedures need to be covered in groups large enough to spread risk and cost.

[Grubendol]

Social Security is essentially fine as it is. It’s solvent for at least another 60-90 years assuming no changes at all, and things are always changing in the culture to impact this number.
I hope you're right- but I sincerely doubt it. Even if the system will stay solvent, I have a fundamental problem with the federal government involving itself in my retirement. 15% of my salary (when you count my employer's contribution) is being put into a fund that just sits there- its not invested in business or any other productive entity). At the most the government could perhaps force people to save for retirement in approved programs. Simply sucking up and redistributing 15% of my income simply can't be the best solution.
Actually, you're taking an incorrect perspective on the system. I respect your concern of being overtaxed, but the money does not sit there as you assume. The system has always been designed so that the current working generation pays for the retirement of the previous generation. So, the money is not sitting there at all. It is being used almost instantly to pay off the retirement disability of the current generation of non-workers. This is the other aspect which concerns me when we talk about social security. A sizable percentage of social security claims are for those who are disabled. To have privately financed retirement sounds all fine and dandy, but that would leave out in the cold those who are not capable of working.


Taxes can stay where they are….only if the burden is shifted from the middle class to the top 10%.
As nice as "sock it to the rich" sounds, you can tax them as much as you like and it won't bring in that much money (relatively speaking, of course)- because the top 10% only have so much income to take. Also, I do not believe the top tax rate is at 17%- although without question the wealthy seem to enjoy plenty of loopholes and exceptions to shield income. In any case, I am in the middle class and when the current tax cuts expire, my taxes will increase- which is what I consider ludicrous.
Dividend checks are taxed at 15%. So, the likes of the Walton and Hilton families who's entire incomes are derived from the payoff of the stock they own is taxed at a max rate of 15%. Over the past 26 years the percentage of the nation's wealth has become more and more concentrated in fewer hands. This is why I am no major fan of Clinton. He continued the failed economic policies of Reagan and in fact made them worse with the expansion of "free trade". We are virtually the only country in the world using free trade so we get screwed while other nations rightfully protect their economies. This hurts our tax base and it hurts our workers. The only thing keeping our economy afloat right now is the massive spending on the war...which is not an investment in our economy (like education and infrastructure repairs are). This is part of the reason for the fall out in the housing market and the recent drop in the Dow.

My wife is a teacher and I can tell you that No Child Left Behind is a great idea in principle but in practice it is nothing more than a money grab for test manufacturers.
No doubt there are glitches in the system- but it is fundamentally sound to require testing to assure children are reaching certain levels of academic performance before moving on a grade. In fact, my daughter came up just shy on the Texas TAKS exam and will be repeating 5th grade next year (which I'd rather have than see her move on to 6th grade and fall behind).
Two problems with what you have said. First, it sounds fine for testing to happen, but it WAS happening before NCLB. All NCLB did was mandate the source of the testing materials and the impact on funding. Secondly, I'm glad that the system has worked well in your daughter's case but I can tell you that one of the BIGGEST flaws in NCLB is that the holding back can only happen at 3 grade levels. Chidlren can only be held back at 5th, 8th, and 10th (I'm not positive on that last grade). My wife teaches 7th grade. She had about 30 students who failed. She could not hold them back even if they failed every class. And they know it, so they don't even try. There are so many inherent flaws and, IMHO they were built in on purpose because th epurpose of NCLB is not to educate, but to make sure that everyone is taught to the lowest common denominator.

As a victim of the healthcare industry I can tell you the only way we can effectively fix the American system is to make it non-profit and/or eliminate health insurance companies.
I cannot speak to the burden that undoubtedly occurs when one becomes seriously ill. However, if I have a choice between a for-profit industry (which is prone to market forces) and a government-conceived health plan, I'll take my chances with capitalism. That said, I've spoken with seniors who basically spent all their retirement on medical care and recognize this is a problem. That's why we need a system that allows individuals to join large groups to purchase major medical insurance. Going for an exam or a test needs to be private pay- major surgery and procedures need to be covered in groups large enough to spread risk and cost.
I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree on this one. Capitalist based health care has been a complete and utter failure. No modern industrialized nation has more people uncovered by healthcare. No other modern industrialized nation spends as much per person on healthcare ($6500 per person vs. an average of $3000 per person in Europe and Canada). When health care was mandated to be non-profit this nation did well. Since it became for profit it has fallen apart and gotten worse every year. The CEO of United Healthcare had a salary of 1.7 BILLION last year. For Profit healthcare operates at a 15-20% overhead. Medicare operates at 3-5% overhead. We are living in a healthcare disaster here and nothing is done about it because Big Phrma has been writing the laws through Bill Frist for the past 12 years. When having health insurance still means thousands if not tens of thousands in expense, the sytem is completely broken. I would personally much rather pay more in taxes if it meant I could go to a doctor and never worry about more than a 5 or 10 dollar copay, like it is in Germany, Italy, France, etc.

One of the most common complaints I hear from opponents to change say that there are waiting lists in countries with socialized medicine. Well, here in the US, with insurance, I am having a CT scan on Tuesday for the reutrn of my pseudocyst. The earliest I could get back in for my follow up appointment before I can have my actual surgery is October 11. I have to wait almost a full three months before I can have my medically necessary surgery. Tell me we don't have waiting lists here.

Sorry, this one is so close to me personally I have a tendency to rant and I apologize if I have taken any kind of condescending tone, but I have lived this and know its utter failures.

[Pete Hanlin]

A sizable percentage of social security claims are for those who are disabled. To have privately financed retirement sounds all fine and dandy, but that would leave out in the cold those who are not capable of working.
I don't want to appear calloused and cold, but this is one of my problems with Social Security. The government takes 15% of my income under the guise of providing me with some sort of retirement benefit. That money is then distributed to others... including people who can't work. Now there is even discussion (by the administration, nonetheless) of providing benefits to immigrants who may or may not have entered our country legally!

The reason I go to work is to provide for my family- and I've been blessed with a good job. However, I also work hard for my money. I suppose my question is "Exactly how much of the income I generate from working should be taken to pay for those who cannot?" I think that's a fundamentally fair question. I'm all for benevolence- just not when it is federally mandated.

Dividend checks are taxed at 15%. So, the likes of the Walton and Hilton families who's entire incomes are derived from the payoff of the stock they own is taxed at a max rate of 15%.
So, if someone invests their own money in a venture that makes a profit (never mind that investing can also result in a loss), you're saying its unfair that we take only 15% of the profit they've earned? I do not begrudge the Hilton's the ability to make a profit on their investments- and my question above remains- exactly how much of their profits is it "fair" to redistribute to those who do not- or cannot- invest?

There are so many inherent flaws and, IMHO they were built in on purpose because th epurpose of NCLB is not to educate, but to make sure that everyone is taught to the lowest common denominator.
I think that's a decidedly pessimistic view of the reasoning behing NCLB. I will agree (and have agreed) there are many inherent flaws, however, I believe the basis of the program is to ensure we are providing at least a minimal level of education (since the government has taken the education of children upon itself as a responsibility, I think its sensible to instill some accountability into the process). Now, one of the problems seems to be we either expect too much of our children- or too much of the system (I suspect the latter), since we seem to have a problem bringing children up to the minimum standard. I have a lot of relatives who are teachers, so its not my first inclination to lay the blame on teachers (many of whom spend sizeable sums on supplies that should be provided by the schools). I think two of the major problems are in management and tenure.

I would personally much rather pay more in taxes if it meant I could go to a doctor and never worry about more than a 5 or 10 dollar copay, like it is in Germany, Italy, France, etc.
...and I would much rather have doctor's visits on a "private pay only" basis with all health insurance relegated to major medical services only. I think we are pretty far apart on this issue- probably because I have never been failed by the system. Given your experience with the system, I am open to the possibility that our system is much worse than I think. If the government does get involved, I would hope it would be to limit health insurance in this country to major medical- which would allow general practitioners to set reasonable fees for their cash paying patients.

Perhaps I am skeptical of the government's ability to handle anything properly due to my own experience with the system. Years ago, I used to work at an office that accepted Medicaid for eyewear. In my estimation, well over 50% of the benefits were being claimed by people who should have been paying for themselves. Its a bit hard to harbor sympathetic feelings when half of the recipients are driving automobiles newer and in better shape than your own. Also, many of the recipients would purchase an expensive 2nd pair of sunglasses with their own money (after getting their "free pair" with their "card"). If they could pay for Cazal sunglasses, they could pay for their own clear pair.

To sum, are there people truly in need and deserving of public assistance (or Social Security funds)? Surely yes. Is a lot of the money I earn and then pay to the federal government given to people who should be providing for their own families? Surely yes (then again, its also wasted on military and other programs that should be trimmed).

[Grubendol]

Pete, I’ve had similar experiences with the Medi-Cal program herein California. But I think it’s VERY important to distinguish between Medicaid and Medicare. Medicare is a program to cover retired persons. My ideal would be to expand this program to cover everyone in the nation. Essentially in this scenario, the government acts as the insurer. By expanding the program, it would reduce costs even further by spreading the risk across those with low risk as well (as opposed to now only covering those at high risk).

Medicaid/Medi-Cal are programs that are extremely easy to abuse because it is something to elect to. And unfortunately it’s easy to abuse because if your income is under the table then it is unreported and you are listed as needing the coverage…this is another aspect of the immigration issue, but that’s another argument for another time…. ;)


Oh, the social security issue, I’d actually like to redress my opinion. Regarding its solvency and how to fix it, there is very simple answer. As it stands right now, only the first $97,000 of income is taxed on Social Security. After that, there is zero social security tax. Change it so the tax rate is the same across the entire income and it would solve the solvency problem and you could probably even reduce the actual tax percentage on the lower and middle incomes.


The base issue we’re beating around is this…

Should the government’s “morality” be based upon serving the many or the individual? Is it “me” or “we”

The founding fathers clearly though there was a balance needed, but the driving force of this nation has always been government by the “people”…the “we” if government is treated as the other. If it is run by an exclusive small percentage of the population then it will operate to the benefit of that small exclusive percentage. If “we” collectively become involved in government then it operates to our collective benefit.


Taxes are merely the membership dues for citizenship. To be a part of society, you must pay your dues to take advantage of the benefits inherent in being in that society. Small price to pay, IMHO.

[1968]

The base issue we’re beating around is this…

Should the government’s “morality” be based upon serving the many or the individual? Is it “me” or “we”

The question presumes that there is such a thing as "government morality". What is right and what is wrong is not ultimately determined by governments. I think the answer to what is the proper function of government can be found by examining from whom a legitimate government derives its powers.

[Grubendol]

68, I think that was sort of my point. This is a government by the people for the people.

[1968]

68, I think that was sort of my point. This is a government by the people for the people.

My point was that a legitimate government ultimately derives its power from individuals.

[Pete Hanlin]

Taxes are merely the membership dues for citizenship. To be a part of society, you must pay your dues to take advantage of the benefits inherent in being in that society. Small price to pay, IMHO.
You know, that is the most eloquent definition of a viewpoint I've seen in some time! I wish I could come up with an equally poignant description of my opinion...

In fact, I must admit the idea of my taxes being a sort of "membership fee" gives me pause and makes me rethink things a bit (a good exercize in and of itself).

So, having mulled things over a bit, I agree that- especially in our particular society- "no man is an island." Its a bit disengenuous to enjoy all the benefits provided by federal programs while constantly critiquing the cost- and even existance- of those programs...

Still, I would argue that our society is also based on individualism. Yes, I'm a part of a community- but I'm fundamentally responsible for myself. I accept that I benefit from the community and am not arguing against any sort of "dues." However, I believe there needs to be a more distinct line drawn when it comes to the community/individualism ratio.

From the community, I draw my ability to have safe transportation services and infrastructures, a health care infrastructure, utilities, etc. In other words, the things that everyone in the community needs to have available.

However, my ability to use those services should be largely my responsibility.

So, my counter would be that- while I'm responsible to help pay for infrastructure (so that everyone has the opportunity to call 911 and expect a fire truck to arrive fairly soon), it is not my responsibility to pay for usage of those systems by individuals other than my immediate family.

I'll help pay for the firefighter service to douse the flames across the street, but I shouldn't have to pay to help rebuild my neighbor's house. My neighbor's house, health, education, etc. is his responsibility- not mine. I may choose to help there as well- but it shouldn't be a compulsory thing.

[Grubendol]

OK, I can accept that, but in regards to retirement/disability coverage and health care, i think that there is something more to it. If the community as a whole does not contribute to these services, then the community individuals will pay more for these services to help cover the costs lost by those who cannot pay. That's the inherent problem in our healthcare system as it exists today. The insurance pays less than the services actually cost (after fighting paying it in the first place for months), so the providers are forced to charge more to the private pay patients to cover the difference in the loss of payments by the insurance customers. But, if the healthcare was covered universally, then the overall costs would come down because the loss of coverage wouldn't be an issue.

[1968]

OK, I can accept that, but in regards to retirement/disability coverage and health care, i think that there is something more to it. If the community as a whole does not contribute to these services, then the community individuals will pay more for these services to help cover the costs lost by those who cannot pay.

Alternatively, we could reject the premise that wealth redistribution at any level is OK.

That's the inherent problem in our healthcare system as it exists today. The insurance pays less than the services actually cost (after fighting paying it in the first place for months), so the providers are forced to charge more to the private pay patients to cover the difference in the loss of payments by the insurance customers.

I am not an economist, but I can assure you that payments from private insurance companies to providers are NOT routinely less than the cost of those services. Providers typically drop insurance plans that are not profitable.

But, if the healthcare was covered universally, then the overall costs would come down because the loss of coverage wouldn't be an issue.

If healthcare was covered universally, then the overall costs would come down because the government would effectively force providers to accept lower payments by monopolizing the supply of patients. Now is that a nice way to treat those who are recognized as being so necessary to our well-being?