Why are you a â?¦

[likemclever]

Frequently individuals who don't think too deeply but who like to hear themselves uttering what they believe are insightful and critical comments, take refuge in statements like "Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of an equally bad coin... but I'm burying this statement here at the bottom in hopes that no one will take much notice of it.

ROFL :dance: I don't have time to do this right now..lol. I'll have to come back here and post later tonight.

peace all~

[likemclever]

This is a question mostly for those of us who live in the U.S., I'm gathering.

I'm a card-carrying, sign-displaying, money-donating, fund-raiser-attending, bracelet-wearing Democrat, although have an emerging independent streak that seems to strengthen as I get older. I think I could in relatively good conscience vote for John McCain, whom I respect. And I've known some appallingly stupid Democrats over the years. There are also plenty of smart ones, too, like Barack Obama and John Edwards, to name just a couple. I respect people of all political affiliations and work hard not to force my own beliefs on anyone else.

Traditionally, Democrats support public education, matters like health care and welfare/workfare programs, the environment, the arts, equal rights for women, civil rights, abortion rights, equal rights for gays, tax relief for the middle class, religious tolerance, diplomatic approaches to peace in international relations, etc. Those are all things I believe in. I also believe in a strong national defense and in fiscal responsibility, and I know those aren't always matters that are seen as Democratic strong points.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Jimmy Carter, who is one of the greatest examples of a humanitarian ex-president, even if his term wasn't regarded as one of our greatest. I also like what Bill Clinton is doing now toward the fight against AIDs in both America and Africa. (I like what Bono and Bill and Melinda Gates are doing, too.) I also believe that George H.W. Bush has a bit of a humanitarian streak these days. Often they become better men after they leave the presidency than they were during it. I have a lot of respect for people who do humanitarian work, particularly in health care, education, and anti-poverty efforts.

People in the medical community, who tend to be mostly Republicans, often look askance and me and my husband because we don't support the party that would protect our current capitalistic medical system and, for that matter, which provides us the most tax relief. But we cannot in good conscience do that. I'd socialize a lot of things if I were queen for a day, including medicine, and I'd do so because that would benefit far more people than just the top two percent of wage earners. Humanity as a whole is what matters, and not just wealthy, educated humanity.

Frequently individuals who don't think too deeply but who like to hear themselves uttering what they believe are insightful and critical comments, take refuge in statements like "Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of an equally bad coin." I disagree wholeheartedly. Ideologically we're very different. And no matter what anyone at the very extremes of each party believes, we nonetheless have to be able to work together in order for our country to get anywhere. Deep in my heart, I tend to believe we balance each other out in necessary ways, too, but I'm burying this statement here at the bottom in hopes that no one will take much notice of it.

I wouldnâ??t vote for John McCain. See this it the problem I have with card-carrying, sign-displaying, money-donating, fund-raiser-attending, bracelet-wearing Democrats. Socialized health care is not the answer. Why not make health care affordable so people could afford it. The US carries the brunt of product and development costs thatâ??s why we have old people in busses driving to Canada and Mexico to get their monthly pills. These â??evil capitalistâ?� drug companies are arenâ??t distributing their expenses equally. Humanity as a whole . (Donâ??t you mean free suffering all arround.)

I as a woman am tired of being a â??womenâ??s issue.â?� I donâ??t need the government to coddle me. Itâ??s insulting. And In my opinion, Democrats are not religiously tolerant. They view the government as a crutch when I think it should be a ladder.

Jimmy Carter may be a fine humanitarian but he was bothersome as a president. If he wanted to build things and then give them away he shouldnâ??t have started with the Panama cannel. I also donâ??t want Janet Reno picking out my clothes. Iâ??m all for private citizensâ?? becoming philanthropist but itâ??s not the job of my government. Thatâ??s not what I pay them to do.

[Breukelen advocaat]

I wouldnâ??t vote for John McCain. See this it the problem I have with card-carrying, sign-displaying, money-donating, fund-raiser-attending, bracelet-wearing Democrats. Socialized health care is not the answer. Why not make health care affordable so people could afford it. The US carries the brunt of product and development costs thatâ??s why we have old people in busses driving to Canada and Mexico to get their monthly pills. These â??evil capitalistâ?� drug companies are arenâ??t distributing their expenses equally. Humanity as a whole . (Donâ??t you mean free suffering all arround.)
I as a woman am tired of being a â??womenâ??s issue.â?� I donâ??t need the government to coddle me. Itâ??s insulting. And In my opinion, Democrats are not religiously tolerant. They view the government as a crutch when I think it should be a ladder.
Jimmy Carter may be a fine humanitarian but he was bothersome as a president. If he wanted to build things and then give them away he shouldnâ??t have started with the Panama cannel. I also donâ??t want Janet Reno picking out my clothes. Iâ??m all for private citizensâ?? becoming philanthropist but itâ??s not the job of my government. Thatâ??s not what I pay them to do.

Good posting!

In a nation like this, if it were run properly, we'd be able to buy our own health insurance - if were not taxed to death for useless, destructive policies and special interest projects.

Jimmy "Howdy Doody" Carter's pet cause organization, Habitat for Humanity, sends me letters asking for donations. Hello, I don't own a house, or even a co-op. Their letters clearly have my apartment number on the envelopes. Next they'll want swimming pools. Why not ask me to buy them a car, as well, which is another thing that I do not own?

That idiot should have straightened out Iran when we had the chance. They were ASKING for it!

[sanguinekane]

I'm registered as an independent, and tend to look with equal disdain on both major parties with equal disdain. Well, actually, I dislike the republican party more, but that's probably just because they're the ones in power at the moment, were it democrats, I'm sure I'd be railing against them more. I used to call myself a liberal, and I guess many would still use that to describe my political beliefs, but I also support a number of causes that could be described as conservative (scaling back gun control, less government spending, etc). I guess my political stance could be described as not left, not right, and not really in the middle either.

I'm tired of the polarization of this country, and I wish people would vote based on issues rather than party affiliation. Our politicans are overwhelmingly corrupt, no matter what party they belong to, and I'd say a good 99% of them need to just be removed from office and replaced with people who can actually get something done.

[birdgirl73]

Evenin,' LikeEm. Glad you came back to this. We're up late again. Only this time I made sure I got all my homework done and everything else, too. And I'm going to go to bed earlier, too, although I made the mistake of taking a nap when I got home from school earlier, so we'll see how sleep goes.

I figured you or someone'd find the suggestion of socialized healthcare as a Democratic-driven turnoff. And it's not necessarily just a Democratic idea, interestingly enough. The thing about making healthcare affordable is that, with insurance companies, immense hospital companies, and big pharma the leading drivers of those costs, achieving lower costs is about as likely as getting it to snow in Dallas in August. Especially not under the auspices of a Republican administration and legislature. For them to interfere in the workings of big bidness and limit costs? Certainly you know better than that. And you must know that big bidnesses don't ever voluntarily lower costs themselves. It just doesn't happen.

I'm hoping you, like I was, were probably speaking of an ideal solution, right? In theory, I agree with you. Ideally, limiting costs is the best approach. It'd be better for health care quality, better for the freedom of research and medical advances, better for consumer freedom. Better for everyone but insurance companies, big hospital chains, and big pharma. Which is precisely why that'll never happen. They won't let it. The AMA wouldn't, either, I imagine, but they're far less powerful in lobbying and money power than insurance, hospitals, and pharma.

Don't worry. Chances are they won't let socialized medicine happen, either. But you never know. In the 60s, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and everyone else predicted the complete devastation of the American medical system when Medicare and Medicaid were signed into law. And every one of those entities has "made out like Halliburton" thanks to those services. Millions of people have benefited tremendously, too, even as grossly imperfect as those government-sponsored health care services are. And all reasonable people on both sides of the aisle agree that they're vitally necessary services.

The ironic thing is that it's the spiraling health care costs--and the down-spiraling number of people with insurance--that'll ultimately drive us to socialized medicine. So if you can figure out a way to get Republicans to limit costs, go for it.

I realize that, as the wife, daughter-in-law, granddaughter, great-granddaughter, and great-great-granddaughter of physicians (my great-great-granddad was also the founder of a large Southern hospital system)--and as a first-year medical student myself--I'm talking what's considered absolute blasphemy in medical circles when I favor limiting costs or socialized medicine. But my heritage also gives me a fairly thorough understanding of the factors at stake in modern medicine. So I shall continue to blaspheme.

Forgive me, but what could you possibly have been referring to with the Janet Reno clothes comment? I have absolutely no idea, but I have to tell you the comment almost frightened me with its absurdity if that's something you really fear. I have to hope you were being sarcastic, but the reference itself is a mystery to me.

[birdgirl73]

Jimmy "Howdy Doody" Carter's pet cause organization, Habitat for Humanity, sends me letters asking for donations. Hello, I don't own a house, or even a co-op. Their letters clearly have my apartment number on the envelopes. Next they'll want swimming pools.

Breuk, I generally find you an intelligent man, and I know you respect me, too. But your logic here scares me. The idea that just because you don't own property yourself means you shouldn't donate to causes that work against poverty/housing is just wacky. You probably also say things like "I shouldn't have to pay school taxes because I don't have a child." A lot of people believe this, too, sadly, but, thankfully, our Supreme Court had a deeper understanding, recognizing that everyone benefits from an educated population and not just those with children.

It's precisely the same way with helping provide housing. People other than homeowners benefit from that in the same way. In lowered crime. In lowered social spending on the recipients. In moving those people into situations where they can become solid, contributing citizens instead of welfare cases. I think in your heart you know this. You just don't like Jimmy and would be violently opposed to anything you associated with him, which is fine and at least more logical than your other reasoning. My intuition tells me that, as a proud New Yorker, at least a fraction of your dislike for Carter, too, stems from an assumption that Southern-sounding people are less intelligent than northeasterners. Perhaps I'm wrong; I hope I am. But I've run up against far too many New Yorkers who assume lack of intellect when they hear a Southern dialect not to be suspicious about this. (I thoroughly enjoy disabusing them of that notion, as you can probably imagine.)

If you don't want to give to anti-poverty causes or causes you associate with Mr. Carter, you certainly shouldn't do that. Just think about basing your motivation on not doing so on something other than the fact that you're not a homeowner yourself.

[Breukelen advocaat]

Breuk, I generally find you an intelligent man, and I know you respect me, too. But your logic here scares me. The idea that just because you don't own property yourself means you shouldn't donate to causes that work against poverty/housing is just wacky. You probably also say things like "I shouldn't have to pay school taxes because I don't have a child." A lot of people believe this, too, sadly, but, thankfully, our Supreme Court had a deeper understanding, recognizing that everyone benefits from an educated population and not just those with children.

It's precisely the same way with helping provide housing. People other than homeowners benefit from that in the same way. In lowered crime. In lowered social spending on the recipients. In moving those people into situations where they can become solid, contributing citizens instead of welfare cases. I think in your heart you know this. You just don't like Jimmy and would be violently opposed to anything you associated with him, which is fine and at least more logical than your other reasoning. My intuition tells me that, as a proud New Yorker, at least a fraction of your dislike for Carter, too, stems from an assumption that Southern-sounding people are less intelligent than northeasterners. Perhaps I'm wrong; I hope I am. But I've run up against far too many New Yorkers who assume lack of intellect when they hear a Southern dialect not to be suspicious about this. (I thoroughly enjoy disabusing them of that notion, as you can probably imagine.)

If you don't want to give to anti-poverty causes or causes you associate with Mr. Carter, you certainly shouldn't do that. Just think about basing your motivation on not doing so on something other than the fact that you're not a homeowner yourself.

No, I am not "anti-Southern". In fact, I like the culture, accents, etc. I think that the hard-working people that made this country great are very much present in the South. I'm a "Yankee", but if it wasn't so hot I'd move to Georgia.

I was laid off in the 1970's, from a municipal job, and replaced with a minority person, functionally illiterate, that was hired with federal money ("CETA"). I trained this man - and when the government didn't help New York City during it's fiscal crisis, I had to go on unemployment for 64 weeks. I did not go on welfare, ever, and never will. I'd scrub floors and wash dishes before I would do this. Besides, they wouldn't qualify me for welfare. Even though I have a vision impairment, rather serious, I'm not qualified for SSI, either.

The first thing that has to be implemented is the concept that race-based programs are discriminatory. It is "class" that is the issue, not race. There are many poor whites, and I've been one of them. I grew up poor. I am not going to give my hard-earned money to people that have dug themselves into a hole with kids that they can't afford, and crave unneeded luxuries that I have not been stupid enough to charge to a credit card.

No, it's not discrimination against the "South", or anyplace else. I also have stopped my donations to the United Way, which they sponsor at my job. The brochures alone are enough to make you sick, when you look at the people that they consider "needy". Show me people that REALLY have had bad luck, or disabilities, and I'd be the first one to contribute. It's really absurd when they're paying for immigrants to live and go to school in Manhattan - when even many upper-middle class Americans cannot afford to live there. When they graduate, and become a boss, who do you think they're going to hire? Not me, that's for sure. They'll almost always hire their own kind. Sorry, this has really gotten my goat over the past few decades. I've had more jobs than I'd care to talk about, collected unemployment three times, and know from the "school of hard knocks" who and what I should put my charity behind.

Have a good one!

[Hamlet]

"I also have stopped my donations to the United Way, which they sponsor at my job. The brochures alone are enough to make you sick, when you look at the people that they consider "needy". Show me people that REALLY have had bad luck, or disabilities, and I'd be the first one to contribute."

I heard recently the the head of The United Way draws a half million dollar a year salary. This is from money people are donating to help someone impoverished. There just seems to be something fundamentally wrong with that.

I can't ever recall seeing the United Way actually helping someone. Maybe they did in the aftermath of Katrina?

[jamstigator]

There are issues I consider important that are supported by the Republicans, and there are also issues I consider important that are supported by the Democrats. More of the latter, to be sure.

So, what I like is when the president is from one party and Congress is controlled by the opposite party. If I got to decide things, it'd be a Democrat president and a Republican-controlled Congress, like we had in the Clinton years. Not as much gets done, but what does get done is more balanced. I think an adversarial relationship between the two branches gives the people the most balanced policy, not sided too heavily in favor of any one agenda. Yes, a strong military is important to me. But not at any cost.

I do believe in socialized health care. I don't think capitalism is some kind of magical force that automatically makes things better. Some states are now privatizing parts of our interstate road system. So people will have to pay tolls and the people running the show will make money. Is that better for the people than having the government run the roads, pay for them with taxes, and let them be used without tolls? Why?

I think some things need to be socialized: education, major road arteries, health care, and military forces. Any of these could, and I believe would, be lessened if privatized and capitalized. That doesn't mean companies couldn't form alternatives, and beat the government offerings, but some minimum level of quality in these areas should be offered to everyone even if no company or business wants to enter that market.

[likemclever]

We're up late again. Only this time I made sure I got all my homework done and everything else, too.

Than your one step ahead of me. Iâ??ve got a touch of â??last semesterâ??itis â?? Iâ??m so burnt.

The thing about making healthcare affordable is that, with insurance companies, immense hospital companies, and big pharma the leading drivers of those costs, achieving lower costs is about as likely as getting it to snow in Dallas in August. Especially not under the auspices of a Republican administration and legislature. For them to interfere in the workings of big bidness and limit costs? Certainly you know better than that. And you must know that big bidnesses don't ever voluntarily lower costs themselves. It just doesn't happen.

Iâ??m suggesting that government stay out of it as they are supposed to. Private organizations donâ??t change unless things start becoming less profitable. If Americans stopped shrugging their shoulders and signing up for their organizations â??health care packageâ?� like they have no other choice but instead made those companies become highly competitive for your individual dollar maybe things would change. Let the free markets sort it out. Iâ??m not saying this is the Republican answer; I donâ??t speak for them. I want everyone to be well too but what I donâ??t want is my federal government to take more of my money and throw it down and ever expanding shit hole like socialized health care. You should know as well as anyone the affect that illegal immigration has on out healthcare system especially in places like Texas and Southern California. Itâ??s not just a Border States problem anymore; itâ??s a national problem. Hell, were not even supposed to call them illegal immigrants anymore. Everyday a new word is born under the flag of political correctness. I thought the first term was adequately correct.

Forgive me, but what could you possibly have been referring to with the Janet Reno clothes comment? I have absolutely no idea, but I have to tell you the comment almost frightened me with its absurdity if that's something you really fear. I have to hope you were being sarcastic, but the reference itself is a mystery to me.

My Janet Reno comment was meant to indicate that while I may ask Janet Renoâ??s opinion on how Martin Sheen kisses doesnâ??t necessarily mean I would ask her to pick out my clothes. Much like donâ??t hire a humanitarian to do the job of a president. Sorry for the scare .