Poll: American Government

[SyphonX]

I don't want healthcare to be socialized because I already have healthcare and socializing it would in turn make me pay more. Call me selfish, but I think country first, myself and family second, and fellow citizens a distant third. If healthcare is to be socialized, then socialize it for actual citizens.

Also, journalism is out of control, so much bias. It's nothing like it was decades ago. Their job is to report, not offer their opinions and leave info out.

Your clear distinction of "country" and "citizens" disturbs me. Nationalized healthcare basically means you stop paying for it.

Just for clarification's sake, what do you mean by country if you put it above citizens, considering you and your family are in fact citizens.

 

[EzraPound]

The federal government should be scrapped. It is the single greatest obstacle to realizing our founding principles and our Constitution.

Actually, I'd say that poverty is the biggest obstacle. Government's got nothing on that.

I would respond that the government itself worsens poverty by creating an underclass with no social mobility and burdening citizens with its war, waste, and restrictions. And in any case, I would choose free and poor if that was what it took.

Uhhh... no. Firstly, the U.S. constitution says virtually nothing that would contradict current government practices, but does validate - oh, wait - national debt, which reflects the goal of creating a tax-and-spend state. You remind me of Republicans who claim the founding fathers desired the United States to be perpetually religious when in actuality they were mostly atheistic and abolished religious tests, per the English standard. Of course, even if Franklin or whomever couldn't anticipate current levels of taxation, it doesn't really matter: they probably couldn't anticipate the reduction of state powers owing to the Civil War, either, but it was still justified.

Secondly, a government doesn't create an "underclass", unless perhaps by "government" you mean "organic human organization", which would be true - note Native societies had a firm social hierarchy with a lower and upper-class in spite of being decentral. As for war, waste, and restrictions? Yeah, those are all human attributes, not governmental ones.

Underclasses always exist - hence Friedman's "natural unemployment levels" - and the most viable way to fight poverty that's been demonstrated, ironically, is to increase the size of government, thusly ensuring opportunity is available to disadvantaged groups. However, the expansion of government has to nonetheless be cautionary, since a reduction in negative freedom (contrasted with Mill's "positive freedom": for example, the freedom to have public medicare) can occur, along with marginalizations of free speech and detrimental economic effects that cancel out the ability to afford social security at inception.

My personal belief, in keeping with this, is in a government that balances the need for a dynamic economy with the need of maintaining social security to a level that helps curb polarities of wealth and generate opportunity for the lower-class. In this regard, I would probably favour a country such as Canada or Australia, governmentally, as opposed to Sweden - which has virtually no poverty, but has spavined innovation - or the United States, which treat its lower-class poorly and bears the onus of the consequent effects.

I like what Obama's doing so far... but then again I'm a liberal and think he's not liberal enough. I feel that there are simply certain industries that ought to be nationalized and certain industries that shouldn't. Healthcare for example, should be nationalized, while journalism should be kept private.
It really bothers me how people are so willing to throw around the word socialism to describe anything where the government gets involved. I've been called a socialist many times for having these views, but most countries in Europe do this exact same thing (and it sure works for them!) so unless youre willing to call most countries in Europe socialist, you don't really have a leg to stand on.

Anyone else agree? Disagree?

I don't want healthcare to be socialized because I already have healthcare and socializing it would in turn make me pay more. Call me selfish, but I think country first, myself and family second, and fellow citizens a distant third. If healthcare is to be socialized, then socialize it for actual citizens.

Also, journalism is out of control, so much bias. It's nothing like it was decades ago. Their job is to report, not offer their opinions and leave info out.

It's quite possibly the price you pay for healthcare would go down if it were nationalized (by this I mean that the amount of your taxes devoted to healthcare would be lower than the current amount you're paying), depending on your insurance package and your income level.

 

[ryderawsome]

the cencorship placed forward or at least backed by the goverment has to stop but i live in england so that doesnt bug me much. i can see as many boobs in post watershed and smoke as much weed as i like.

that being said im half american (and have a pretty strong accent) and as soon as obama got in people immidietly started treating the nationality as a whole a lot more like how they did pre bush administration ie like everybody else rather than a retarded hick.

 

[Eiseman]

I would respond that the government itself worsens poverty by creating an underclass with no social mobility and burdening citizens with its war, waste, and restrictions. And in any case, I would choose free and poor if that was what it took.

I'll agree with that, and add that big business does largely the same thing, only instead of war they have hostile takeovers and cutthroat business practices. Really, I think a lot of America is too big these days.

 

[Barry93]

I don't want healthcare to be socialized because I already have healthcare and socializing it would in turn make me pay more. Call me selfish, but I think country first, myself and family second, and fellow citizens a distant third. If healthcare is to be socialized, then socialize it for actual citizens.

Also, journalism is out of control, so much bias. It's nothing like it was decades ago. Their job is to report, not offer their opinions and leave info out.

Your clear distinction of "country" and "citizens" disturbs me. Nationalized healthcare basically means you stop paying for it.

Just for clarification's sake, what do you mean by country if you put it above citizens, considering you and your family are in fact citizens.

nationalized? Oh, thought it said socialized. Anyway, by "country first" I mean put the interests of my country before my own. Nationalized or socialized health care would cost the country too much money and I don't agree with it anyway; which is why I'm against it.

 

[Tears of a Tree]

I like what Obama's doing so far... but then again I'm a liberal and think he's not liberal enough. I feel that there are simply certain industries that ought to be nationalized and certain industries that shouldn't. Healthcare for example, should be nationalized, while journalism should be kept private.
It really bothers me how people are so willing to throw around the word socialism to describe anything where the government gets involved. I've been called a socialist many times for having these views, but most countries in Europe do this exact same thing (and it sure works for them!) so unless youre willing to call most countries in Europe socialist, you don't really have a leg to stand on.

Anyone else agree? Disagree?

I don't want healthcare to be socialized because I already have healthcare and socializing it would in turn make me pay more. Call me selfish, but I think country first, myself and family second, and fellow citizens a distant third. If healthcare is to be socialized, then socialize it for actual citizens.

Also, journalism is out of control, so much bias. It's nothing like it was decades ago. Their job is to report, not offer their opinions and leave info out.

Universal healthcare would most likely result in you along with everyone else paying less. You talk about corruption in the media but how is the healthcare systems we have not even more corrupted. These are people's lives we're talking about. If youre suggesting that the government controls the media (which it sounds like you are) then youre missing the whole point of being an american.

Also please dont do that condescending 'country first' crap as if other people who disagree with you dont support america

 

[Flying-Emu]

Does anyone else think Barrack Obama is an asshole?

At least spell the poor bloke's name right.

It's much, much, much too big. I'm against the gov'ment dipping their noses in my business every chance they get.

 

[ryderawsome]

america is the only western nation that doesnt have free health care for its citazens under the guise that its socialism (which for some reason to many americans immidaetly translates to communism)

if your going to use that argument you may as well take a trip to your local library and tell them to go back to russia.

 

[Grimm91]

I've never been happy with politics or politicians.

 

[Barry93]

I like what Obama's doing so far... but then again I'm a liberal and think he's not liberal enough. I feel that there are simply certain industries that ought to be nationalized and certain industries that shouldn't. Healthcare for example, should be nationalized, while journalism should be kept private.
It really bothers me how people are so willing to throw around the word socialism to describe anything where the government gets involved. I've been called a socialist many times for having these views, but most countries in Europe do this exact same thing (and it sure works for them!) so unless youre willing to call most countries in Europe socialist, you don't really have a leg to stand on.

Anyone else agree? Disagree?

I don't want healthcare to be socialized because I already have healthcare and socializing it would in turn make me pay more. Call me selfish, but I think country first, myself and family second, and fellow citizens a distant third. If healthcare is to be socialized, then socialize it for actual citizens.

Also, journalism is out of control, so much bias. It's nothing like it was decades ago. Their job is to report, not offer their opinions and leave info out.

Universal healthcare would most likely result in you along with everyone else paying less. You talk about corruption in the media but how is the healthcare systems we have not even more corrupted. These are people's lives we're talking about. If youre suggesting that the government controls the media (which it sounds like you are) then youre missing the whole point of being an american.

Also please dont do that condescending 'country first' crap as if other people who disagree with you dont support america

I don't think I said the media is corrupted, they're just bias and leave a lot of things out when reporting. The govt. certainly doesn't control it. Paying less for Universal healthcare? That's the first time i've heard that from anyone. I didn't say people who disagree with me are Un-American. The country first idea isn't crap, damn i feel like I'm Rush Limbaugh and your MSNBC taking everything I say out of context

 

[jad4400]

Yea.... Our government is not perfect, but then what government is? I believe that big business needs regulation; I remember hearing a quote that went something like this "Institutions that are too large to fail are too large to exist". We used to have some really good regulation in place that stopped businesses from becoming too powerful, but wit the deregulation from the Regan, Bush and Bush presidencies these businesses were able to form mergers that would have been illegal earlier.

I also believe that healthcare should be nationalized.....Come on people this one is a no-brainer.

I also wish that a larger percentage of people in my beloved country of America were a little less....stupid. Seriously, Obama has only been president 3 mounths and people are saying that America is endorcing socialism and the country.Do these people realize that we need the government to do something, like I don't know LAUNCH ECONOMIC RECOVERY PACKAGES!!!!! While I admit that the stimules packages have not worked as well as I hoped, at least its a step in the right direction. I don't think that these people realize that its going to take us YEARS!!! to get out of this recesssion and the government has to spend money in order for things to stabilize. Don't forget it took America almost twelve years to break free of the Great Depression and it would have taken us a lot longer if WW2 haden't broken out and created a massive demand for products. And how was the Deppresion being solved? BY THE NEW DEAL, which was pretty much the 1930's equivilent of several government stimules packages.

On that note, who the hell started calling these protests "Teabagging". If we find the exact person who started calling this "Teabagging" we should mock then for their ignorance, and then thank them for giving us somthing to laugh about in this dark trobling time.

P.S sorry for the wall'o text.

 

[Agayek]

The government needs to be completely abolished. Total anarchy with a simple moral standard of "venture no harm unto the innocent", and everything is dandy.

 

[Arisato-kun]

There's a few things that need to change. As a previous poster said we need more taxes to cover the war and the national debt. Tax cuts and paying down debt does not go together but some people like to think it does.

I also think some things need to be clarified about the war. 'War on Terror' is not a correct title. Let's be clear on this. We're at war with Islamist Extremist Groups (which make up less than 1% of Muslims). America is too afraid of offending people. But this is war. It's impossible to not offend people in war. We just need to suck it up and take the backlash while being clear to people in the Middle East that we are fighting groups and not Islam as a whole. On top of that a decision was made about the war. We're there. It's done. We've gotta stabilize the region. If we don't the only thing that will happen is that this will blow up worse than it already has. We've managed to not be attacked since 9/11. Let's keep doing our job and keep it that way.

 

[j0frenzy]

My answer would be a little of both. There are aspects that the government is involved in that it really should not be, in some cases to the detail that is in (e.g. religion) and in some cases it should not be talking about at all (e.g. marriage). On the other hand, there are other cases where I feel the government should really stand up and start doing more.

 

[lizards]

i really wish bush could have been president longer he was doing a good job

im not jokeing im fully willing to debate this

 

[lizards]

There's a few things that need to change. As a previous poster said we need more taxes to cover the war and the national debt. Tax cuts and paying down debt does not go together but some people like to think it does.

I also think some things need to be clarified about the war. 'War on Terror' is not a correct title. Let's be clear on this. We're at war with Islamist Extremist Groups (which make up less than 1% of Muslims). America is too afraid of offending people. But this is war. It's impossible to not offend people in war. We just need to suck it up and take the backlash while being clear to people in the Middle East that we are fighting groups and not Islam as a whole. On top of that a decision was made about the war. We're there. It's done. We've gotta stabilize the region. If we don't the only thing that will happen is that this will blow up worse than it already has. We've managed to not be attacked since 9/11. Let's keep doing our job and keep it that way.

i love you thank you for argueing points i have been for a couple years now

(high 5s him)

 

[Inverse Skies]

This is the part where I profess to not knowing much about the American government, but seeing as I'm from Australia and worry about my own inept governments decisions thats fairly understandable. From what I can glean from reading newspapers over here, the Obama administration is doing a reasonably good job considering the strife the world is in at the moment with the Global Financial Crisis hanging large. The media has always painted Obama in a fairly good light though over here, so I can't say any more than what I've read.

No idea if your government is too large. I would say ours is, with local, state and federal jurasdictions to worry about. One thing which always amuses me is how the state and federal governments bicker and can't agree on funding for projects, despite the same party being in power. That's usually the sign the government is too large.

 

[keyton777]

it would help somewhat if they chinched the belt on the politians, i mean, its too easy for them to get away with shit

 

[Greymantle]

All I want my government to do is deliver the dam mail and defend our borders.

Have a good day.