I just wanna know...

[bLacKjAck.]

I could give you more info, but i will open it up to you! Also, I love paying higher taxes and as for the idea of larger government , i love that too.

would you answer this ? for me? In light of how the government is right now after 8 years with a rep prez and 6 years(till 2006-7) with a congress and house/senate controlled also by rep's; why would you vote for a rep? After all they have done for our country.

Thanks
GJJ

To the first paragraph...I don't even know how to respond.

To the second, who said I was Republican? I am not. Am I a constitutionalist? Yes. More often than not though, the Republicans mirror the values of the constitution that the Democrats...imo.

Also that question is so ignorant its not worth a response "look at all they have done to our country"...nobody is doing **** because right now they are too busy fighting than caring about our country. Not the Rep's fault...it is congress in general.

Lastly, George Bush is different that "Republicans" in many aspects. I disagree with a LOT Bush has done, and will be the first to admit it. But cut the guy a fvckin break, its not like he has had a cakewalk for a presidency. Would hate to know how Al Gore would've handled this "situation.''

 

[AM07]

Al Gore would claim global warming is the reason the terrorists are so pissed off in the ME. It's making their deserts unbearable!

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I see your point, although, i disagree. your point is valid. At the same time you could say that many republicans dont handle money well. looking at the example of the war or whats going on with the housing market.

Which was agreed by Democrats. As of 2006, Democrats hold the purse strings for Iraq. They could stop it tomorrow.


The housing market is a direct result of Democratic policies and the Amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act.

"The 1995 revisions were credited with helping to substantially increase the amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Part of the increase in the latter type of lending was no doubt due to increased efficiency in the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages."

 

[bLacKjAck.]

Al Gore would claim global warming is the reason the terrorists are so pissed off in the ME. It's making their deserts unbearable!

I know this was in jest, but likely not far from the truth. It would DEF. not suprise me.

 

[skunkman]

I see your point, although, i disagree. your point is valid. At the same time you could say that many republicans dont handle money well. looking at the example of the war or whats going on with the housing market.

It is funny to me, how many people dont realize they are actually federalists and not republicans.

I don't think that you see my point at all. (I will admit that it wasn't clearly stated)

I was trying to point out that liberals want the government to have more of our money hence more control. It is a known fact that power corrupts people. You can see it all over, not just in politics. You probably experience it every day at your university when you see a person copying homework or cheating on a test. People are dishonest. Plain and simple.

What I don't get is why you would knowing elect someone that is going to cause more corruption.

As Jerry has pointed out the most corrupt institution in America is the government. The second being the pharmaceutical companies. Logic would tell you that to unite these two would be plain stupid.

Now don't get me wrong I want everyone to be healthy. The fact of the matter is that it will not happen. We live in a world were things are unfair. You will die. You need to look past your life (and the illegal alien with 7 kids) and think about your children's children.

People have been tricked into thinking that more money means you are are more important.

Any one who lives for more than money will realize that this is not true. The fact of the matter is that the more money you have the more your are able to advertise yourself. People can appear more important when more people know of you.

We've been indirectly told this over and over, and now people believe it.

I'm sorry but you would have to mentally challenged to believe this.

Republicans support as system that puts money over people (the democrats do aswell, but not to the same level of evil).

Were do you get this idea? Is not a better idea to think about the future Americans welfare rather than the welfare of a felon or should I say illegal citizen?

Their goals revolve around making the rich richer. People are getting poorer and poorer,

No people are becoming more and more irresponsible. They see the rich with there toys and think that it is their right as an "American" to have it too. The price of a new lung is the same as a car. I feel bad that they need a new lung but wouldn't it be a shame if I told them to sell their car, buy a cheap runner and pay for the surgery. You sold your car, xbox, tv, computer, and jewelery and still can't afford it? Do you have family? Friends? No you don't? Come inside then and I will give you a place to sleep in the morning we can go to the local churches and I will tell them what you have given up.

Now that was a little extreme but I hope you get the point.

owning property is becoming impossible for the average person.

First off were in the constitution does it say that you have to own land. My second point would be that it is not uncommon for a man to work all of his life to own land. This fact dates back to when US land was purchasable.

Poverty is rampant among people that work 6 days a week and the only reason it's happening is because Donald Trump wants another billion dollars.

See above. Then ask yourself if you would like the option to to have a billion dollars. I want that option.

I will admit that someone like Bill Gates desrevres more money than I do. He has worked harder, and smarter than I have in my life. But he has not worked 13 million times harder or smarter than I have.

What are you proposing? That you want to steal his money and give it to the poor? I don't think your Robin Hood.

He has a disproportinate piece of the pie, and because of that people are dying. (I'm not trying to **** on Gates personally too much, he's done a lot of good with his money lately).

Were the hell does this crazy idea come from? People are not dieing because a honest business man is successful.

We are hilariously complaciant, with our TV and our internet, but things are just going to get worse.

I agree.

I'd like to think we (I say we even though I'm a Canadian, but it is our fight as well because whether we want to admit it our not, we are completely relative to the US) would have the courage to revolt like the French did, but I doubt it.

I believe it was the British.

I'd be a democrat in a second, simply becausae they are the lesser of two evils.

Bullsh*t

 

[skunkman]

My main argument is why healthcare is so expensive? Also, why are the medicare and the taxes we pay for healthcare so expensive or Why is it that we pay taxes for healthcare, but yet when we go to a pubic center or even a privet hospital does it still costs an arm and a leg.

All valid questions. The why to to all your questions is simple. We invented it. America is on the cutting edge of medical advances and people make money off these advances. It is not fair to compensate someone for there work?

The reason is that medical companies charge up the ying yang for little drugs that we can get in mex or canada for 1/3 the price.

That doesn't even make sense. You just described how someone invented a product and then another person outside our laws copied his work. hmmm

Also, another reason is that so many people are uninsured and even with medicare they wouldnt be able to afford the bill of a public hospital.

How does not being able to afford a medical procedure make it cost more?

so, when these people end up not going to the doctor to take preventative measures and they get sick and sicker and sicker till finally they end up going to the emegency room and they cant pay for it, who do you think ends up paying the bill, u and I.

It sounds like you do not want to pay for their emergency bill. Why now is so important that you pay for their "maintenance" when you very well know that a healthy diet would be much more effective than a experimental pill.

I look supplements the same way as prescriptions. You don't need them but damn there fun to play with.

With public healthcare those who cant afford it now or can hardly afford it, will be able to.

This is advantageous how?

Also, this will cause the competition to lower there prices thus making healthcare better for the middle class and so on and so on.

False. Lowering the demand (sick people) will lower the supply (medical advances). That may seem heartless but we have not figured out how to live forever. I hope that I will live on this earth long enough to enjoy it before I become a cause for the supply.

I think your too caught up with what the next 10 years of your life are going to bring after college.

 

[EasyEJL]

If you measure %'s of GDP yes, but since an enormous amount of taxes are paid by the wealthy in this country (33% compared to your 29%) and the fact that we do have way more affluent individuals in the US, the stats are a bit skewed. I paid nowhere near $6401 in health care. Our wealthy are taxed more and middle class is taxed less in the US therefore the affluent take more of the load than your average middle class citizen.



Comparing % and GDP of a nation with 30 million to one of 300 million isn't exactly....ideal. You don't have massive amounts of illegal immigrants contributing to that cost. Illegal immigrants are basically bankrupting hospitals in the southwest and west coast but those numbers are not included because they are not technically citizens even though they are contributing to amount spent.


Its simple math. Its easier to run a government responsible for 30 million than one of 300 million. If you weren't more efficient in many areas you would be extremely incompetent

Actually beyond this, if you read the fine print in that report, the conversion rate for money wasn't based on normal international currency trading at the time the report was written, but by comparing the cost of a specific menu of health care items. So makes it really had to say how relevant their $ amounts are.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Actually beyond this, if you read the fine print in that report, the conversion rate for money wasn't based on normal international currency trading at the time the report was written, but by comparing the cost of a specific menu of health care items. So makes it really had to say how relevant their $ amounts are.

I haven't had my coffee yet. I'm lost...:lol:

 

[EasyEJL]

I haven't had my coffee yet. I'm lost...:lol:

oh just that report showing the cost differences between canadian health care and other countries isn't based on normal exchange rates per se. they picked a menu of services (which they don't detail what specific services) and then used the difference in price for those services to come up with their exchange rate. from the chart

Data are expressed in US dollars adjusted for purchasing power parities (PPPs), which provide a means of comparing spending between countries on a common base. PPPs are the rates of currency conversion that equalise the cost of a given ‘basket’ of goods and services in different countries.

so the numbers are only relative for certain undisclosed services, not an actual quote of % of GDP or actual cost per person.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I don't think its a revelation that all health care can be a hassle. I've heard horror stories about Canadian health care. Works both ways.

I was in a very serious accident in the summer (multiple weeks in the hospital) and received phenomenal care; no premiums payed, was not asked for insurance, and received top-tier care. I suppose, then, it's all relative.

Once again, he pays for it himself and chooses a fairly less expensive plan. Comparing to an average company policy, its inferior yet his care is still very good. I use the same PHI...they are quite good and inexpensive.

In my eyes, you are still getting taken - I receive the same care for free.

If you measure %'s of GDP yes, but since an enormous amount of taxes are paid by the wealthy in this country (33% compared to your 29%) and the fact that we do have way more affluent individuals in the US, the stats are a bit skewed. I paid nowhere near $6401 in health care. Our wealthy are taxed more and middle class is taxed less in the US therefore the affluent take more of the load than your average middle class citizen.

True. However, many of the OECD Reports which I was referring to did not take extremes (those in the top 5% of wage earners and those on MedicAid into account) they were done on the 'average citizen', so this point doesn't hold as much relevance.

Comparing % and GDP of a nation with 30 million to one of 300 million isn't exactly....ideal. You don't have massive amounts of illegal immigrants contributing to that cost. Illegal immigrants are basically bankrupting hospitals in the southwest and west coast but those numbers are not included because they are not technically citizens even though they are contributing to amount spent.

True.

Its simple math. Its easier to run a government responsible for 30 million than one of 300 million. If you weren't more efficient in many areas you would be extremely incompetent

You're right, it is simple math. For example, the capital for 18 days in the conflict in Iraq (which you're paying for anyway) could fund Universal Health Care for every child in your country considered under the poverty line (9.3 million) for a year. Two years of the conflict could provide Universal Health Care for your entire country for that same period. It seems to me, at least, that if you can pay taxes for the most unpopular war in your country's history (presumably for peace, justice, and so on) that you can pay the same amount of taxes for your countrymen to be safe.



(Don't worry, I'm not going to bust out my "Can't Hug Your Children With Nuclear Arms t-shirt" )

In a pragmatic sense, the argument is hard to sway either way. Individuals much more invested and learned in the specifics of this subject than you and I have determined the 'average' care received in each country is approximately the same. The difference then becomes philosophical - on one hand, you lose the guarantee for care and gain the choice for specific care - on the other, you gain the guarantee for care for each citizen in your country, but lose the option for specific. Personally, I would rather not pay anything (aside from taxes, which, as shown above, you're already making up in other wasteful areas) for comparable care. However, I understand your position, B.

 

[AM07]

I agree with you on the part about Iraq. It has been a financial nightmare. Although the spending for it has only been about 4% of our GDP, I think it's partly to blame for the economic and financial "crisis" our country is currently experiencing.

Remember when Wolfowitz said oil will pay for Iraq? What a fukcing dumbass.

I think your too caught up with what the next 10 years of your life are going to bring after college.

With that statement alone, I now realize why grila juijitsu thinks the way he does: he's in college! The American university is a bastion of liberal thought and policy! There may be less than 10 colleges left in this country that don't introduce leftist politics and force it on their students.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

With that statement alone, I now realize why grila juijitsu thinks the way he does: he's in college! The American university is a bastion of liberal thought and policy! There may be less than 10 colleges left in this country that don't introduce leftist politics and force it on their students.

Oh ****, I could not agree more; in every one of my classes (in Canada albeit) I feel like I'm being forcefully inundated with feminist-vegan-progressive political views, and it makes me sick. This isn't to say I necessarily disagree with the views being propagated, just the manner that they're being delivered. It creates a generation full of people too critical to objectively understand an issue, and too yuppy to change it.

 

[AM07]

That's the thing about college students. They think they are so much better than everyone because of their liberal thoughts. If you're not a liberal, to them you're uneducated. I just graduated from college last year, and it's evident in the university newspaper. I was a liberal up until about Fall 2006. I believed all of the bullshit coming from peoples' mouths in the University, from my fellow classmates and professors. But then I read Stossel's book, and it changed my outlook on things. Then started reading TownHall, and became pretty much a conservative since then.

 

[EasyEJL]

You're right, it is simple math. For example, the capital for 18 days in the conflict in Iraq (which you're paying for anyway) could fund Universal Health Care for every child in your country considered under the poverty line (9.3 million) for a year.

whats funny is that there are already programs covering those children, already paid for out of taxes...

 

[AM07]

Don't forget, children are some of the healthiest humans alive, and the Democrats wanted more spending on their healthcare!

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I was in a very serious accident in the summer (multiple weeks in the hospital) and received phenomenal care; no premiums payed, was not asked for insurance, and received top-tier care. I suppose, then, it's all relative.

Of course you did. All your citizens paid for it.

In my eyes, you are still getting taken - I receive the same care for free.

Actually, I think you are with government mandates...but thats "in my eyes". I would rather have a choice..but thats just me.

True. However, many of the OECD Reports which I was referring to did not take extremes (those in the top 5% of wage earners and those on MedicAid into account) they were done on the 'average citizen', so this point doesn't hold as much relevance.

It doesnt need to be the extremes. The US simply has a larger middle and upper middle class that pays more of the load. Given the way the tax brackets are set up and the number of write offs available, the average middle class citizen pays around 15-18% tax rate...about 6-8% less than you. Canadians are coming here for work for the most part...not the other way around.

You're right, it is simple math. For example, the capital for 18 days in the conflict in Iraq (which you're paying for anyway) could fund Universal Health Care for every child in your country considered under the poverty line (9.3 million) for a year. Two years of the conflict could provide Universal Health Care for your entire country for that same period. It seems to me, at least, that if you can pay taxes for the most unpopular war in your country's history (presumably for peace, justice, and so on) that you can pay the same amount of taxes for your countrymen to be safe.

Sound like a Democrat that is severely mistaken.

1. My taxes haven't gone up at all since the war started...in fact they have gone down.

2. The funds for the war would have never been allocated to the public to begin with...no matter who was in office.

3. The funds for the war (which is something that will end) is mostly borrowed money. Comparing that to a system that would require that same amount of money year after year until this government was no more is a bit...dramatic. Its borrowed because then the governments actually has more control over that debt (by deflating the dollar). Ask China how happy they are about the debt we have with them right now.... We will never pay that debt nor be taxed on it. Its basically a large slush fund that is a revolving door. It gets passed on and passed on with very little, if at any, effect on the general public. The government is not a cash business nor does it operate like one. There is a reason my taxes we're high in the 90's yet we still has a surplus. Those funds will never see the light of day to the general public....ever.

4. This war doesn't even come close to the unpopularity of the Korean and/or Vietnam war. Its not even in the same ballpark.

In a pragmatic sense, the argument is hard to sway either way. Individuals much more invested and learned in the specifics of this subject than you and I have determined the 'average' care received in each country is approximately the same.

Which in my view looks more positively on us since we are a nation of 300 million compared to one of 30 million. Technically, you should be kicking our ass

The difference then becomes philosophical - on one hand, you lose the guarantee for care and gain the choice for specific care - on the other, you gain the guarantee for care for each citizen in your country, but lose the option for specific. Personally, I would rather not pay anything (aside from taxes, which, as shown above, you're already making up in other wasteful areas) for comparable care. However, I understand your position, B.

I would much rather have the choice...

And as I've shown above, we are actually paying less overall. When tax rates actually rise above 20%, the middle class basically turns higher taxes into a nice little talking point which then causes the government to pass stimulus packages which sends me another $1500 rebate check (although that goes to my quarterly as a business...lol).

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I agree with you on the part about Iraq. It has been a financial nightmare. Although the spending for it has only been about 4% of our GDP, I think it's partly to blame for the economic and financial "crisis" our country is currently experiencing.

It has almost nothing to do with the "financial crisis". The current slowdown is because we had one of the largest economic booms in recent history. People that make 60k a year shouldn't be buying 400k houses. That is your problem...not a war in which those funds would never see the light of day anyway.

....but this is an election year and certain people have to make it sound like 1-2% GDP GROWTH is now considered a recession. Its 1992 all over again...Skyrocketing deficits, bad economy, Democrat elected Did your taxes drop and GDP blow away the numbers we have now? No. Its nothing but talking points that in reality have almost zero effect on your livelihood. If you compare the economy now to then, its not much different at all. Its just larger and more globally oriented....

Remember when Wolfowitz said oil will pay for Iraq? What a fukcing dumbass.

Actually, it still could...but like I said above, the cost of the war hasn't effected your pocket book in any way at all. In fact, you pay less then you did in 2003.

With that statement alone, I now realize why grila juijitsu thinks the way he does: he's in college! The American university is a bastion of liberal thought and policy! There may be less than 10 colleges left in this country that don't introduce leftist politics and force it on their students.

Colleges are full of people that haven't figured out that ideology often conflicts with reality.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Of course you did. All your citizens paid for it.

True, I've been paying for approximately 5 years, but you know that is not what I meant. When I arrived in the ambulance, the level of my care was not determined by the PHI card I produced, just my ID proving Canadian citizenship; I also would not have been discarded or given a choice of care based on what I could afford.

Actually, I think you are with government mandates...but thats "in my eyes". I would rather have a choice..but thats just me.

That is fine. As I said, it reduces to a philosophical difference, not a pragmatic one. Personally, I would rather pay comparable taxes and know that at no time will a Doctor deliberately not treat me because I am on MediCaid, cut my treatment short because I cannot afford it, or will any insurance company rebuke a necessary treatment because it's deemed 'experimental'.

It doesnt need to be the extremes. The US simply has a larger middle and upper middle class that pays more of the load. Given the way the tax brackets are set up and the number of write offs available, the average middle class citizen pays around 15-18% tax rate...about 6-8% less than you. Canadians are coming here for work for the most part...not the other way around.

And Americans are crossing the border for their prescription drugs in record numbers; so which side is the grass greener on?

Approximately 25,000 Canadians cross that lateral line to work. Compare that to the approximately 9 million mail-orders place in Canada, from the US, mostly by Seniors, and the grass begins to seem not so bad under my feet. So many Americans rely on reasonable Canadian prescription drugs, that your government actually passed a bill increasing the supply of prescriptions an American citizen can legally import.

As to the point of migrant workers, the most recent job data (January-March) implies an opposite trend. With the Canadian dollar hovering consistently above, or slightly below, the American dollar, the incentive to work in the US has decreased recently. However, your point is still valid.

Sound like a Democrat that is severely mistaken.

1. My taxes haven't gone up at all since the war started...in fact they have gone down.

2. The funds for the war would have never been allocated to the public to begin with...no matter who was in office.

3. The funds for the war (which is something that will end) is mostly borrowed money. Comparing that to a system that would require that same amount of money year after year until this government was no more is a bit...dramatic. Its borrowed because then the governments actually has more control over that debt (by deflating the dollar). Ask China how happy they are about the debt we have with them right now.... We will never pay that debt nor be taxed on it. Its basically a large slush fund that is a revolving door. It gets passed on and passed on with very little, if at any, effect on the general public. The government is not a cash business nor does it operate like one. There is a reason my taxes we're high in the 90's yet we still has a surplus. Those funds will never see the light of day to the general public....ever.

4. This war doesn't even come close to the unpopularity of the Korean and/or Vietnam war. Its not even in the same ballpark.

True, those are all valid and well constructed points. However, I didn't make any of them aside from the last.



My comparison was not a practical "if the funds were not spend on 'x' they would be spent on 'y'" but a hypothetical "they could". Which is a point you furthered by bringing up the lack of financial detriment the Iraq Conflict has caused you. And that to the ever-increasing trend of de-industrialization which keeps premium on National Defense products high, but real-jobs making them low, and a diversion of that funds into a Universal Health Care program which would create far more real-jobs does not seem all that bad.

Actually, it is more unpopular. Gallup data from the Vietnam War and the Iraq War shows that the Iraq Conflict became more unpopular, much quicker. In fact, 40% of the citizens in your nation disapproved by the first year, a level which was not reached until well into the second year with Vietnam. Add to that the increased government support for the Vietnam war over Iraq, and the very quick disapproval by foreign nations, and Iraq is your most unpopular war, believe or not. There are no domestic riots or Mamma and Papas singing songs because this is an uncritical generation, and the effectual tie with government has been lost. However, as I've shown, it is vastly more unpopular.

Which in my view looks more positively on us since we are a nation of 300 million compared to one of 30 million. Technically, you should be kicking our ass

We're still better in Hockey.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I guess I underestimated the amount of Americans filing for Canadian prescriptions; apparently is almost equal to the amount of people in my entire country. More striking, is that the vast majority of these individuals have some form of PHI, as they need to apply to receive Canadian prescriptions. So many Americans need to fill Canadian prescriptions, that it's driving my supply down.

That does not take into account individuals doing it illegally, either. Which more than likely makes up a larger demographic. That doesn't seem very....patriotic.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

True, I've been paying for approximately 5 years, but you know that is not what I meant. When I arrived in the ambulance, the level of my care was not determined by the PHI card I produced, just my ID proving Canadian citizenship; I also would not have been discarded or given a choice of care based on what I could afford.

And neither is ours....emergency care is not denied even if you have no insurnace. Its the reason why illegals go to the emergency room.

That is fine. As I said, it reduces to a philosophical difference, not a pragmatic one. Personally, I would rather pay comparable taxes and know that at no time will a Doctor deliberately not treat me because I am on MediCaid, cut my treatment short because I cannot afford it, or will any insurance company rebuke a necessary treatment because it's deemed 'experimental'.

Actually, doctors love when you have Medicaid. They get their money quicker. Its also the reason that it was exploited so much.

And Americans are crossing the border for their prescription drugs in record numbers; so which side is the grass greener on?

The people that don't want to pay for health insurnace often buy generic drugs. Those who have insurnace don't care because its covered. Choices....

Approximately 25,000 Canadians cross that lateral line to work. Compare that to the approximately 9 million mail-orders place in Canada, from the US, mostly by Seniors, and the grass begins to seem not so bad under my feet. So many Americans rely on reasonable Canadian prescription drugs, that your government actually passed a bill increasing the supply of prescriptions an American citizen can legally import.

Thats because people who don't choose to pay for health insurance want cheap drugs. Once again, its a choice.

As to the point of migrant workers, the most recent job data (January-March) implies an opposite trend. With the Canadian dollar hovering consistently above, or slightly below, the American dollar, the incentive to work in the US has decreased recently. However, your point is still valid.

But the amount of business failing in Canada are pushing them to the US because its cheaper. Vancouver is a perfect example...

My comparison was not a practical "if the funds were not spend on 'x' they would be spent on 'y'" but a hypothetical "they could".

They could do a lot of things. But looking at the reality of the situation and what history tells me, its not gong to happen and never will. It simply isn't a "cash available" problem.

And that to the ever-increasing trend of de-industrialization which keeps premium on National Defense products high, but real-jobs making them low, and a diversion of that funds into a Universal Health Care program which would create far more real-jobs does not seem all that bad.

Which would probably be outsourced...

Actually, it is more unpopular. Gallup data from the Vietnam War and the Iraq War shows that the Iraq Conflict became more unpopular, much quicker.

Thats because everything is quicker these days with 100x the news outlets and the internet. We are basically and extrmeley spoiled generation that want results now...

In fact, 40% of the citizens in your nation disapproved by the first year, a level which was not reached until well into the second year with Vietnam.

And it was 83% approval to go to war....how much do I put my faith in public polls about what is ACTUALLY happening? Not much. Plus as I stated above, the mindset is a bit different now.

Add to that the increased government support for the Vietnam war over Iraq, and the very quick disapproval by foreign nations, and Iraq is your most unpopular war, believe or not.

Not.

Comparing a war that killed 84k American troops, 1.4 million troops overall to one that has killed 4k troops, is quite a stretch.


The disapproval and outright hate for our government during the late 60's and early 70's doesnt even come close to what it is now.

Asking people if they disapprove of war in general isn't going to get relatively high numbers especially in this media rich age.

I would actually look at the political and social outcomes of now vs then to make my comparisons and its not even close.

There are no domestic riots or Mamma and Papas singing songs because this is an uncritical generation, and the effectual tie with government has been lost. However, as I've shown, it is vastly more unpopular.

If you actually think that this war, one that doesnt even have a draft, is more unpopular than one that was drafting basically every poor person over the age of 18 and killed over 84,000 troops leaves me to believe that you really need to stop looking at "polls".


There is a reason Democrats are looking towards the economy to get elected and not the war.

Comparing Vietnam to Iraq is comparing apples to a t-bone steak. Its that different.

We're still better in Hockey.

Our ice sucks.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I guess I underestimated the amount of Americans filing for Canadian prescriptions; apparently is almost equal to the amount of people in my entire country. More striking, is that the vast majority of these individuals have some form of PHI, as they need to apply to receive Canadian prescriptions. So many Americans need to fill Canadian prescriptions, that it's driving my supply down.





That does not take into account individuals doing it illegally, either. Which more than likely makes up a larger demographic. That doesn't seem very....patriotic.

We have over 300 million people. Its really not that hard to beat you in terms of volume on anything.


It wasn't I who called Canada, Northern United States

 

[Mulletsoldier]

And neither is ours....emergency care is not denied even if you have no insurnace. Its the reason why illegals go to the emergency room.

Discarded was in reference to post-care, which is definitely a reality.

Actually, doctors love when you have Medicaid. They get their money quicker. Its also the reason that it was exploited so much.

Hmm, then I must be reading the wrong OECD studies which imply the complete opposite - that have polled practices as towards their preferences.

The people that don't want to pay for health insurnace often buy generic drugs. Those who have insurnace don't care because its covered. Choices....

This is somewhat misinformed. The vast majority is actually covered Americans under PHI who can't afford the drugs. They aren't covered, that's why the come here.

But the amount of business failing in Canada are pushing them to the US because its cheaper. Vancouver is a perfect example..

.

Vancouver has had a fledgling economy reversed to the American trend for some time. Bad example.

They could do a lot of things. But looking at the reality of the situation and what history tells me, its not gong to happen and never will. It simply isn't a "cash available" problem.

I agree on the part it will never happen.

Thats because everything is quicker these days with 100x the news outlets and the internet. We are basically and extrmeley spoiled generation that want results now...

That is part of it, but, the relevance is there. The response of 'disagree' was much more, far more than can be made up for
'viral media'.

And it was 83% approval to go to war....how much do I put my faith in public polls about what is ACTUALLY happening? Not much. Plus as I stated above, the mindset is a bit different now.

Once again, you're thinking strictly domestically. This is a vastly (believe it or not) more unpopular war than Vietnam was initially. Though, by the end, comparable.

Not.

Comparing a war that killed 84k American troops, 1.4 million troops overall to one that has killed 4k troops, is quite a stretch.


The disapproval and outright hate for our government during the late 60's and early 70's doesnt even come close to what it is now.

Asking people if they disapprove of war in general isn't going to get relatively high numbers especially in this media rich age.

I would actually look at the political and social outcomes of now vs then to make my comparisons and its not even close.

Si, you cannot have your cake and eat it to. You cannot say "it's less approved because of the non-relevance in media exposure" and then make this point.

If you actually think that this war, one that doesnt even have a draft, is more unpopular than one that was drafting basically every poor person over the age of 18 and killed over 84,000 troops leaves me to believe that you really need to stop looking at "polls".

I don't. I look at polls, the data that says hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, I pay attention to happenings outside the U.S., border. As I said, abroad, this is a much more unpopular war. Maybe you should start looking at "polls".

 

[Mulletsoldier]

We have over 300 million people. Its really not that hard to beat you in terms of volume on anything.


It wasn't I who called Canada, Northern United States

The volume even when boiled down to relative terms is still greater in my point.

 

[Nightwanderer]

So is leaving a hospital without paying.

that's legal here too, you can't be denied hospital services here, the worst they can do is send you a bill.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Anyways, B, let's get to more important issues....such as our picks for the Cup this year.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Discarded was in reference to post-care, which is definitely a reality.

In some. And I'm sure some Canadians don't receive the best care either.

Hmm, then I must be reading the wrong OECD studies which imply the complete opposite - that have polled practices as towards their preferences.

I think you are reading studies too much and not actually interacting with doctors here in the states. Getting money form the federal government is much easier than getting it form a private insurance company which by your definition, wants to cut costs. That's the reality and its common sense.

This is somewhat misinformed. The vast majority is actually covered Americans under PHI who can't afford the drugs. They aren't covered, that's why the come here.

Really? Do you have PHI here in the states because it sounds like you do. Funny, my PHI which is inferior to most company policies covers prescription drugs. But your study says I don't so I guess thats right...lol

Vancouver has had a fledgling economy reversed to the American trend for some time. Bad example.

Actually its not....the film industry fleeing Vancouver because of a weaker dollar is a good exmaple. And thats recent...

That is part of it, but, the relevance is there. The response of 'disagree' was much more, far more than can be made up for
'viral media'.

Not that I see.

Once again, you're thinking strictly domestically. This is a vastly (believe it or not) more unpopular war than Vietnam was initially. Though, by the end, comparable.

Thats because the Vietnam war reflefcted a larger picture...ie the Cold War. Plus, I'm not concerned about what other countries perceive. The popularity of America has been going down evert since the cold war ended...you know, top dog takes more criticism. Jealousy is a *****

Si, you cannot have your cake and eat it to. You cannot say "it's less approved because of the non-relevance in media exposure" and then make this point.

I don't have a cake nor am I eating one. I stated the reality of both wars and the mindset I see here. You know, talking to actual people in this country.... having family members that were in Vietnam and knowing the mindset of the people spitting on soldiers coming home form the war. Its a bit different

I don't.

According to your poll, you do.

I look at polls, the data that says hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, I pay attention to happenings outside the U.S., border. As I said, abroad, this is a much more unpopular war. Maybe you should start looking at "polls".

I really don't care about public opinion abroad.

Polls are a means to foster debate and sell newspapers. They hardly go into enough details that actually express the public opinion of 300 million people. Disapprove? Yes. Pull out no matter what? No. Possibly elect a candidate that is actually pro war? 50/50 right now....

The devil is in the details...not generalities.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Anyways, B, let's get to more important issues....such as our picks for the Cup this year.

My Flyers are in, so therefore I go with them..lol

 

[Mulletsoldier]

My Flyers are in, so therefore I go with them..lol

Seriously, I did pick them over the Capitals.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Seriously, I did pick them over the Capitals.

sh1t....we agree. Now I have to go back to work. :lol:

 

[Nabisco]

"Living in Canada is like having a loft apartment above a really great party...and not being invited" - unknown American

I want to preface this with the fact that I'm not a diehard Republican. I have a lot of liberal views, and conservative views. So I'm what you'd call a middle of the road kind of guy. Nearly 24, chemical engineer. I make a decent salary.

Now to begin, America has devolved into a society of "I deserve everything".

Republicans believe you deserve what you earn.

Democrats believe you deserve the same as everyone else.

As Jerry already pointed out, this sub-prime crisis that is currently destroying the banking/loan infrastructure was developed and passed into law by democrats.

Because the liberals in American decided "Everyone deserves to own a house, no matter how hard they work!" guess what happened. People bought houses that they could not actually afford, on adjustable rate mortgages, which increase over time (duh). But who cares about 5 years down the road? Right now I have a big a$$ house that I deserve! But you know what, I can't hate this downturn in the market, because even though I am making less money through my investments in the stock market (oh no, I'm only making 17% return in 2008 instead of 20+), I can now buy property real cheap because of stupid people defaulting on their mortgages (that they couldn't afford to begin with).

So why should I vote for a Democrat when this is what happens? Within the next few years the market will rebound, as it has throughout history (for those uneducated in the intricacies of the stock market, its cyclical. It goes up and down over time, but always up in the long run). I'll continue to live within my means, buying properties that I can easily afford, and renting them out (which provides me income and pays the mortgage for me) and eventually selling them for hefty profits. I will continue to utilize all that money I'm saving by renting myself currently, and driving an 97 Toyota Avalon instead of buying a BMW that would suck up $600/mo to further my own long term goals. Because ten years down the road, I'll be sitting pretty and 75% of America will be up to their ears in debt barely surviving.

Thats the Republican way ladies and gents. Be responsible for yourself. I'm not responsible for anyone other than myself (and family because I'm a nice guy...but its a CHOICE). Don't tell me you want to take more of my hard earned money (higher taxes) to pay that idiot who bought that 400k house on their 55k/yr salary. It's NOT your right as an American to own a home. It's NOT your right as an American to own a new car. It's NOT your right as an American to have everything you want without working for it.

It's your right as an American to build your own future through hard work and diligence. Thats why I refuse to vote for a Democrat.

So what the system isn't fair. Oh but Nabisco, you're a white male, so you get all the benefits of the system. Except that I got passed over for multiple scholarships because I didn't fill a minority slot (Friends of mine with lower grades, lower SATs, and less extracurriculars got scholarships when applying to identical programs at the same schools). So I went to a less known University that offered me a partial scholarship and worked every summer to pay tuition (my parents helped, thanks Dad). Which again put me at a disadvantage coming out of college because I didn't have a co-op or internship, but I got a job and worked my way up, because you'll find that after you get that first job it doesn't matter whats on your resume from college. It matters how hard you work and how proficient you are at your job.

So the moral of the story is that the system screws everyone at some point or another (some more than others) and I'm in no way meaning this as a "woe is me", I came out fairly well off in the end. But that doesn't mean I deserve recompense because life is unfair. I got out of school debt free, and started saving money. All my friends bought brand new cars, big apartments, all kinds of new furniture. I kept driving my good old '97 Avalon thats paid off. Got a reasonable apartment, and bought cheap furniture or took second hand stuff family handed down. And two years out of school, while my friends are still paying off loans and cars, I've got 20k banked towards retirement and another 10k in investments waiting to build to 15-20k to buy some place to start renting out. I make a good salary because I've worked my way up in those two years.

Guess what, I earned every penny. And you don't see me complaining that I can't have a nice shiny car, or a 300k house. I'll get there eventually, but when its within my means. Because I refuse to put myself in debt (besides a reasonable mortgage) to get in NOW. I don't need a government that hands me money to buy things NOW, I'll do it on my own. And so should everyone else.

/rant

 

[Mulletsoldier]

"Living in Canada is like having a loft apartment above a really great party...and not being invited" - unknown American

I want to preface this with the fact that I'm not a diehard Republican. I have a lot of liberal views, and conservative views. So I'm what you'd call a middle of the road kind of guy. Nearly 24, chemical engineer. I make a decent salary.

Now to begin, America has devolved into a society of "I deserve everything".

Republicans believe you deserve what you earn.

Democrats believe you deserve the same as everyone else.

As Jerry already pointed out, this sub-prime crisis that is currently destroying the banking/loan infrastructure was developed and passed into law by democrats.

Because the liberals in American decided "Everyone deserves to own a house, no matter how hard they work!" guess what happened. People bought houses that they could not actually afford, on adjustable rate mortgages, which increase over time (duh). But who cares about 5 years down the road? Right now I have a big a$$ house that I deserve! But you know what, I can't hate this downturn in the market, because even though I am making less money through my investments in the stock market (oh no, I'm only making 17% return in 2008 instead of 20+), I can now buy property real cheap because of stupid people defaulting on their mortgages (that they couldn't afford to begin with).

So why should I vote for a Democrat when this is what happens? Within the next few years the market will rebound, as it has throughout history (for those uneducated in the intricacies of the stock market, its cyclical. It goes up and down over time, but always up in the long run). I'll continue to live within my means, buying properties that I can easily afford, and renting them out (which provides me income and pays the mortgage for me) and eventually selling them for hefty profits. I will continue to utilize all that money I'm saving by renting myself currently, and driving an 97 Toyota Avalon instead of buying a BMW that would suck up $600/mo to further my own long term goals. Because ten years down the road, I'll be sitting pretty and 75% of America will be up to their ears in debt barely surviving.

Thats the Republican way ladies and gents. Be responsible for yourself. I'm not responsible for anyone other than myself (and family because I'm a nice guy...but its a CHOICE). Don't tell me you want to take more of my hard earned money (higher taxes) to pay that idiot who bought that 400k house on their 55k/yr salary. It's NOT your right as an American to own a home. It's NOT your right as an American to own a new car. It's NOT your right as an American to have everything you want without working for it.

It's your right as an American to build your own future through hard work and diligence. Thats why I refuse to vote for a Democrat.

So what the system isn't fair. Oh but Nabisco, you're a white male, so you get all the benefits of the system. Except that I got passed over for multiple scholarships because I didn't fill a minority slot (Friends of mine with lower grades, lower SATs, and less extracurriculars got scholarships when applying to identical programs at the same schools). So I went to a less known University that offered me a partial scholarship and worked every summer to pay tuition (my parents helped, thanks Dad). Which again put me at a disadvantage coming out of college because I didn't have a co-op or internship, but I got a job and worked my way up, because you'll find that after you get that first job it doesn't matter whats on your resume from college. It matters how hard you work and how proficient you are at your job.

So the moral of the story is that the system screws everyone at some point or another (some more than others) and I'm in no way meaning this as a "woe is me", I came out fairly well off in the end. But that doesn't mean I deserve recompense because life is unfair. I got out of school debt free, and started saving money. All my friends bought brand new cars, big apartments, all kinds of new furniture. I kept driving my good old '97 Avalon thats paid off. Got a reasonable apartment, and bought cheap furniture or took second hand stuff family handed down. And two years out of school, while my friends are still paying off loans and cars, I've got 20k banked towards retirement and another 10k in investments waiting to build to 15-20k to buy some place to start renting out. I make a good salary because I've worked my way up in those two years.

Guess what, I earned every penny. And you don't see me complaining that I can't have a nice shiny car, or a 300k house. I'll get there eventually, but when its within my means. Because I refuse to put myself in debt (besides a reasonable mortgage) to get in NOW. I don't need a government that hands me money to buy things NOW, I'll do it on my own. And so should everyone else.

/rant

I'm unsure of the point of that (any?), but nice rant; nor do I understand the point of including the first quote.

I'd add to that what you Americans consider 'liberal' down there, is a Torrie (Conservative) up here; literally, in the grand schema of the political spectrum (other countries have politics too ) American politics is 'far right' and 'not so far right'.

 

[AE14]

Just to answer the original question in the thread, I am a happy independent populist (by most accounts) however I can lean left on a few issues. I have to say I find it laughable that many republicans think it is the dems who have been pushing big government. Look at our current administration and truly see their role in big government and over government involvement.

Lets understand this, both parties and their leaders suck. They will continue to do so, until something drastic takes shape. Remember, Thomas Jefferson always stated that we needed a revolution every 20-30 years to wipe the salte clean, so to speak

 

[AE14]

Republicans believe you deserve what you earn.

Democrats believe you deserve the same as everyone else.

overly simplistic and generalized, I am glad to see that you can speak for everyone in each party. Bravo

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I'm unsure of the point of that (any?), but nice rant; nor do I understand the point of including the first quote.

I'd add to that what you Americans consider 'liberal' down there, is a Torrie (Conservative) up here; literally, in the grand schema of the political spectrum (other countries have politics too ) American politics is 'far right' and 'not so far right'.

The point of the OP was to ask why you would vote for a Democrat...he was saying why he would not

 

[Mulletsoldier]

The point of the OP was to ask why you would vote for a Democrat...he was saying why he would not

Ahh, thanks buddy! I thought that was directed at me and I was pretty confused.

:lol:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Just to answer the original question in the thread, I am a happy independent populist (by most accounts) however I can lean left on a few issues. I have to say I find it laughable that many republicans think it is the dems who have been pushing big government. Look at our current administration and truly see their role in big government and over government involvement.

The current Congress is going to spend more than the Republicans who were voted out....for spending too much.

Most Republican were against the Bear Stearns bailout as well as bailing out home buyers. You won't hear that on the news though.

Republican voters did not show up in 2006 because of their spending. "Republicans" are the voters and party as a whole, not just the elected officials who were booted out of office.

Lets understand this, both parties and their leaders suck. They will continue to do so, until something drastic takes shape. Remember, Thomas Jefferson always stated that we needed a revolution every 20-30 years to wipe the salte clean, so to speak

That doesn't mean he's right.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

overly simplistic and generalized, I am glad to see that you can speak for everyone in each party. Bravo

If the shoe fits...

 

[AE14]

If the shoe fits...

however in this instant it does not

using generalizations like this is like putting a bandaid on a severed limb

 

[AE14]

Most Republican were against the Bear Stearns bailout as well as bailing out home buyers. You won't hear that on the news though.

In the instance of bear sterns they are wrong. there is a need for government intervention here as the fallout would have been catastrophic.

In terms of home buyers, keep in mind there does need to be some thought to government intervention. I agree, people need to be held responsible for their own mistakes, however when there has been such a tremendous amount of predatory lending, then a larger power needs to be involved.

Republican voters did not show up in 2006 because of their spending. "Republicans" are the voters and party as a whole, not just the elected officials who were booted out of office.

If you are a "republican" then you must be proud of the current administration and their defiance of the constitution and the bill of rights.

 

[EasyEJL]

In the instance of bear sterns they are wrong. there is a need for government intervention here as the fallout would have been catastrophic.

Catastophic to who? This is what capitalist markets are about. They shouldn't have been bailed out, just like the dumb people getting forclosed shouldn't be bailed out.

In terms of home buyers, keep in mind there does need to be some thought to government intervention. I agree, people need to be held responsible for their own mistakes, however when there has been such a tremendous amount of predatory lending, then a larger power needs to be involved.

I don't think a single person had a gun put to their head and were told to sign or else. These were people who looked at houses too expensive for themselves to afford, and took out loans they couldn't make the payment on. The borrowers did it to themselves. If you are too dumb to be able to read the truth in lending sheets, then you are too dumb to own a house. It was all about greedy people, who suddenly saw a way that for 3 years they could be in a home they couldn't normally afford. Well, they got their 3 years, now forclose on the idiots as the variable loan goes outside of their budget.

If you are a "republican" then you must be proud of the current administration and their defiance of the constitution and the bill of rights.

Its far better than the prior administration trying to rewrite them.

 

[AM07]

I'm unsure of the point of that (any?), but nice rant; nor do I understand the point of including the first quote.

I'd add to that what you Americans consider 'liberal' down there, is a Torrie (Conservative) up here; literally, in the grand schema of the political spectrum (other countries have politics too ) American politics is 'far right' and 'not so far right'.

Speaking of the definition of liberal, I just finished the MCAT a couple hours ago, and one of the verbal passages was about liberalism, and how the West's definition of it is radically different from liberalism in Europe. The West's definition of liberalism is bigger government to give everyone what they feel they "deserve", while in Europe, a liberal government is considered one that doesn't interfere much in peoples' lives. This is what the passage said, and I forgot what text it was taken out of, but I'll try to find out.

 

[AE14]

Catastophic to who? This is what capitalist markets are about. They shouldn't have been bailed out, just like the dumb people getting forclosed shouldn't be bailed out.

look at projections for the economic issues that would have occured had bear stearns gone belly up. You are familiar with their business correct?

Also, remember something about the government, it is here to protect the rights of the people as well. As I said in my previous post, people should be held responsible, however when taken advantage of (certain instances) the government has always protected individuals. That is why loans are backed by FHA etc...

I don't think a single person had a gun put to their head and were told to sign or else. These were people who looked at houses too expensive for themselves to afford, and took out loans they couldn't make the payment on. The borrowers did it to themselves. If you are too dumb to be able to read the truth in lending sheets, then you are too dumb to own a house. It was all about greedy people, who suddenly saw a way that for 3 years they could be in a home they couldn't normally afford. Well, they got their 3 years, now forclose on the idiots as the variable loan goes outside of their budget.

I dont disagree, however having been an AVP in Loan servicing for one of the major national Subprime lenders (now out of business) I understand what has been done for years. Loan officeers would skew documents without half the material necessary to complete the loan just so they get the comission. Then you have an 82 year old women refi'ing a house that she cant afford and only pulling in her social security. However, at least the loan officer gets their comission. Understand something, this is a major problem that is not just people getting in over their head. The housing market has gone to crap, and all the values have dropped so they cannot even sell to save their collective asses.

Its far better than the prior administration trying to rewrite them.

that is just the silliest statement I have seen today. I am no Clinton supporter by any stretch, but what the Bush administration has done should be considered criminal. But hey, at least he is a republican :rofl:

 

[EasyEJL]

Understand something, this is a major problem that is not just people getting in over their head. The housing market has gone to crap, and all the values have dropped so they cannot even sell to save their collective asses.

you are just completely wrong. It is entirely just people getting in over their head. it is the definition of getting in over your head. They got loans they couldn't afford. Thats getting in over your head.

The housing market going to crap has nothing to do with taking out a loan that you can't afford to pay. If you can't afford to pay it, it was a poor choice that you made. And if you were the greedy dreamer that the house would go up enough % that you can still sell it and after real estate commissions and closing costs make a profit within 3 years, then you also deserve what you get.

All the loans that have gone sour aren't from people who bought a reasonable house that they could afford on their current pay and had some sort of calamity occur, its just people who got in over their heads.

One of my friends is facing forclosure. I told him he was a dumbass when he bought the house and took out the loan he did, and I tell him he's a dumbass now.

 

[AE14]

you are just completely wrong. It is entirely just people getting in over their head. it is the definition of getting in over your head. They got loans they couldn't afford. Thats getting in over your head.

The housing market going to crap has nothing to do with taking out a loan that you can't afford to pay. If you can't afford to pay it, it was a poor choice that you made. And if you were the greedy dreamer that the house would go up enough % that you can still sell it and after real estate commissions and closing costs make a profit within 3 years, then you also deserve what you get.

All the loans that have gone sour aren't from people who bought a reasonable house that they could afford on their current pay and had some sort of calamity occur, its just people who got in over their heads.

One of my friends is facing forclosure. I told him he was a dumbass when he bought the house and took out the loan he did, and I tell him he's a dumbass now.

having worked in that field for over 7 years I can tell you that you are being very short sighted.

the housing market plays a huge role as I explained earlier.

at the end of the day, your inability to see that is not my concern at the moment, so we can agree to disagree as this conversation will go absolutely no where

 

[EasyEJL]

Yes, thats generally the way it goes when someone expects people shouldn't be responsible for the contracts they sign and obligations they agreed to meet. Are you sure you aren't a democrat?

 

[AE14]

Yes, thats generally the way it goes when someone expects people shouldn't be responsible for the contracts they sign and obligations they agreed to meet. Are you sure you aren't a democrat?

you are so silly, those comments prove you have not read anything except your own typing.

have a nice day, this conversation is now pointless and your comments are proving a bit silly so I am :run:

 

[WannaBeHulk]

would you answer this ? for me? In light of how the government is right now after 8 years with a rep prez and 6 years(till 2006-7) with a congress and house/senate controlled also by rep's; why would you vote for a rep? After all they have done for our country.

sorry for quoting something from page 1, but i wanted to give my opinion.

the Democratic hopefuls are terrible candidates. you have obama who dodges any question concerning our current threats/issues by saying "we need to forget everything and move forward." thats geat, but moving forward requires solutions to current circumstances. he talks his way out of everything while avoiding hinting at his positions.

then we got hilary, who is in favor of everything "in the right situation." she's in favor of xyz IF there's a full moon on a thursday and earth is aligned with saturn.

not to mention, democrats aren't exactly fiscally sound. i wanna pay for my healthcare, not everyone's healthcare. i would rather allocate taxpayer dollars to the war and things like the bear-stearns bailout (genius move by the feds).

 

[teribleturtle]

"Living in Canada is like having a loft apartment above a really great party...and not being invited" - unknown American

I want to preface this with the fact that I'm not a diehard Republican. I have a lot of liberal views, and conservative views. So I'm what you'd call a middle of the road kind of guy. Nearly 24, chemical engineer. I make a decent salary.

Now to begin, America has devolved into a society of "I deserve everything".

Republicans believe you deserve what you earn.

Democrats believe you deserve the same as everyone else.

As Jerry already pointed out, this sub-prime crisis that is currently destroying the banking/loan infrastructure was developed and passed into law by democrats.

Because the liberals in American decided "Everyone deserves to own a house, no matter how hard they work!" guess what happened. People bought houses that they could not actually afford, on adjustable rate mortgages, which increase over time (duh). But who cares about 5 years down the road? Right now I have a big a$$ house that I deserve! But you know what, I can't hate this downturn in the market, because even though I am making less money through my investments in the stock market (oh no, I'm only making 17% return in 2008 instead of 20+), I can now buy property real cheap because of stupid people defaulting on their mortgages (that they couldn't afford to begin with).

So why should I vote for a Democrat when this is what happens? Within the next few years the market will rebound, as it has throughout history (for those uneducated in the intricacies of the stock market, its cyclical. It goes up and down over time, but always up in the long run). I'll continue to live within my means, buying properties that I can easily afford, and renting them out (which provides me income and pays the mortgage for me) and eventually selling them for hefty profits. I will continue to utilize all that money I'm saving by renting myself currently, and driving an 97 Toyota Avalon instead of buying a BMW that would suck up $600/mo to further my own long term goals. Because ten years down the road, I'll be sitting pretty and 75% of America will be up to their ears in debt barely surviving.

Thats the Republican way ladies and gents. Be responsible for yourself. I'm not responsible for anyone other than myself (and family because I'm a nice guy...but its a CHOICE). Don't tell me you want to take more of my hard earned money (higher taxes) to pay that idiot who bought that 400k house on their 55k/yr salary. It's NOT your right as an American to own a home. It's NOT your right as an American to own a new car. It's NOT your right as an American to have everything you want without working for it.

It's your right as an American to build your own future through hard work and diligence. Thats why I refuse to vote for a Democrat.

So what the system isn't fair. Oh but Nabisco, you're a white male, so you get all the benefits of the system. Except that I got passed over for multiple scholarships because I didn't fill a minority slot (Friends of mine with lower grades, lower SATs, and less extracurriculars got scholarships when applying to identical programs at the same schools). So I went to a less known University that offered me a partial scholarship and worked every summer to pay tuition (my parents helped, thanks Dad). Which again put me at a disadvantage coming out of college because I didn't have a co-op or internship, but I got a job and worked my way up, because you'll find that after you get that first job it doesn't matter whats on your resume from college. It matters how hard you work and how proficient you are at your job.

So the moral of the story is that the system screws everyone at some point or another (some more than others) and I'm in no way meaning this as a "woe is me", I came out fairly well off in the end. But that doesn't mean I deserve recompense because life is unfair. I got out of school debt free, and started saving money. All my friends bought brand new cars, big apartments, all kinds of new furniture. I kept driving my good old '97 Avalon thats paid off. Got a reasonable apartment, and bought cheap furniture or took second hand stuff family handed down. And two years out of school, while my friends are still paying off loans and cars, I've got 20k banked towards retirement and another 10k in investments waiting to build to 15-20k to buy some place to start renting out. I make a good salary because I've worked my way up in those two years.

Guess what, I earned every penny. And you don't see me complaining that I can't have a nice shiny car, or a 300k house. I'll get there eventually, but when its within my means. Because I refuse to put myself in debt (besides a reasonable mortgage) to get in NOW. I don't need a government that hands me money to buy things NOW, I'll do it on my own. And so should everyone else.

/rant

I am as liberal as they come, but I pretty much agree with everything you said, especially the point regarding "Everyone needs to own a house". I am a housing counselor, I see and deal with the foreclosure disaster daily. After going through all of this I have come to the conclusion that, buying a house is seriously over rated!!! I mean it is a great investment if you can afford it! if not I am sure that you will have a better more stress free life if you either; wait on buying a house or buy one that you can afford!! I see it all the time, a 4 person family (husband wife 2 kids) having their 5- bedroom 3 car garage, swimming pool sh11ty mcmansion being foreclosed on, making only 60k a year and they wonder why it happened!

As far as affirmative action, I am thinking that making an AA system based on economic background would be much better. I am a minority in college, who had a rough background and it does upset me seeing other minorities who lived very privileged lives probably better than most WASPs reaping the benefits of affirmative action programs. Really those people do not need assistance of any type, on the other hand I tutor at a local inner city high school and it is disheartening to see very capable and very intelligent students, yes some of them are White, not have a clue as to how to go about getting into college, SAT prep, or paying for college.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

In the instance of bear sterns they are wrong. there is a need for government intervention here as the fallout would have been catastrophic.

I'm not arguing that point. I am telling you what most Republicans think. I already know the what the consequence of not bailing out investment banks would be and agree it was the right thing to do...and I'm Republican....

In terms of home buyers, keep in mind there does need to be some thought to government intervention. I agree, people need to be held responsible for their own mistakes, however when there has been such a tremendous amount of predatory lending, then a larger power needs to be involved.

Your predatory lending was a result of Democratic intervention and the amendment of the CRA of 1995.

If you are a "republican" then you must be proud of the current administration and their defiance of the constitution and the bill of rights.

I don't have to proud of anything and I certainly don't believe Big Brother is watching me unlike some other paranoid people out there.

 

[EasyEJL]

Your predatory lending was a result of Democratic intervention and the amendment of the CRA of 1995.

as well as a result of him specifically, he mentioned he was assistant vp for 7 years of a mortgage lender serving subprime that has since gone under.... which is funny, I guess thats why he thinks the poor innocent people his staff took advantage of should be taken care of by other peoples tax money? guilt? or is it that he wants his job back?