Ha ha, I hope that she does not become President. It's nothing against women, I would vote for one if I thought she was the right choice.
We certainly wouldn't want Hillary Clinton setting the precedent for all future female Presidents, as George Washington set the bar for males.
Trust me, American has "gone down the spout" or was on it's way out long before Bush took office. I keep hearing Obama has a vision and he's for "change." However, I still don't know what this supposed "change" is. The government is getting too much control in America. We need a smaller government, not a government telling a business owner he can't let people smoke in the business he owns. That's the path towards fascism. Likewise, we don't need the government to socialize healthcare. Next we'll have socialized banking, socialized transportation and worse. That's the path towards communism or extreme socialism. We need smaller government, and that's something that Obama and Clinton (and probably McCain, for that matter) cannot - will not - provide.
Yeah, as depressing as it sounds, I don't think the U.S. Government will ever get smaller than it is right now. I can only see it growing in size during my lifetime. You know, you give a kid a cookie, and leave the cookie jar out. He's going to keep eating cookies even though he should stop.
IMO no politician will do that. What politician do you know of, gets power and then gives it up? The US political system is broken. The founding fathers would cry and probably go back to Britain and apologize for the American Revolution. I'm serious.
The concept of a limited government was the foundation of America. It was the basis of the Ronald Regan point of view as well. I fail to see the incentive for politicians to create a bigger government; I mean, passing laws to increase the government size doesn't help the actual politician much unless that action is popular. I think it's ignorance of economics more than anything.
It seems quite strange to me for an American to talk of a smaller government, as i thought it was pretty small compared to most. I don't think capitalism should be left without regulation. I mean the smoking ban was about protecting peoples' health, workers and other customers, so i don't understand the compliant there, and to say it's the path towards fascism is ridiculous. I also don't see how public funded health system would lead on to the public ownership of other things (and communism). Most European countries have public funded health systems and have had for a long time, many also have right wing governments. In the case of the UK over time more things which were run by the government have been privatised (to varying degrees of success)- i guess the argument there is that the health of people shouldn't be left up to the market and is a special case. Also I'm interested in how taking the government out of things will benefit the country? If you are going to take government more out the economy, how about the great subsides to farmers? Stopping them would put a lot of people out of business.
In the end, it's all about power, or staying in power. Government grows for the politician to maintain that power. Is it good economic sense? No. But it works. Take money from a smaller group of individuals and distribute it to a larger group of individuals...works for the politicians. Sure the 'smaller group' will be upset. But the 'larger group' constitutes more votes. As for banning smoking in places such as bowling alleys, restaurants, bars, etc. Is smoking healthy? No. Is it legal? Yes. If it is so bad, why is it still legal? Ummm, good source of tax revenue to spend $ on to purchase votes. Is it proper for the government to ban a private employer from allowing smoking in their business--a restaurant for example? It is not a place where individuals have to go...like the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. The customer has a choice--if they don't like the smoke...go to another restaurant. If they don't like the smoke, go work at another restaurant or somewhere else? I don't smoke. My option was to go where I felt comfortable--smoke-free restaurants and support them as a paying customer. It was voted in (at least where I live), because more people don't smoke than do. But in the end, pure democracy is mob rule. It was proposed in a state legislature here in the USA, that restaurants be barred (under penalty of stiff fines and loss of license to operate) from serving obese customers. Is that right or proper? I realize this is a question that is not black and white: Is it right for the government to take money out of an individual's pocket or bank account and give it to another person so that they can have health care? If so, why? If not, why not? There are very few things that governments do well, that is why taking things out of government control is often better. In the end, this is what elections are about, and supporting (not only via voting--but that is important, but even assisting the campaigns--volunteer or possibly contributions) those candidates that best support what you believe. One common statement, which I think is accurate, is that the political system is broken (as previously stated) and that often it is left to voting for the 'lesser of two or three evils'. Money, corruption, and the type of person who goes into politics and stays there long enough to move up...all contribute--as well as an unconcerned and uneducated/politically naive/easily manipulated electorate. But back to Super Tuesday...who we have left running are the choices. Sorry I rambled a bit trying to address several posts above while adding my own two cents. Terry
Its official folks. Romney is out. At this time we can probably safetly assume McCain will be the Republican Presidential Candidate.
I haven't really been following politics lately. Can someone enlighten me, in brief, about what's going on with the elections and stuff?
He's not out yet. He's only suspended his campaign, just like John Edwards. They're both technically still in the race. I do think it's pretty safe to say that McCain has wrapped up the Republican side of this election though.
The United States does have a government smaller than most - and it's one of the most successful, debateably one of the most powerful and wealthiest worldwide. I attribute this to the American concept of having a small, limited government and free trade. In the past 60 years or so our government has monstrously grown, and with that has come restrictions on free trade. The government should defend us against foreign and domestic threats, establish a justice/court system (and laws about what should be legal), and provide public goods. Aside from that, there is little we need the government to provide. Subsidies and welfare and related programs almost always hurt the people. Most of the problems of America are caused by the government. I could give many examples. Capitalism should nearly be without regulation. We need free trade, though laws against illegal goods and taxes are necessities. We don't want an anarchy, but people should be able to buy sell and trade without extreme restriction. The government shouldn't tell us what we can sell, where we can sell it, and such. It's less about actually smoking and more about government's control. While smoking is unhealthy, who is the government to tell us we cannot smoke in a business we own? Say a man owns a bar and allows people to smoke there. It's his bar. He owns it. He sustains it. Why should the government be able to tell him, no, people can't smoke in the building you own and run. That's ridiculous. If the employees or the customers don't want to be around smoking, then they should go somewhere else. While it's not a direct path towards fascism, it does have roots of fascist ideology. It's the concept of the people still "owning" their companies but the government telling them how to run it, "or else." I'm fairly certain this was the case in Germany with Hitler; the owners of companies were allowed to keep their job and run the company as long as they did it exactly as their government directed them. While a simple smoking ban is a long way from fascism, I think it does hold the basic roots of the fascist concept. It's a step towards socialism. Aside from the lack of relevant competition, there's the issues of doctors having an inceptive to work hard. If the government sticks it's fingers in one important industry such as healthcare, I think it's plausible to say they might do so on other important industries such as mining or oil production. Take a look at Canada; while they don't have a completely socialized heathcare system, they have it to some extent. They are known for having problems with their system. The waiting time for treatment is long, and people have died because it can take months for important treatment. Furthermore, their shortage of doctors is another piece of evidence is that many Canadian doctors go to the United States to treat patients. Some Canadians even travel to the U.S. for healthcare because of the issues with their own, which is partly the fault of socialization. I suspect that's because they partially realized that socialism as a ruling government body cannot work. So you're saying we should socialize healthcare because healthcare is so important and the government will do a better job? This, to my knowledge, has never happened - at least in America. Every time the government gets involved like this, things go wrong. If you have a free market, even with health care, this creates competition - competition results in better products and services because companies are competing for your business. Oh my. Historically, when looking back, almost every time the government interferes with things such as subsidies they only worsen the problem. Having a free market economy lets businesses run more efficiently and gives the consumers the best possible results. Subsidies, in almost every case, should not be created. Yes, some farmers would go out of business - but that would, ideally, eliminate the least productive farmers and improve the market (when dealing with shortages and surpluses). There once was a case in which the American government thought that they needed to put a price limit on the cost of milk, because they thought it was getting to low and would put farmers out of business. They raised the price of milk which made people buy less; so now there's the same amount of milk but less is being purchase. What does the government do? They buy cheese, since cheese uses milk in it's production. This is a type of subsidy, indirectly. They're buying cheese to increase the farmers earnings. To make a long story short, the government then stored the cheese in a mine in some northern state. Once the mine got full of this massive amount of cheese they gave it away to the elderly and poor (they couldn't give it away to the middle class because we'd stop buying cheese from the store and thus lower the farmer's income). They still had a surplus of cheese they purchased as a subsidy from farmers (in replacement of the surplus of milk) So... what did the U.S. government do? We killed 100,000 cows. Bam. A real stroke of genius from a government trying to regulate things. The result? A rise in the price of cheese and milk, exactly like the U.S. government wanted. The downfall: the price of beef drastically shot downwards. The result: many cow farmers lost their businesses and went bankrupt because of our government's ignorance of economics. Essentially, by trying to avoid farmer's going bankrupt, they caused it. This is one example. There are many more. There are similar problems with big government and welfare. Handouts only cause problems and provide an incentive for people not to work.
You can say that about customers, but not employees. Employees can't always pick and choose where they work, and are therefore protected in the workplace in the same way they are protected from other toxic materials in teh workplace, The cost in lives and health due to smoking affects the entire economy, and a frightening amount of that arises from involuntary smoking, As much as I agree with the goal of less government, this is one area in which I feel that more regulation is a good thing. I agree completely with this. Transfer payments do absolutely nothing to bolster the economy (producion remains flat), and the administration costs actually siphon currency OUT of the active economy.
Welfare if how the state pays for the lives of people who give nothing back to it. I oppose it in every form, Including Social Security in its current format. Why should I pay for old man Jenkins when, by the time I'm his age, the system will be bankrupt and I'll get nothing for years of service? Social mSecurity needs reform. Instead of paying for someone else I should be paying my own Social Security so that when i retire I have my own money. Better yet I'm the kid of human who works till he drops and I won't retire until I'm dead, or my health prevents me from working anymore. I won't need it. Welfare as a loan? The people who recieve welfare can't live by their own means already how will they pay back a loan when the money they recive from welfare buys their food, clothes, and other basic expenses? Its a pointless system and a drain of money. About 3rd of the people on welfare are on it by choice. These are people perfectly capable of getting work and making their own way. This third doesn't though because why should they work when the government pays them for nothing?
Cogito, Why don't employees have the choice where they work? They apply at a business and get hired. If they don't like to work there, then they can seek employment elsewhere. If an employer determines he cannot recruit quality workers and is losing business/profit because of the smoking policy, then he can change the policy to a non-smoke area. Statistics show that people utilize the healthcare system the most in the final stages of life. If they don't spend it earlier (due to cancer or emphysema) will it be spent on treating Alzheimer's or a stroke, diabetes, heart disease or something else. Here is a study out that says treating obese people and smokers is cheaper: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080206/ap_on_he_me/obesity_cost;_ylt=ApXe1rQlGshgVbK1tr1Ql8JZ24cA As I said in an earlier post, I don't smoke, and I didn't care to frequent places that did. I spent my money elsewhere (restaurants for example). If smoking is that bad, why not ban it? Because the tax income to the government is too high, that's why. If the $ gathered from taxes on tobacco were used to care for those who smoked...it wouldn't be an issue about costs. As I stated in an earlier post, in Missouri last week, it was proposed in the state legislature that restaurants be banned from serving obese people, at the risk of significant fines or losing their license. Well, being obese isn't healthy, so it's the right and proper thing for government to do? Just like the smoking ban? As Lpspider indicated: Twenty-five years ago in the USA, suggesting state-wide smoking bans was considered something impossible to pass. As I stated in an earlier post, democracy is a form of mob rule. Be careful whose rights you are willing to infring upon today, even if you don't agree with them (ie smoking), because later on down the road, your rights very likely will be next. Terry
Obesity does not pose a significant health risk to people near the overeater (no comments about crush deaths). As for the employee bit, not everyone has the luxury of giving up a job to try to find a better one. And what does it become, if people who do not wish to work in an environment that destroys their health have a smaller job pool to choose from? A more accurate analogy is whether employers should be allowed to keep asbestos ceiling tiles, because not all of their employees are worried about developing lung cancer and other respiratory ailments. Those who care can find another job. It's rather irrelevent whether someone likes the asbestos tiles. The obesity law proposal is scandalous. and quite possible frivolous.
Imagine me swearing angrily. I'm not small. I am overweight by quite a bit unfortunatly. But refusing to serve someone overweight/obese is disgusting and downright unfair. I mean, what are they going to do- put a set of scales next to the matred's stand and say oops, we don't allow your sort here? Back to Super Tuesday- which was a few days ago now... Obama vs Hilary- it doesn't matter who wins.. we all lose...... p)
I couldn't agree more. It's pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it that gays are already second class citizens in the United States, which is awful. We made so much progress, but it seems that with things like this, the entire concept of civil rights is nothing more than a pendulum.
It was the employee's choice to apply and take the position to begin with. They don't have to give up their job to find a better one. They can seek a different job, one that does not involve a smoking environment, and then apply. In the end, it may be a choice the employee has to make...whether they want the job and its benefits bad enough to endure the smoking environment. If an employer cannot recruit the best, brightest and most capable, because of the smoking environment, that employer will have to make a choice to alter his policy, or suffer reduced income, or possibly go out of business. Installing and having exposed cieling tiles made of asbestos is illegal. Then why are cigarettes not illegal if they're on par with asbestos as the analogy proposed? Because they are not. Or if they are, then the should be banned all together, right? The analogy was not between workplace/smoking and obesity/banning eating at restaurants. The point was that 'in the name of health and safety' and 'concern for citizens and the cost of healthcare' the government wants to take action...to tell people how to run their lives and their business establishments. Where does it end? According to insurance companies...payouts for sporting activies...football ranks #1 (the most dangerous). SHould not then the playing of football be banned? Family outings at the park ranks in the top ten. That should be banned too? Terry
To expand on Terry's point above, yes, the potential employee does not have to apply to a job that allows smoking. While they may have a smaller job pool, this is their choice. Similarly, people who don't want to work in high risk jobs or jobs that are traditionally looked down upon need not apply to those. Choosing to apply or not apply to a job that allows smoking would be no different than applying or not applying to be a logger or a miner (assuming one was able) because of the increased risk. It would be no different than choosing not to apply to a position as a garbage man because they work around garbage.
They give nothing back? Nothing? Can you substantiate that? And what about what they already gave? It just may be that your assumption that the system will be bankrupt is erroneous. What if you became disabled tonight? What means of support do you have? What about the other two thirds? What shall become of them? What if you were one of the two thirds? There is a concept known as social responsibility. Most Western countries have this. Some countries' government is based on it -- it's called Socialism. Are you saying it doesn't work? It does. Beware what you wish for. If you became disabled tonight, you'd be unprepared to pay your rent, buy groceries, get medical treatment and medications, and get clothing -- the basic necessities -- and perhaps a few niceties like an internet connection. If you were struck down, you'd be grateful for what you get, although all you'll be able to afford are these basic things. If paying your premium for this insurance seems unreasonable to you, you're wrong. If you're working and have income, you'll still have enough money to invest for your retirement. Get started! No matter how little you make, you get more than most Social Security recipients do. So, don't complain. Instead, prepare. Do you know how? Knowing how is an issue too. Not everyone is as smart as you.
I meant that loan thing to the idea of those that are capable of working. It would allow us to provide a means of support without anyone draining money from the system. As the welfare would be provided by the federal government, the ability to retrieve the loaned money would be there. Not much different from a business or school loan; help them relocate or something like that. If they are unable to pay and haven't looked for a job, then they will no longer be provided welfare and perhaps be required to do community service or something else--I don't know. ---------------------------------------------------- Why shouldn't they ban cigarettes? I wonder if any other companies are allowed to artificially create an inelastic demand in their consumer market. And hell, why don't we just destroy the FDA/USDA and allow those poor businesses to save money? It'll be their choice to actually give us beef when we order it. I mean, you can get the real stuff if you have the money. They're just lessening the amount of places you can eat at--but it doesn't matter because no one else cares, just go somewhere else.
