So, Who's your candidate? A Quiz

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
eyégor
???????
Posts: 1139
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:26 am
Location: Trollsberg

#51 Post by eyégor » Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:32 pm

earendel wrote:
Ah, but are we not a "Christian nation"?
Not at all. We are a nation of Christians. The problem with Social Security is the same problem as 'unringing a bell'. We have a system that has been in place for 70 odd years. It has been there for as long as, save a precious few, anyone can remember. It is part of the landscape, and, therefore, must remain so for an indefinite future.

But even if you don't accept the above, think of the outcry if, suddenly, the winter streets were filled with frozen ants, err, old people. Yes, I exagerate, but only in degree. Many Americans are too far down spendthrift road to realistically turn back now. Blame the rise of the welfare state, stagflation, the baby boom, whatever. The fact remains that, as the population ages, their needs are going to need addressing. This decision was made for us decades ago. To throw the burden of providing for themselves on this population now would prove too great a burden, will slow the economy and accelerate what I see as a developing downward spiral, the precipice of which this nation finds itself.

Few would willingly pay the cost of salvaging this system, but that is not the choice before us. We need to concentrate on fixing it so that the breadth of citizens are covered, by the most cost efficient method possible. Privatization just doesn't accomplish this.

User avatar
eyégor
???????
Posts: 1139
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:26 am
Location: Trollsberg

#52 Post by eyégor » Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:44 pm

TheCalvinator24 wrote:
Silly me. I thought we were a nation that was supposed to be governed by our Constitution, not by the current conception of what is "good for society."

And please spare me the "promote the general welfare" argument. First, it's not in the Body of the Constitution, and second, no Federal law should ever be enacted that is not explicitly authorized by the text within the Body of the Constitution.
This works well. In a vacuum. But we do not live in one. Laws, by their very nature are driven by current opinion. If not, then legislatures would be obsolete, for they would have surely have been figured out over the centuries of human civilization.

As for the Constitution, it is a magnificent document. However, it was devised for the contingencies of the 18th century. It speaks nothing in regard to many of today's problems. That is why the appointment of Supreme Court Justices is so important. Any reasonable man can read the Constitution and understand most of its meaning. But it is to these nine citizens that we turn when the document fails to explicitly deal with an issue. Then, much like a band of shamans, these elders divine an interpretation from a section of the document. And if you don't believe current opinion doesn't play into that ritual, then explain how Dred Scott and Brown both were issued by the same body.

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

#53 Post by earendel » Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:03 pm

TheCalvinator24 wrote:Could you be any more disingenuous with your question? I didn't think so.
I just threw that in because many people who espouse your position make that claim. I'm not suggesting that you do.
TheCalvinator24 wrote:Silly me. I thought we were a nation that was supposed to be governed by our Constitution, not by the current conception of what is "good for society."
I suppose it depends upon how one views the role of government.
TheCalvinator24 wrote:And please spare me the "promote the general welfare" argument. First, it's not in the Body of the Constitution, and second, no Federal law should ever be enacted that is not explicitly authorized by the text within the Body of the Constitution.
Perhaps not, but it seems to me that the preamble sets forth the entire purpose for having a Constitution in the first place, else why even have it or require children to memorize it? As for your latter statement, again it depends upon how one views the Constitution and its purpose.
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

#54 Post by earendel » Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:05 pm

Sir_Galahad wrote:
earendel wrote: Not only that, but - and perhaps I'm reflecting my age here - young people seldom give much thought for the future, so asking them to plan their own retirement may be too much to expect. And so when they get old and don't have a nest egg, what happens then?
What I would favor, here, ear, is the government "forcing" you to set up your own retirement savings to fund your own retirement. The government will not have access to remove funds from your account nor any say in how it is invested. But, they can mandate the establishment of the fund so they won't be in that position when they retire.
What difference does it make overall whether the government establishes a system (or maintains the one in existence) or forces younger people to plan for their retirement? Either way you have that "nanny state mentality" that you seem to oppose.
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

#55 Post by earendel » Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:09 pm

eyégor wrote:
earendel wrote:
Ah, but are we not a "Christian nation"?
Not at all. We are a nation of Christians.
I know that - I just threw that in to beard Cal, and of course it seemed to work. In truth, though, a lot of people who share his views about health care, Social Security, etc., make that claim, which seems a little strange to me.
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

User avatar
Sir_Galahad
Posts: 1516
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:47 pm
Location: In The Heartland

#56 Post by Sir_Galahad » Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:10 pm

earendel wrote:
What difference does it make overall whether the government establishes a system (or maintains the one in existence) or forces younger people to plan for their retirement? Either way you have that "nanny state mentality" that you seem to oppose.
Because I realize that even in my idealistic world, it would never happen. That is, a large percentage of the population would not prepare for their own retirement. It's not done now and I don't see any reason why I should think it would be done in the future. So, I have to come up with some plan that a) satisfies my requirement of having people do their own thinking and planning and b) keeps the government as much OUT of the equation as possible. This set up satisfies both requirements. The government can mandate that you do it (in much the same way as they do the FICA deduction) but you have full control over it.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

Perhaps the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about...

User avatar
ToLiveIsToFly
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:34 am
Location: Kalamazoo
Contact:

#57 Post by ToLiveIsToFly » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:10 pm

eyégor wrote:I just took the Minnesota Public Radio version
Link?

User avatar
Sir_Galahad
Posts: 1516
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:47 pm
Location: In The Heartland

#58 Post by Sir_Galahad » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:17 pm

SportsFan68 wrote:
Sir_Galahad wrote:
SportsFan68 wrote: I'm with the Physicians for a National Health Program on this one.
So, then, Sprots, you're OK with the government dinging you another 5 or 10% or whatever it's going to take to help pay for the 40 million or so people that are currently without health care?
We could fund the entire program the first year on the duplication and wasted effort currently going into private plans purchased by employers. As for the rest, yes, I'd be happy to double my 1.45% Medicare amount or even an extra 3.55% to get to 5% -- that would still be far, far less than the $238 per month I'm paying now. And that's only my share, my employer picks up an addiitional (approximately) $400 a month; I'm sure the PTB would be thrilled at the savings. I know I would. And most of your 40 million are the working poor, who could handle that small of a percentage share but not $238 a month.
Sprots, it all sounds rosey in the beginning. But, like any bureaucracy, it would eventually become bloated and expensive like every other government-run plan. The problem is, once again, that you will have money-grubbing politicians' hands in the pot, making the rules. You can believe what you like as that is what makes the world go round. But I believe there is no way that HillaryCare is gonna fly without costing you, me and everyone else a truckload of money that we weren't paying before. It's the Democrat way, IMO.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

Perhaps the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about...

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7773
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

#59 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:25 pm

Sir_Galahad wrote:
SportsFan68 wrote:
Sir_Galahad wrote: So, then, Sprots, you're OK with the government dinging you another 5 or 10% or whatever it's going to take to help pay for the 40 million or so people that are currently without health care?
We could fund the entire program the first year on the duplication and wasted effort currently going into private plans purchased by employers. As for the rest, yes, I'd be happy to double my 1.45% Medicare amount or even an extra 3.55% to get to 5% -- that would still be far, far less than the $238 per month I'm paying now. And that's only my share, my employer picks up an addiitional (approximately) $400 a month; I'm sure the PTB would be thrilled at the savings. I know I would. And most of your 40 million are the working poor, who could handle that small of a percentage share but not $238 a month.
Sprots, it all sounds rosey in the beginning. But, like any bureaucracy, it would eventually become bloated and expensive like every other government-run plan. The problem is, once again, that you will have money-grubbing politicians' hands in the pot, making the rules. You can believe what you like as that is what makes the world go round. But I believe there is no way that HillaryCare is gonna fly without costing you, me and everyone else a truckload of money that we weren't paying before. It's the Democrat way, IMO.
Yes, let's use Social Security for example. A noble government program that I would be glad to help fund (I have been for most of my life). Today, the first person of my generation applied for her benefits. Well maybe she'll get out what she paid in, but not many of the rest of us will. Why? Because the politicians run the program, and they've spent all the money that we've put in. Good idea with good intentions gone bad because we constantly vote in people who stay in power by 'fixing' problems with programs that cause more problems than they fix. But we keep listening to them, don't we?

User avatar
TheCalvinator24
Posts: 4874
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

#60 Post by TheCalvinator24 » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:20 pm

SportsFan68 wrote:Here is the url for SelectSmart, which gave me 100% for Howard Dean about four years ago.

I got more than 90% for Kucinich on this one four years ago; I'll look into what changed. A couple questions this year weren't there four years ago; Kucinich and I probably differ on legal or illegal immigration or both.

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html
Here's mine:

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Alan Keyes (88%) Information link
3. Duncan Hunter (80%) Information link
4. Tom Tancredo (79%) Information link
5. Mitt Romney (71%) Information link
6. Chuck Hagel (not running) (69%) Information link
7. Sam Brownback (67%) Information link
8. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (65%) Information link
9. Mike Huckabee (59%) Information link
10. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (59%) Information link
11. John McCain (57%) Information link
12. Fred Thompson (56%) Information link
13. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn, endorsed Giuliani) (51%) Information link
14. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (50%) Information link
15. Ron Paul (48%) Information link
16. Rudolph Giuliani (44%) Information link
17. Joseph Biden (34%) Information link
18. Hillary Clinton (33%) Information link
19. John Edwards (31%) Information link
20. Al Gore (not announced) (30%) Information link
21. Bill Richardson (29%) Information link
22. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (26%) Information link
23. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (25%) Information link
24. Mike Gravel (24%) Information link
25. Barack Obama (22%) Information link
26. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (20%) Information link
27. Christopher Dodd (19%) Information link
28. Dennis Kucinich (19%) Information link
29. Elaine Brown (8%) Information link
It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. —Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
TheCalvinator24
Posts: 4874
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

#61 Post by TheCalvinator24 » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:21 pm

I guess it fits since Keyes was the first political candidate I ever gave money.
It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. —Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
Sir_Galahad
Posts: 1516
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:47 pm
Location: In The Heartland

#62 Post by Sir_Galahad » Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:37 pm

I would really like to see Keyes get the same push and poll results that Thompson got when he jumped it. I think he is a true conservative and would do this country good. I don't think it's going to happen but I can always hope. Unless I see something dramatic happen within the next year, I honestly feel that Rudy is the only one that will give Hillary a real challenge. I am not 100% comfortable with Rudy but I could live with him, so to speak. If Rudy gets the nod I hope he would pick Keyes as his running mate.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

Perhaps the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about...

User avatar
SportsFan68
No Scritches!!!
Posts: 21103
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: God's Country

#63 Post by SportsFan68 » Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:41 pm

Sir_Galahad wrote: Sprots, it all sounds rosey in the beginning. But, like any bureaucracy, it would eventually become bloated and expensive like every other government-run plan. The problem is, once again, that you will have money-grubbing politicians' hands in the pot, making the rules. You can believe what you like as that is what makes the world go round. But I believe there is no way that HillaryCare is gonna fly without costing you, me and everyone else a truckload of money that we weren't paying before. It's the Democrat way, IMO.
What I'm proposing isn't HilaryCare, SirG. It's probably something you hate even worse, national single-payer insurance. Here's HilaryCare:

The centerpiece of Clinton's "American Health Choices Plan" is the so-called "individual mandate," requiring everyone to have health insurance _ just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance. Rival John Edwards has also offered a plan that includes an individual mandate, while the proposal outlined by Barack Obama does not.

Aides said Clinton believes that an individual mandate is the only way to achieve health care for all. A key component of her plan would be a federal tax subsidy to help individuals pay for coverage.

Clinton's plan builds on the existing employer-based system of coverage. People who receive insurance through the workplace could continue to do so; businesses, in turn, would be required to offer insurance to employees, or contribute to a government-run pool that would help pay for those not covered. Clinton would also offer a tax subsidy to small businesses to help them afford the cost of providing coverage to their workers.

For individuals and families who are not covered by employers or whose employer-based coverage is inadequate, Clinton would offer expanded versions of two existing government programs: Medicare, and the health insurance plan currently offered to federal employees. Consumers could choose between either government-run program, but aides stress that no new federal bureaucracy would be created under the Clinton plan.


I probably dislike HilaryCare even more than y'all do. What I can't figure out is why y'all aren't blasting away at Medicare to shoot down my proposal. It is not Social Security. It's Medicare expanded to everybody, and Medicare in general has not become bloated and expensive since its inception in 1965, unlike many other federal programs which make me want to throw up just thinking about them. Politicians do seem to be able to keep their money-grubbing hands out of the Medicare pot and I believe would do so with national single-payer insurance as well.
-- In Iroquois society, leaders are encouraged to remember seven generations in the past and consider seven generations in the future when making decisions that affect the people.
-- America would be a better place if leaders would do more long-term thinking. -- Wilma Mankiller

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26460
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

#64 Post by Bob Juch » Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:46 pm

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Barack Obama (80%)
3. Hillary Clinton (73%)
4. Dennis Kucinich (72%)
5. Joseph Biden (71%)
6. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (71%)
7. Al Gore (not announced) (71%)
8. Bill Richardson (70%)
9. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (70%)
10. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (69%)
11. Christopher Dodd (68%)
12. John Edwards (66%)
13. Mike Gravel (59%)

User avatar
eyégor
???????
Posts: 1139
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:26 am
Location: Trollsberg

#65 Post by eyégor » Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:56 am


User avatar
gsabc
Posts: 6487
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:03 am
Location: Federal Bureaucracy City
Contact:

#66 Post by gsabc » Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:52 am

On a related note, we have a special election in my district (5th Mass.) to replace Marty Meehan, who abandoned ship to become chancellor at his alma mater. The two major party candidates are both sob stories, neither with any real political background - the widow of a senator and presidential hopeful (he lost the nomination to Bill Clinton) and the brother of one of the pilots who was crashed into the World Trade Center. The more experienced candidates (state senators and representatives, mostly) were pushed aside by these two "names" in the primary leading up to this election.

I thought I had wanted a NOTA box on our last gubernatorial election ("goober" was the operative term for that one). This one surpassed it. I voted for one of the independents. He'll get 3% of the vote at most, but I just couldn't vote for either of the two major party candidates. The district will go from major influence in Congress to nothing for years to come. I don't see either one of them being effectual once they arrive.

:(
I just ordered chicken and an egg from Amazon. I'll let you know.

User avatar
minimetoo26
Royal Pain In Everyone's Ass
Posts: 7874
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:51 am
Location: No Fixed Address

#67 Post by minimetoo26 » Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:57 am

My selectsmart results for my semi-Socialist ass:

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Barack Obama (90%) Information link
3. Dennis Kucinich (88%) Information link
4. Joseph Biden (85%) Information link
5. Hillary Clinton (83%) Information link
6. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (81%) Information link
7. Christopher Dodd (81%) Information link
8. John Edwards (81%) Information link
9. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (78%) Information link
10. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (75%) Information link
11. Al Gore (not announced) (75%) Information link
12. Bill Richardson (69%) Information link
13. Mike Gravel (61%) Information link
14. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (50%) Information link
15. Ron Paul (43%) Information link
16. Rudolph Giuliani (43%) Information link
17. Elaine Brown (38%) Information link
18. John McCain (36%) Information link
19. Mike Huckabee (33%) Information link
20. Mitt Romney (28%) Information link
21. Chuck Hagel (not running) (24%) Information link
22. Alan Keyes (23%) Information link
23. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn, endorsed Giuliani) (19%) Information link
24. Sam Brownback (18%) Information link
25. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (17%) Information link
26. Fred Thompson (16%) Information link
27. Tom Tancredo (14%) Information link
28. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (7%) Information link
29. Duncan Hunter (6%) Information link

The Gilmore placement doesn't surprise me in the least, having had him as my governor once upon a time...

User avatar
Sir_Galahad
Posts: 1516
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:47 pm
Location: In The Heartland

#68 Post by Sir_Galahad » Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:58 am

SportsFan68 wrote:What I'm proposing isn't HilaryCare, SirG. It's probably something you hate even worse, national single-payer insurance.
Perhaps I am not understanding you well. How do you define Single-payer insurance? Here's how I would define it. Managed Health Care goes away. All of it. Insurance companies like Allstate, State Farm, Prudential, etc. start offering health insurance and it becomes up to the individual to go buy their own insurance. And, just like the other types of insurance, the market will determine the price. Competition will be involved and "single payers" will be able to find the best rates for themselves. The government is out of the Health Care business. This is the way it used be and I would like to see it re-instituted.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

Perhaps the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about...

User avatar
minimetoo26
Royal Pain In Everyone's Ass
Posts: 7874
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:51 am
Location: No Fixed Address

#69 Post by minimetoo26 » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:02 am

And all the folks who bought a big-screen TV instead of health insurance wind up in the ER on the hospital's dime and you pay for it in the end.

Happens all the time...

User avatar
MarleysGh0st
Posts: 27930
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Elsewhere

#70 Post by MarleysGh0st » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:06 am

Sir_Galahad wrote: Perhaps I am not understanding you well. How do you define Single-payer insurance?
Perhaps those whose use the phrase "single-payer" do so to avoid the pejorative term that would be applied to it by the opposition, but don't pretend you don't know what it is.

Single-payer = National Health Service. The government is the single-payer. And, yes, that's financed by the taxpayers; the particular details of that taxation being open to debate.

User avatar
littlebeast13
Dumbass
Posts: 31110
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
Contact:

#71 Post by littlebeast13 » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:11 am

Just for the helluvit....


1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Al Gore (not announced) (65%) Information link
3. John Edwards (57%) Information link
4. Joseph Biden (56%) Information link
5. Barack Obama (56%) Information link
6. Ron Paul (54%) Information link
7. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (54%) Information link
8. Chuck Hagel (not running) (54%) Information link
9. Alan Keyes (54%) Information link
10. Duncan Hunter (54%) Information link
11. Christopher Dodd (53%) Information link
12. Hillary Clinton (53%) Information link
13. Rudolph Giuliani (52%) Information link
14. John McCain (51%) Information link
15. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (50%) Information link
16. Tom Tancredo (49%) Information link
17. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (48%) Information link
18. Dennis Kucinich (44%) Information link
19. Fred Thompson (44%) Information link
20. Mitt Romney (43%) Information link
21. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (43%) Information link
22. Sam Brownback (42%) Information link
23. Bill Richardson (41%) Information link
24. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (40%) Information link
25. Mike Huckabee (38%) Information link
26. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn, endorsed Giuliani) (38%) Information link
27. Mike Gravel (38%) Information link
28. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (36%) Information link
29. Elaine Brown (10%) Information link



I had to guess on most of the issues. Guess they're not really that important to me after all....

lb13

User avatar
minimetoo26
Royal Pain In Everyone's Ass
Posts: 7874
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:51 am
Location: No Fixed Address

#72 Post by minimetoo26 » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:15 am

I'm surprised you made it over the 50% mark for ANYONE... :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

User avatar
littlebeast13
Dumbass
Posts: 31110
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
Contact:

#73 Post by littlebeast13 » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:18 am

minimetoo26 wrote:I'm surprised you made it over the 50% mark for ANYONE... :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
Well, I was hoping if someone jumped to the top, it would be one of those names I didn't know... not friggin' Al Gore! And I made sure to state my preference for Granite City type environmental conditions too....

lb13

User avatar
minimetoo26
Royal Pain In Everyone's Ass
Posts: 7874
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:51 am
Location: No Fixed Address

#74 Post by minimetoo26 » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:21 am

Well, it picked you someone who isn't even running, so you can go back to your complacent apathy anytime without guilt...

:P :P :P :P :P :P

User avatar
MarleysGh0st
Posts: 27930
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Elsewhere

#75 Post by MarleysGh0st » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:24 am

minimetoo26 wrote:I'm surprised you made it over the 50% mark for ANYONE...
Well, by guessing on the issues, beast has managed to make a whole group of disparate candidates virtually identical. I mean...Barack Obama, Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, and Hillary Clinton within a 3% spread?

It does make the election season easier, though--just flip a coin! :P

Post Reply