Political Discussion if you feel like it
Saturday, 18 October 2008 01:02![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
preussisch_blauI just want to say that as much as I like discussing politics, I don't know if the political discussions will continue after this. I'm still reeling from a comment in the first discussion, as well as one left to the second discussion. Unfortunately, I find it difficult to discuss politics when people either ignore a well thought out post, respond in one line, or tell me how to think. That and I don't think I could be swayed from a McCain vote at this point, as much as I've tried to be open-minded and not let my innate conservatism get in the way of seriously weighing the issues. Furthermore, I'm probably far too emotionally invested in certain issues to be able to have reasoned debate. I hope none of you don't think any worse of me for this. I've genuinely tried to see things from a different perspective, but I think this is one case where we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Anyhow, for those of you who feel like it...
First, I have to say my number one reason for voting McCain is... Obama. Really. I can't really make an argument for McCain without some comparison to Obama, but I will endeavor to be respectful and factual. I'll even refrain from using my "Nobama" icons. McCain isn't my ideal candidate, but I know under his administration I'll get to keep my money my healthcare and my freedoms. A lot of what gets Obama says looks really good on the surface, but the far-reaching implications aren't addressed.
For example: Imagine you are an employer who offers health benefits. And a new program is instituted whereby the government offers healthcare to people who don't have it. Chances are, you're going to say, "Hey, why pay out all this money in healthcare when I can get the government to insure my workers? They're using my tax money to give everyone else insurance, why should I pay for my workers in addition to everyone else?" Over a decade or so, employer health benefits become less common and the state increasingly has to shoulder the burden, driving up taxes. Obama's plan is going to push us ultimately toward universal healthcare like they have in Canada and in Europe. I don't want my doctor to tell me he can't see me because he's reached his quota from the government and won't get paid for my visit, sorry, come back in January. Now my Dad is insured by the state, because he is disabled, and I know the system we have isn't great--case in point, only one doctor in his area will take his insurance, and when she suddenly went on emergency leave, he was without medication for six weeks. But the system is in place, and it is potentially a good system. But we need to make it better by making sure that doctors are accepting it so that patients have choices. And we have to be more flexible about what such insurance will cover, not these hard and fast rules about "we don't treat this condition or pay for this medication, or we cover this medication but only once a year". I don't think that creating a whole new system is the answer. Also note that establishing this new healthcare framework is going to mean added bureaucracy, much hemming and hawing, and generally slow going. Not to mention more money.
Secondly, I believe McCain understands what to do with our tax money. He understands that by cutting taxes, you can actually in some respects INCREASE revenues. Example, the capital gains tax. The government receives HIGHER revenues when the rate is lower than when it is higher, because lower taxes encourage people to invest, whereas higher taxes are prohibitive. When this was brought up in a debate (or an interview, I can't remember), Obama dodged the question. Same with corporate taxes. You lower corporate taxes, they lay off fewer people, pay people more, the government rakes in more in income taxes, but in small amounts from many people rather than large chunks from a small segment of the population who are being punished for being successful. You don't want to overtax the people who are writing the paychecks and selling us all the things we need such as food and gas. McCain will also cut subsidies for domestic ethanol, which in turn will lower grain prices (lower demand) and as a result the price of meat animals who eat said grains. McCain will also pursue domestic drilling to lower gas prices in the here and now while at the same time working on alternative fuel sources for the future.
He also understands that throwing money at a problem does not make it better. Case in point, education. The Chicago and Washington DC areas spend more per student on education than almost anyplace in the nation, yet they have the worst schools. And the same applies to the US when compared with schools worldwide. When this was brought up in debate on Wednesday, and Obama's basic answer was to spend more money. Obama wants to institute new educational programs (like mandatory public service!). McCain wants to improve upon existing programs without increasing funding, which I think is doable. My hubby went to a small private school run by this church where they had no technology, no school lunch program, no extras. For heaven's sake, they learned to read from "Dick and Jane"! And they had higher scholastic performance than any public school in town, despite their lack of funding. When my husband left that school for a public middle school, he found himself several years ahead of his new classmates. So, money is not a solution. And with Sarah Palin as his VP, you know you'll have someone there looking out for special needs kids in particular, an issue which McCain has expressed an intention to address many times.
As far as national security, the fact that many of our nation's enemies have expressed a preference for Obama sends off alarm bells for me. Even if it's not the case that his foreign policy will be some how deficient, the fact that our enemies THINK SO is going to make them very bold, putting us at risk. McCain, I think, is far more experienced in foreign policy. He's not an evil warmonger, as some claim. I don't think anyone who spends 5 years as a POW is going to be a fan of war and its consequences. But he understands that some things are worth fighting for, and that there's a point at which you have to conclude that some people can't be reasoned with.
Obama is a guy who wants to silence people for "lying" about him in Missouri. Who wants to apply the fairness doctrine to people's personal blogs, hampering MY free speech. McCain is perfectly content to allow people to disagree with him, and will make a reasoned case for himself in response rather than silencing dissent and accusing his detractors of racism, nor will he stand for his supporters doing otherwise in his name.
I think he's far more experienced, period. Obama is a guy who nobody knew 5 years ago. He's a guy who's spent his entire political career writing memoirs (parts of which I find troubling) and always campaigning for the next highest office, activities which have kept him so busy he truly hasn't had the time to gain much in the way of experience, or if his voting record is any indication, to actually form a clear opinion on many issues. For me, that doesn't inspire much confidence.
Anyhow, for those of you who feel like it...
First, I have to say my number one reason for voting McCain is... Obama. Really. I can't really make an argument for McCain without some comparison to Obama, but I will endeavor to be respectful and factual. I'll even refrain from using my "Nobama" icons. McCain isn't my ideal candidate, but I know under his administration I'll get to keep my money my healthcare and my freedoms. A lot of what gets Obama says looks really good on the surface, but the far-reaching implications aren't addressed.
For example: Imagine you are an employer who offers health benefits. And a new program is instituted whereby the government offers healthcare to people who don't have it. Chances are, you're going to say, "Hey, why pay out all this money in healthcare when I can get the government to insure my workers? They're using my tax money to give everyone else insurance, why should I pay for my workers in addition to everyone else?" Over a decade or so, employer health benefits become less common and the state increasingly has to shoulder the burden, driving up taxes. Obama's plan is going to push us ultimately toward universal healthcare like they have in Canada and in Europe. I don't want my doctor to tell me he can't see me because he's reached his quota from the government and won't get paid for my visit, sorry, come back in January. Now my Dad is insured by the state, because he is disabled, and I know the system we have isn't great--case in point, only one doctor in his area will take his insurance, and when she suddenly went on emergency leave, he was without medication for six weeks. But the system is in place, and it is potentially a good system. But we need to make it better by making sure that doctors are accepting it so that patients have choices. And we have to be more flexible about what such insurance will cover, not these hard and fast rules about "we don't treat this condition or pay for this medication, or we cover this medication but only once a year". I don't think that creating a whole new system is the answer. Also note that establishing this new healthcare framework is going to mean added bureaucracy, much hemming and hawing, and generally slow going. Not to mention more money.
Secondly, I believe McCain understands what to do with our tax money. He understands that by cutting taxes, you can actually in some respects INCREASE revenues. Example, the capital gains tax. The government receives HIGHER revenues when the rate is lower than when it is higher, because lower taxes encourage people to invest, whereas higher taxes are prohibitive. When this was brought up in a debate (or an interview, I can't remember), Obama dodged the question. Same with corporate taxes. You lower corporate taxes, they lay off fewer people, pay people more, the government rakes in more in income taxes, but in small amounts from many people rather than large chunks from a small segment of the population who are being punished for being successful. You don't want to overtax the people who are writing the paychecks and selling us all the things we need such as food and gas. McCain will also cut subsidies for domestic ethanol, which in turn will lower grain prices (lower demand) and as a result the price of meat animals who eat said grains. McCain will also pursue domestic drilling to lower gas prices in the here and now while at the same time working on alternative fuel sources for the future.
He also understands that throwing money at a problem does not make it better. Case in point, education. The Chicago and Washington DC areas spend more per student on education than almost anyplace in the nation, yet they have the worst schools. And the same applies to the US when compared with schools worldwide. When this was brought up in debate on Wednesday, and Obama's basic answer was to spend more money. Obama wants to institute new educational programs (like mandatory public service!). McCain wants to improve upon existing programs without increasing funding, which I think is doable. My hubby went to a small private school run by this church where they had no technology, no school lunch program, no extras. For heaven's sake, they learned to read from "Dick and Jane"! And they had higher scholastic performance than any public school in town, despite their lack of funding. When my husband left that school for a public middle school, he found himself several years ahead of his new classmates. So, money is not a solution. And with Sarah Palin as his VP, you know you'll have someone there looking out for special needs kids in particular, an issue which McCain has expressed an intention to address many times.
As far as national security, the fact that many of our nation's enemies have expressed a preference for Obama sends off alarm bells for me. Even if it's not the case that his foreign policy will be some how deficient, the fact that our enemies THINK SO is going to make them very bold, putting us at risk. McCain, I think, is far more experienced in foreign policy. He's not an evil warmonger, as some claim. I don't think anyone who spends 5 years as a POW is going to be a fan of war and its consequences. But he understands that some things are worth fighting for, and that there's a point at which you have to conclude that some people can't be reasoned with.
Obama is a guy who wants to silence people for "lying" about him in Missouri. Who wants to apply the fairness doctrine to people's personal blogs, hampering MY free speech. McCain is perfectly content to allow people to disagree with him, and will make a reasoned case for himself in response rather than silencing dissent and accusing his detractors of racism, nor will he stand for his supporters doing otherwise in his name.
I think he's far more experienced, period. Obama is a guy who nobody knew 5 years ago. He's a guy who's spent his entire political career writing memoirs (parts of which I find troubling) and always campaigning for the next highest office, activities which have kept him so busy he truly hasn't had the time to gain much in the way of experience, or if his voting record is any indication, to actually form a clear opinion on many issues. For me, that doesn't inspire much confidence.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Just so you know, you've done a bit more than just TOUCH a nerve Pt 1/2
Date: 19 October 2008 00:14 (UTC)I'm not going to address the other points. I don't have the energy to debate about something that I'm just not feeling the passion for. Not when you brought up something that cuts me to the quick every time I hear it.
Just because a woman believes that every human life is precious despite the sins of the father, she's not a feminist? Never mind that she's worked her ass off to get where she is instead of riding on the coat-tails of her husband. Never mind that she has been as consistent as humanly possible in expressing and living her values, except when they interfere with the laws and constitution of the state she is governor of, in which case she has followed the laws in place. Never mind that she's a strong, independent woman, who just for her drive and ambition and tenacity ought to be a role model for young girls everywhere who are constantly told, whether overtly or far more insidiously through actions and highly gendered speech, that they'll never be in a position of power, they'll never be anything more than a pretty ornament, so they should just leave leadership and all that complicated stuff to the boys.
I mean, Hell, I don't agree with Pelosi or Clinton, and I can still admire them for being strong women who have shown that a young girl can do anything she puts her mind to. I don't really agree with Obama on a lot of things, but I still admire him for proving that you don't have to be white to get far in life. So why can't people who don't like Palin say the same about her? Is it that hard to admit that even if you disagree with everything someone believes in, they still ought to be respected as a human being, and beyond that, as a human being who has fought against culturally ingrained bigotry to become something more than just a woman? I've noticed people have had similar problems with Condoleeza Rice. Again, even if you disagree with her, why can't you respect her for acheiving so much despite having to put up with sexism and racism?
I guess a woman's only admirable as a feminist if she thinks and believes just as you do.
So, thanks. I guess I'll go turn in my feminist card as well for being a woman who doesn't believe in killing the child because the FATHER committed a crime. (I don't believe in the death penalty either. Human life is human life, no matter how the human squanders it.) I guess I should've turned it in earlier, but I didn't think I'd have to. I thought being a feminist meant wanting every woman, no matter what her beliefs, to be seen as being just as worthy as a man. I thought being a feminist meant wanting every woman to be able to choose her future, even if what she chooses is to be the stay at home mother of five or more children, or the secretary who everyone knows is sleeping with the boss, or the single CEO who doesn't need a significant other to be happy. Guess I was wrong, because right now I'm seeing a lot of bashing of stay at home mothers and conservative women like Palin and Rice from feminists.
If I sound too high and mighty for your liking... I'm not going to apologise. I don't like lying.
I'm tired. I'm tired of that one issue being the sticking point of whether someone is a feminist or not. Especially since it would take a Supreme Court ruling to overturn Roe v Wade, and an act of Congress to make it illegal by federal law. Especially since Palin would not, as governor of Alaska, should Roe v Wade be overturned during her governorship, impose her views on the state, but instead bring it up as a public ballot for the people of Alaska to decide.
I'm tired of seeing people say that their body is more important than a body that can't defend itself. What crime has that unborn child committed to deserve such a penalty? What about the rights of female infants, since there's so much concern about the right for a woman to choose what happens to her own body? What about the rights of the father when it's a case of consensual sex leading to pregnancy? Has he no right to his own child because the mother decided that she didn't want to carry the child for nine months?
Re: Just so you know, you've done a bit more than just TOUCH a nerve Pt 1/2
Date: 19 October 2008 01:13 (UTC)I've never heard that highly gendered speech. I've always been told that I'll achieve whatever I want if I work hard enough, if I stick to my guns and my desires. I've never been told that all I'll be is an ornament and all of that stuff should be left to the boys. And none of my friend's or classmates have been told that either. We're pretty lucky. Or we have the capability to see through all the bull shit that world throws at us.
I've never said a damn thing about not respecting her. I have a fiery passionate hate for her view points, but I still respect her, as a person. So let's toss that argument out the window.
Simply put, feminism is letting woman make their own choices about what they want their life to be. From abortion, career (CEO to stay at home mothers), and the relationships in their life. It is about allowing, no ensuring, that a woman . . . ALWAYS . . . have the right to dictate her life. Without any interference from society, friends, or family.
Let me cut this short. I'd suggest that you stop generalizing me. Based on one god damn and admittedly not very well explained point of view. All though you could say the same to me too.