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 2/2
Date: 19 October 2008 00:15 (UTC)You say it's a choice. I say it's not.
It's not a choice for many young women, not when I hear teenagers talking and the girl is pregnant and the boy says, "If you love me, you'll get an abortion." Not when parents shame their daughter into an abortion they'll never hear about, because they never bothered to raise her in an environment where she's not afraid to tell her parents about something that maybe they won't approve of, but can do so knowing they'll still support and love her no matter what she decides. It's not a choice when everyone expects a rape victim to want an abortion or emergency contraception. It's not a choice when you all but have to have an abortion or else you may never finish school because of a one-night stand where your birth control failed.
I'd never get an abortion to make a boy "love" me. I'd never get an abortion because I can tell my mother that I messed up and now I'm pregnant and she will do whatever she can to help me bring that child into this world and decide on what would be best for that child's future. I'd never have an abortion because I know I'd be able to finish school because I know I have the support of my family even when I do something that goes against their values.
Most importantly, I HAVE been raped and I DID get pregnant, and I sure as HELL didn't get an abortion, because it wasn't that poor child's fault their father was a disgusting dredge of human existence.
That wasn't emotional rape. That wasn't anything horrible. I sure as Hell didn't feel like a "brood mare" or whatever the latest fashionable term for a woman pregnant against their will is.
The emotional rape is when people like you post about how a pregnancy from rape is just added trauma for every woman. It's when people say that no woman would want to carry her rapist's child. That's the part that fucking hurts. That's the part that makes me wonder if someone would say it must not have really been rape, seeing as I didn't get an abortion, because heaven knows some people have got to blame the victim SOMEHOW. That's the thing that keeps me from moving on, the mere fact that people, people such as yourself, can't say "most women" or "a great deal of women", phrases that acknowledge that there are those of us out there who wouldn't abort a child conceived by rape.
Of course, I may just be too fucking logical for all this bullshit. I mean, I disagree with abortion for scientific reasons. I don't freak out when a male doctor has to do a physical that involves my chest and my vagina, despite being raped. I have no problems with trusting men, because I realise not all men are that vile. It stands to reason that I wouldn't punish an innocent for the crimes of another.
Either that, or I'm not a woman, despite what my reproductive organs and chromosomes would lead me and others to believe.
Re: Just so you know, you've done a bit more than just TOUCH a nerve Pt 2/2
Date: 19 October 2008 00:56 (UTC)People like you thinking that everyone woman who gets an abortion doesn't want the inconvenience . . . well, guess what some women realize that they won't make good mothers. That just because you're biologically capable of having children doesn't mean you should. That you know you'll repeat the mistakes of your parents. No matter how hard you try not to.
That even with when you're extremely and dedicated-ly careful, something might break and the pills, etc. decided to shit out on you.
Not everyone women who decides to get an abortion has one night stands.
And for some people pregnancy from a rape is an added trauma. Maybe not for everyone, I'll grant you that. One of my friend's was raped and she was pressured and shamed by her parents to keep the child. She felt horrible. She felt used. She felt like she was being oppressed.
I saw what it did to her. I lost her. Her family lost her. I supported her all I could. I tried to be there for her, but she wouldn't have any of it. She felt like it was an emotional rape. She used the words.
People like Palin. People like you cost me someone who'd I been friends with my entire life. She was my sister. I loved her and still love her with every fiber of my being. The world lost someone who would have done wonderful things.
And don't you ever accuse me or anyone else of not seeing it as a rape or the victim as a victim.
Re: Just so you know, you've done a bit more than just TOUCH a nerve Pt 2/2
Date: 19 October 2008 01:17 (UTC)