Election Day 2012

[DGFone]

[quote="Azdgari"]
1) Defense spending
2) Health Care
3) Social Security
4) Welfare
5) Funding Govt. Regulatory Agencies
6) Other nonessential agencies
[/quote]

Let me answer all your points one by one:

1. We need defensive spending. As the largest and most powerful nation in the world, many people hate us just because we exist. The problem is that we spend too much. Not because it's bad, but because often we are spending it on the wrong things. For instance, NASA: (It's part of our defensive budget). Right now, we are spending loads on the Orion Spacecraft. It will take us to the moon, to Mars. Wonderful places! ...And we cut all funding to build a rocket to actually get Orion into orbit. It's like trying to build a Formula 1 car, but without any money for wheels. What's the point? What I would do is divert funding from something that gets too much and put it into developing the rocket, because technological investment tends to pay back. But if you really want to lower the deficit, I can give you an easy step one: Put Orion on hold.

2. The best thing for health care is market competition. If you go and get a medicine and it doesn't work, you won't buy it anymore. You will buy medicine that works. Plus, competition lowers prices. To use a personal example of quality of healthcare when I was in the hospital of Government versus private: My private healthcare won't pass everything. But on the other hand, those on Medicaid always had everything pass for them. But it was at twice the price, lower quality, and they had no control over how much of the care they get. Why? Because instead of them choosing, it was pre-determined by some lawyer. So for me, nationalized health care is a big no-no.

3. Social Security is one of those things that I do agree with. But we need to strive for the most efficient system possible, so that the most amount of money going in can be used to get back out to the retired. This means having a smaller government. I also think we need to raise the retirement age. If you retire at 55, that's just low.

4. Welfare: Tricky part. You need to have it be where people can live, but only at a bare minimum. They need to have a high incentive to get a job and get themselves off the welfare. This means that while they need to survive on welfare, it's needs to be a miserable life unless they do something about it.

5. I think that the more regulation you have, the worse things will get. This all comes back to a free market and the innovation that stems from it. If you put caps and limits on the free market, people will be more and more limited, making it easier to stick with what is already available instead of experimenting. When you innovate, sometimes you do the wrong thing and accidents happen. There is no way to improve without making sacrifices. So if you regulate the economy to reduce accidents, you are directly effecting its ability to adapt and innovate.

6. If they are no-essential, we really need to look into them and see if we are doing anything useful, and if the economy increase of these programs outweighs their cost. For instance: road fixing. I am all fine with fixing broken roads. I am utterly disgusted how all the roads in my town that are being 'fixed' had nothing wrong with them in the first place.

So I don't know if these arguments make me automatically a Romney supporter or not (I'm not a Romney supporter), but they do make me an Obama-opposer. And with the political climate of this presidential race, if you don't vote for Romney, it doesn't matter who you vote for, because you just voted for Obama.

[TheGunner18]

[quote="DGFone"]2. The best thing for health care is market competition. If you go and get a medicine and it doesn't work, you won't buy it anymore. You will buy medicine that works. Plus, competition lowers prices. To use a personal example of quality of healthcare when I was in the hospital of Government versus private: My private healthcare won't pass everything. But on the other hand, those on Medicaid always had everything pass for them. But it was at twice the price, lower quality, and they had no control over how much of the care they get. Why? Because instead of them choosing, it was pre-determined by some lawyer. So for me, nationalized health care is a big no-no.[/quote]

Nationalised healthcare is, more often than not, a great thing to have. The NHS in Britain is a prime example of that. Instead of being turned away by a private company for having a certain condition, the NHS treats you no matter what. It's free for anybody so even the poorest people can have treatment. Take me, for example. Just a few months ago I had an operation for major reconstruction of my foot. I'm still recovering from it now. That was completely free. Imagine how much it would have cost if I needed to have it done with a private company. Easily at least £1000. We still have private healthcare companies in Britain such as Bupa, so if you really want, then you can go for them.

I'm just going to say here that I'm not suggesting the NHS has no faults. It does. Nothing's perfect.

[quote="DGFone"]4. Welfare: Tricky part. You need to have it be where people can live, but only at a bare minimum. They need to have a high incentive to get a job and get themselves off the welfare. This means that while they need to survive on welfare, it's needs to be a miserable life unless they do something about it.[/quote]
I agree that welfare shouldn't be too much that people can live on it without ever going to work. That can easily diminish the productivity of a country and detriment the economy, and it's true that many people who complain about not being able to get jobs just aren't looking or working hard enough. However, giving them too little welfare could just as easily lower their morale or happiness. If I wanted to delve into it deeper then I could say that this might also cause them to go onto drugs for some sort of 'short-term satisfaction' rather than encouraging them to find a job.

Then again, you could counter that by saying it's their own fault and they should have more willpower etc.

Anyway, that's probably overthinking and overanalysing it.

[DGFone]

[quote="TheGunner18"]
Nationalised healthcare is, more often than not, a great thing to have. The NHS in Britain is a prime example of that. Instead of being turned away by a private company for having a certain condition, the NHS treats you no matter what. It's free for anybody so even the poorest people can have treatment. Take me, for example. Just a few months ago I had an operation for major reconstruction of my foot. I'm still recovering from it now. That was completely free. Imagine how much it would have cost if I needed to have it done with a private company. Easily at least £1000. We still have private healthcare companies in Britain such as Bupa, so if you really want, then you can go for them.

I'm just going to say here that I'm not suggesting the NHS has no faults. It does. Nothing's perfect.
[/quote]

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I heard, the British system, while it provides good care when it gets around to it, the wait lines are a thing on international infamy. For instance, if you find out you have cancer, and unless you get immediate help it will become terminal, and you are placed on a month-long waiting list to get help... Yeah.

So do correct me if I am wrong (for instance, how long did you have to wait for your leg operation), but long waiting lists are a very bad thing.

[Regulus]

Okay. So consider this. Let's just say that welfare *does* allow people to live comfortably. So, DGF, why would you work, if you can live off the government without working?

This is not a rhetorical question. I'm being totally serious. Why are you going to school, and why do you want to get a job as an aerospace engineer, when you can literally sit at home all day, and live comfortably off of welfare without having to worry about anything?

I can probably guess what you're going to say, but I'll allow you to speak first. Surely, there must be some reason why you don't want to live off the government.

[quote="DGFone"]Do correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I heard, the British system, while it provides good care when it gets around to it, the wait lines are a thing on international infamy. For instance, if you find out you have cancer, and unless you get immediate help it will become terminal, and you are placed on a month-long waiting list to get help... Yeah.

So do correct me if I am wrong (for instance, how long did you have to wait for your leg operation), but long waiting lists are a very bad thing.[/quote]

I know how it is. Some people walk into the doctors office just to get out of work, and they'll make up an excuse like 'I have a runny nose.'

My dad is a physician's assistant within the military (so basically, nearly everyone he sees has free healthcare coverage provided by the government already). I hear his stories every day. Believe me, Obamacare isn't going to change anything. People who are seriously ill will always have priority over the many with chronic laziness. Why? Because my dad tells those who fall into the latter category to GTFO of his office.

[TheGunner18]

[quote="DGFone"][quote="TheGunner18"]
Nationalised healthcare is, more often than not, a great thing to have. The NHS in Britain is a prime example of that. Instead of being turned away by a private company for having a certain condition, the NHS treats you no matter what. It's free for anybody so even the poorest people can have treatment. Take me, for example. Just a few months ago I had an operation for major reconstruction of my foot. I'm still recovering from it now. That was completely free. Imagine how much it would have cost if I needed to have it done with a private company. Easily at least £1000. We still have private healthcare companies in Britain such as Bupa, so if you really want, then you can go for them.

I'm just going to say here that I'm not suggesting the NHS has no faults. It does. Nothing's perfect.
[/quote]

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I heard, the British system, while it provides good care when it gets around to it, the wait lines are a thing on international infamy. For instance, if you find out you have cancer, and unless you get immediate help it will become terminal, and you are placed on a month-long waiting list to get help... Yeah.

So do correct me if I am wrong (for instance, how long did you have to wait for your leg operation), but long waiting lists are a very bad thing.[/quote]
You're right, waiting lists aren't exactly things to be desired, and it's probably one of the biggest flaws of the NHS. For example, if you need an organ transplant then that waiting list can be very, very long. Sometimes up to a year. That's not acceptable, of course it isn't, and I can understand how frustrated and angry people can get with it. However, if you ask anybody in Britain if they'd want to see the NHS go or stay, I think only very, very tiny minority would want to see it go. It's immensely popular and there's a reason for it. Admittedly, the government spends a heck of a lot on healthcare (around £121 billion. Source: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2012UKbn_12bc1n_10#ukgs302) but that's a good thing.

In terms of my own operation: I could actually choose when to have it (it would need to be in the summer, but I could choose if I wanted to delay it) but I chose this year and then we got given an exact date and time. So in my case I didn't really have to wait. Although I'll admit that I didn't really pay too much attention to it (because it was my parents who handled it) so I just played it by ear. I have sympathy for those who have to wait and have no choice. Again, if you can afford it then private healthcare is always there.

[DGFone]

[quote="Regulus"]Okay. So consider this. Let's just say that welfare *does* allow people to live comfortably. So, DGF, why would you work, if you can live off the government without working?

This is not a rhetorical question. I'm being totally serious. Why are you going to school, and why do you want to get a job as an aerospace engineer, when you can literally sit at home all day, and live comfortably off of welfare without having to worry about anything?

I can probably guess what you're going to say, but I'll allow you to speak first. Surely, there must be some reason why you don't want to live off the government.[/quote]

Yes, there is a reason: Look at Cuba. Look at what became of the USSR. Both of these nations tried to allow their citizens to live comfortably off Government issued wages that are guaranteed, in other words, where do you think the phrase "we pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us" came from?

So I would really not want to live 'comfortably' off of welfare, because comfort is impossible to reach. You can either live miserably and do something about it, or live miserably and not be able to do anything about it. There needs to be incentive for you to go and get that college degree - because if you don't, your life will suck.

[Regulus]

I was actually looking for a more personal answer, but ok.

Let's suppose there is absolutely no incentive for you to go to school or get a job. You can have all the money you wish, without ever having to work for it.

Wouldn't you still want to go to school? Wouldn't you still want to work, just to have something to do?

You know just as well as I do that science is freaking awesome. We need money to build spacecraft, but we don't need to make a profit to have an incentive to build spacecraft. We can do it, just for the sake of doing it, right?

The thing is, life isn't about money at all. It's about doing what we enjoy. And to anyone who is going to school to do something you won't enjoy: you're wasting your life away.

I've noticed that there are three main things that lead to happiness. A sense of importance, a sense of freedom, and a lack of mind-numbing repetition. No matter how much welfare pays, nobody wants to live off of it. Why? Because it doesn't provide any of those things.

Of course, there's always the rebuttal that some people are okay with living off the government and contributing nothing, but maybe I just have too much faith in humanity. Or is it that others have too little?

[DGFone]

[quote="Regulus"]
Let's suppose there is absolutely no incentive for you to go to school or get a job. You can have all the money you wish, without ever having to work for it.[/quote]

You will never get that through government help. EVER. The only way to live like that is if you are born into a very wealthy family - one that somewhere , somehow, worked hard to get to where it is now. And if you feel like wasting it all away and not doing anything useful, fine. Just don't expect to be happy.

And yes, Science is freakishly cool. Which is why, if anything, I want Obama out. What he is doing to NASA right now is just insulting. To America, to the entire world.

[Regulus]

[quote="DGFone"][quote="Regulus"]
Let's suppose there is absolutely no incentive for you to go to school or get a job. You can have all the money you wish, without ever having to work for it.[/quote]

You will never get that through government help. EVER. The only way to live like that is if you are born into a very wealthy family - one that somewhere , somehow, worked hard to get to where it is now. And if you feel like wasting it all away and not doing anything useful, fine. Just don't expect to be happy.[/quote]

That is irrelevant to my point, which seems to be completely ignored. My point is that even if we totally ignored the economy, and said that everyone could have anything they wish, we would still have progress as a society. This is because, as humans, we seek happiness, which does not come from wealth.

[quote="DGFone"]And yes, Science is freakishly cool. Which is why, if anything, I want Obama out. What he is doing to NASA right now is just insulting. To America, to the entire world.[/quote]

Let me get this straight:

You're against paying (or raising) taxes, but you think NASA deserves more funding?

If that is the case, don't you think we'd be better off cutting funding for NASA altogether, and privatizing the space industry? You claim that it would be far more efficient to let the invisible hand take over for other issues, so why not interstellar exploration as well?

[DGFone]

[quote="Regulus"]
[quote="DGFone"]And yes, Science is freakishly cool. Which is why, if anything, I want Obama out. What he is doing to NASA right now is just insulting. To America, to the entire world.[/quote]
Let me get this straight:
You're against paying (or raising) taxes, but you think NASA deserves more funding?
If that is the case, don't you think we'd be better off cutting funding for NASA altogether, and privatizing the space industry? You claim that it would be far more efficient to let the invisible hand take over for other issues, so why not interstellar exploration as well?[/quote]

Now let me set you straight:

I am only for more NASA funding if it's useful. As NASA is right now, it either needs funding to develop a rocket to get Orion into space, or NASA needs to be put on hold entirely. Right now, we are developing spacecraft that can't go to space, Lunar Rovers that can't go to the moon... It's a big, bloody mess.

About privatized space industry: Start reading the news. SpaceX is the first private company to start resupply missions to the ISS, and I think this is a huge step forwards. Private companies compete, so ISS missions will get cheaper, while at the same time, it frees up money for NASA to spend on deep-space missions, like a Lunar or Martian exploration mission.

In fact, this is what the immediate future should be: Private companies take charge of all activities related to Earth Orbit, while the huge government backed organizations can focus on the New Frontier.