Jump to content

ilyushin

Member
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Chicago

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Libertarian
  1. ilyushin

    I No Longer Vote For Democrats!

    I'm not a fan of filibusters, even if they're done in support of my concerns like the recent drone-oriented filibuster. But I'm not following you on why you're dissatisfied with the democratic party. The republican gains in 2009 and 2010 aren't sustained, and are more like the "battle of the bulge" of WWII....a last push before they have to acknowledge they are done. I'm surprised you're not more disappointed that the democratic Senate didn't propose a budget for almost 4 years. That wasn't because of any republicans....it was just them. If you're a populist in the authentic sense, I do think you have legit misgivings...mostly in the vein that they're every bit as inclined to indebt the nation and give it all to Wall St. and absolutely ignore regular folks as republicans are. The divergence of the economic realities of Wall St. and Main St. are symptoms of "liquidity injections" and bailouts...(as well as Fed policy, but the Fed doesn't take orders from the president or congress) The U.S. citizen fighting to keep their homes got no bailouts. They got a defunct plan for mortgage restructuring that almost no one was eligible for and those who were weren't helped by it. The people got nothing......from the democrats. (or republicans, but that wasn't to be expected) Sadly, and I hate to admit it...the only time I got a check in the mail from the federal government for economic stimulus purposes during a recession was from Bush, when he increased the child tax credit and made it retro-active from the previous year.
  2. Since some are allowed to use verses to support that Christianity is child abuse, I'll go ahead and throw this out there: Luke 11:46 is New Testament, and it's where Christ told the Pharisees that they're neurotic adherence to the law, and lack of any interest in helping people, is a bad thing. What I find absolutely telling here, is that the people trying to peg christianity with this are completely ignoring that these are Judaic texts that apply to Isrealites. However, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all consider to be inspired writings. 3 religions....yet the party that's against discrimination only applies their beef with this to 1 out of the 3. But you don't attribute it to Judaism nor Islam. Why is that? Is it because it's against liberalia law to be anti-semetic and intolerant towards Muslims? Why, given that these texts are most applicable to Judaism, but are also revered by Christians and Muslims, do you only focus this against Christians? If you want to be a selective, un-equal-oppurtunity bigot, at least don't make it so obvious. Yeah, no...seriously....if Old Testament advocates child abuse, why are we focusing just on Christians and ignoring Jews and Muslims? It's a legit question.
  3. Mr. Washington is largely correct. I've seen a number of V.A. hospitals...and while some are well managed and provide quality care, many are sub-par. Take that any way you want, be it an example of government healthcare or lack of will to take care of veterans. I will say this, though...Canada's healthcare system isn't bad. While it is rationed, per se (they limit the amount of times they will use a defibrilator to resuscitate you), it is not draconian. That being said, my question for liberalia in general is, are we willing to do what Canada does to fund this healthcare? I'm not talking about a more robust tax code on high earners.... Canada is a huge exporter of oil...this is a big reason that Canada, unlike many of the European universal healthcare systems, is able to provide uni healthcare with a moderately robust (lower than most of Europe's I believe, but higher than the U.S.) without doing the whole crushing-debt thing. Same holds true for Norway. They have a fantastic welfare state. Their taxes are high, but they don't have the crushing debt issue, either. It isn't because their taxes cover the costs of it, however. Norway is slings a lot of oil. Greece, Spain, France, U.K., Portugal, etc,...have great welfare states, and high tax rates that are supposed to pay for it. But they don't. They need to borrow, despite those high tax rates, in order to have (had, lol) the system they want. But how did that work out? Germany doesn't have the oil or the same level of debt...but they are a very productive economy. They are into the whole "work" and "production" thing. Simply put, the states that have the universal healthcare have higher taxes...this isn't a problem for liberalia in general. But some of these nations have crushing debt they've incurred to pay for them. Others don't. The difference is, typically, oil. Norway and Canada and Venezuela have no problems drilling, pumping, and selling the black mother-earth-killing goo the environmentalists love to hate. So which is it? High taxes are a given...but are liberals going to be ok with following the Canadian/Norwegian model *consistently*, which will mean U.S. drills in Alaska, expands N. Dakota fields, and go nuts in the gulf of mexico, and have Canada-esque healthcare with Canada-esque (low) debt? Or do we follow the Greek/Italian/Portuguese route and just ignore the fact that high taxes *will not*, and in no case have the EVER be enough to, cover the cost of the system liberalia wants and accumulate debt until, well, we have austerity... Oh wait...Obama just introduced a budget that had tax hikes AND cuts to Social Security....(austerity)....looks like we're already there.
×