Educate Me
So, it's my first day of vacation and I think I've caught the bug that my brother's family seems to be passing around. Fever, sore throat and muscle aches. Fun. At least the ibuprofen seems to be finally kicking in.
With both parties' conventions over, I suppose it's finally time to actually get to know our candidates. Normally I find politics too frustrating to get involved but maybe I just have more time to study the issues this year. (Or maybe it's because it's making the rounds on my f-list, LOL. Thanks, lissie-pissie, for getting me motivated.) I still have a lot more research to do, but here is a start. Any insights/links would be greatly appreciated...
HEALTH CARE
I don't pretend to have a full understanding of the health care system or business or economics, but I do think that simply creating a national health care insurance program will not solve our problems. Yes, there are many, many people with inadequate health coverage, but simply providing insurance without addressing the problems with the insurance system will only end up bankrupting our country ... or it will water-down resources to such an extent that services that we take for-granted will no longer be available (ie. needing to wait 3 months to see a specialist). There is a reason that people come from all over the world to obtain health care here. We need some sort of health insurance reform as well as some sort of way to regulate the ridiculously high cost of medications/equipment - without stifling the creativity that unfortunately responds best to financial incentives. So Obama vs McCain? Neither one alone does it for me. This is truly an issue that calls for both sides to forget about politics and work together for a change.
IRAQ
I think both sides have dug in their heels and are just sticking to their defined roles now. The Republicans made a mistake by refusing to even set tentative goals for dates of withdrawal and the Democrats are promising that they will be out according to a timetable. This is real life. It is messy and complicated and unpredictable. Nothing happens strictly according to plan. And neither side is acknowledging that at the moment. Barring some sudden decision to pull out at all costs, I think things will continue pretty much as they have no matter who is elected. It is really the military in charge/making decisions in this and a wise president would really listen to the men and women who are actually there and have their perspective guide our actions in Iraq.
ECONOMY
I will have to look into this further, but if anyone has a quick answer for me I'd appreciate it. How exactly will giving people some extra money (and this is not exactly a windfall - divide $75 billion by 200 million people [a conservative estimate of the working class plus seniors plus unemployed] and you get around $375) stimulate the economy in the long term? There is no way that this can be done every year. Oh, and if $45 billion of that is supposed to go in a reserve then the amount is cut in half. Does "temporary bonus" mean that this is money that seniors are getting now instead of later? I suppose that works for them if they end up passing away before their Social Security fund runs out but it doesn't fix things. And I suppose that they hope that people will actually spend the money on goods when they get it, but this amount is so small that it is probably going to to go to paying off debts not buying new goods. Especially since people have been struggling for quite awhile now. Unless Obama has other economic plans that are not being focused on (perhaps it is his party that is trying to get quick support from people who are admittedly living day-to-day and not able to plan too far ahead for their financial future), then this is only a tiny band-aid that does nothing to address the true problem. As I have no economic training, I may be completely off base. Please correct me if there is some way that this will actually work.
As for McCain, he seems to be following the Republican party line of supporting business. And since business losses get passed down to the consumer in the form of increased prices, then there is some merit to the idea. But I think it is a bit naive to think that these business executives are going to pass all their benefits along to the consumer: they are definitely going to keep more than they should for their own profit. Many will probably take short-term gain (keeping profits) over long-term stability (dropping prices to keep consumers) if there is no regulation of what they can do with their tax cuts and credits. It's another example of those in power (economically) taking all they can while they can, no matter the cost.
IMMIGRATION
Apparently Obama and McCain have the same stance here. What a relief.
FOREIGN POLICY
I suppose I am more in line with Obama's stance here. I don't think more individual military force will actually make us safer. If the UN actually works (and I know it isn't always very effective), I think international cooperation and show of force is a better idea. As I said above, I don't think pulling out of Iraq will be easy but we shouldn't be afraid to set goals for withdrawal even if circumstances will not allow us to meet those goals. If they are honest about what new problems arise, then I think the people will be understanding about delays in carrying out withdrawal plans.
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Oh, yay. Another polarizing and politically promoted issue. Short answer: there is *no* short-term solution to our energy crisis. Barring sudden collapse of Middle Eastern regimes or sudden discovery of new oil fields in sanctioned areas, every solution proposed by both sides will probably take 8-12 years (at least) to show any benefit. Do we need to be more responsible about our energy useage? Yes. Will that solve the problem? No. Up-and-coming countries will just fill in the demand that we vacated and prices will remain the same, if not continue to rise. Both sides are offering monetary incentive for development of new energy sources: great and needed but again a long-term effect. Do I think there is a role for offshore drilling and/or new nuclear reactors? If new technology supports environmental safety, then I think they are worth exploring. Realistically, except for the apparent lack in manpower, new drill beds are probably the quickest way to supplement our energy supplies. But unless either candidate has a major brainstorm for a relatively rapid fix (which doesn't seem to be the case) then both sides need to work together and stop all this posturing. "Democrats for the environment" and "Republicans for business" doesn't address the situation realistically. And while we fight, nothing gets done...
ABORTION/GAY MARRIAGE/STEM CELL RESEARCH
Making abortion a priority in this election is pure politics. As I've mentioned before, it's gone to court and it's been tested many times. And unless we get some strict definition of when life begins, then this issue can never be definitively settled. Women have the right to obtain an abortion and providers have the right to refuse to perform them electively. And if we believe in our system of government, then we should all accept that "the people" have spoken and stop bringing it up. If any change is to occur, it should be on the individual level (ie. education and funding for providers), not in the laws. The laws are there to protect the rights of the people on both sides not to flip-flop on an issue depending on which group is in charge at the time.
I tried to do a quick search on the origin of marriage and didn't really come up with anything very helpful to me. My personal opinion? There should be separate terms for religious-sanctioned and governmental-recognized personal unions. Unfortunately, in this country, the two have been intertwined for a long time. And I can see that using a different term for government-recognized unions would appear second-class to those couples. Although, if the government would *immediately* grant the same rights to all couples (ie. medical decisions, child custody, financial matters) then perhaps they wouldn't mind so much. Or, all churches could come up with a different term to describe Bibically-sanctioned personal unions and start using that instead. (personal convictions on church-sanctioned marriages are a separate topic altogether, lol) If we, as a country, decide that same-sex unions should be granted the same rights as heterosexual unions then that is the decision of the people and should be followed. And since both candidates appear to be pretty much on the same page (at least in terms of proposed policies) then we should leave the federal government out of it altogether.
Again both candidates are pretty close on this issue. So, my opinion is moot here...
I hope someone with some political knowledge comments here because there is just a lot to sort through. I appreciate any help I can get... :)
And, yes, I *will* get around to posting pictures, etc. The kiddies are getting so big! Lots to do this week, but that is definitely one of my goals. Have a good day, everyone!
With both parties' conventions over, I suppose it's finally time to actually get to know our candidates. Normally I find politics too frustrating to get involved but maybe I just have more time to study the issues this year. (Or maybe it's because it's making the rounds on my f-list, LOL. Thanks, lissie-pissie, for getting me motivated.) I still have a lot more research to do, but here is a start. Any insights/links would be greatly appreciated...
HEALTH CARE
I don't pretend to have a full understanding of the health care system or business or economics, but I do think that simply creating a national health care insurance program will not solve our problems. Yes, there are many, many people with inadequate health coverage, but simply providing insurance without addressing the problems with the insurance system will only end up bankrupting our country ... or it will water-down resources to such an extent that services that we take for-granted will no longer be available (ie. needing to wait 3 months to see a specialist). There is a reason that people come from all over the world to obtain health care here. We need some sort of health insurance reform as well as some sort of way to regulate the ridiculously high cost of medications/equipment - without stifling the creativity that unfortunately responds best to financial incentives. So Obama vs McCain? Neither one alone does it for me. This is truly an issue that calls for both sides to forget about politics and work together for a change.
IRAQ
I think both sides have dug in their heels and are just sticking to their defined roles now. The Republicans made a mistake by refusing to even set tentative goals for dates of withdrawal and the Democrats are promising that they will be out according to a timetable. This is real life. It is messy and complicated and unpredictable. Nothing happens strictly according to plan. And neither side is acknowledging that at the moment. Barring some sudden decision to pull out at all costs, I think things will continue pretty much as they have no matter who is elected. It is really the military in charge/making decisions in this and a wise president would really listen to the men and women who are actually there and have their perspective guide our actions in Iraq.
ECONOMY
I will have to look into this further, but if anyone has a quick answer for me I'd appreciate it. How exactly will giving people some extra money (and this is not exactly a windfall - divide $75 billion by 200 million people [a conservative estimate of the working class plus seniors plus unemployed] and you get around $375) stimulate the economy in the long term? There is no way that this can be done every year. Oh, and if $45 billion of that is supposed to go in a reserve then the amount is cut in half. Does "temporary bonus" mean that this is money that seniors are getting now instead of later? I suppose that works for them if they end up passing away before their Social Security fund runs out but it doesn't fix things. And I suppose that they hope that people will actually spend the money on goods when they get it, but this amount is so small that it is probably going to to go to paying off debts not buying new goods. Especially since people have been struggling for quite awhile now. Unless Obama has other economic plans that are not being focused on (perhaps it is his party that is trying to get quick support from people who are admittedly living day-to-day and not able to plan too far ahead for their financial future), then this is only a tiny band-aid that does nothing to address the true problem. As I have no economic training, I may be completely off base. Please correct me if there is some way that this will actually work.
As for McCain, he seems to be following the Republican party line of supporting business. And since business losses get passed down to the consumer in the form of increased prices, then there is some merit to the idea. But I think it is a bit naive to think that these business executives are going to pass all their benefits along to the consumer: they are definitely going to keep more than they should for their own profit. Many will probably take short-term gain (keeping profits) over long-term stability (dropping prices to keep consumers) if there is no regulation of what they can do with their tax cuts and credits. It's another example of those in power (economically) taking all they can while they can, no matter the cost.
IMMIGRATION
Apparently Obama and McCain have the same stance here. What a relief.
FOREIGN POLICY
I suppose I am more in line with Obama's stance here. I don't think more individual military force will actually make us safer. If the UN actually works (and I know it isn't always very effective), I think international cooperation and show of force is a better idea. As I said above, I don't think pulling out of Iraq will be easy but we shouldn't be afraid to set goals for withdrawal even if circumstances will not allow us to meet those goals. If they are honest about what new problems arise, then I think the people will be understanding about delays in carrying out withdrawal plans.
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Oh, yay. Another polarizing and politically promoted issue. Short answer: there is *no* short-term solution to our energy crisis. Barring sudden collapse of Middle Eastern regimes or sudden discovery of new oil fields in sanctioned areas, every solution proposed by both sides will probably take 8-12 years (at least) to show any benefit. Do we need to be more responsible about our energy useage? Yes. Will that solve the problem? No. Up-and-coming countries will just fill in the demand that we vacated and prices will remain the same, if not continue to rise. Both sides are offering monetary incentive for development of new energy sources: great and needed but again a long-term effect. Do I think there is a role for offshore drilling and/or new nuclear reactors? If new technology supports environmental safety, then I think they are worth exploring. Realistically, except for the apparent lack in manpower, new drill beds are probably the quickest way to supplement our energy supplies. But unless either candidate has a major brainstorm for a relatively rapid fix (which doesn't seem to be the case) then both sides need to work together and stop all this posturing. "Democrats for the environment" and "Republicans for business" doesn't address the situation realistically. And while we fight, nothing gets done...
ABORTION/GAY MARRIAGE/STEM CELL RESEARCH
Making abortion a priority in this election is pure politics. As I've mentioned before, it's gone to court and it's been tested many times. And unless we get some strict definition of when life begins, then this issue can never be definitively settled. Women have the right to obtain an abortion and providers have the right to refuse to perform them electively. And if we believe in our system of government, then we should all accept that "the people" have spoken and stop bringing it up. If any change is to occur, it should be on the individual level (ie. education and funding for providers), not in the laws. The laws are there to protect the rights of the people on both sides not to flip-flop on an issue depending on which group is in charge at the time.
I tried to do a quick search on the origin of marriage and didn't really come up with anything very helpful to me. My personal opinion? There should be separate terms for religious-sanctioned and governmental-recognized personal unions. Unfortunately, in this country, the two have been intertwined for a long time. And I can see that using a different term for government-recognized unions would appear second-class to those couples. Although, if the government would *immediately* grant the same rights to all couples (ie. medical decisions, child custody, financial matters) then perhaps they wouldn't mind so much. Or, all churches could come up with a different term to describe Bibically-sanctioned personal unions and start using that instead. (personal convictions on church-sanctioned marriages are a separate topic altogether, lol) If we, as a country, decide that same-sex unions should be granted the same rights as heterosexual unions then that is the decision of the people and should be followed. And since both candidates appear to be pretty much on the same page (at least in terms of proposed policies) then we should leave the federal government out of it altogether.
Again both candidates are pretty close on this issue. So, my opinion is moot here...
I hope someone with some political knowledge comments here because there is just a lot to sort through. I appreciate any help I can get... :)
And, yes, I *will* get around to posting pictures, etc. The kiddies are getting so big! Lots to do this week, but that is definitely one of my goals. Have a good day, everyone!