No, libertarians are among people who donate the charities, and actively help, not just count govt. will do everything for you (disgusting for me), SimonG.

My presence here is done, I smell flame war here :P

Social security and medicaid is not a charity, it is a right. Or should a poor person die because not enough peopla are donating enough money for a free clinic? Contrary to popular believe, poor people don't chose to be poor.

Your tone is ironic, but you don't realise how many neocons in the US actually believe that the poor deserve to be poor. In fact, just recently, Newt Gingrich has been spouting his venom all over the place about how poor kids are inherently lazy and that the reason why they're poor is of their own making.

I do know actually, hence being so worked up about it.

"I don't care for the very poor", 'nuff said.

I come from a "self-employed" family background and had the luck to never fall back into the "social net" (That I am now working under a governmental contract is something very new in my family). But never the less, my father (and uncle, and grandfather and so on..) always cared greatly for their employees and always made sure that they were properly "employed" so they have all the social benefits in case somehing went wrong. And this isn't a one way road, you wouldn't believe how much more effort employees put into their work if they are respected and cared for. I remember when we had to lay off people due to hard economic times, and it was good to know that those had securtiy to fall back on.

And even if people can't do it out of the kindness of their heart. There are important economic benefits in enabling the poor.

Dear Amerikans morons, err, politicians (same thing anyway): the Internet IS NOT YOUR FUCKING PROPRIETY, so go fuck yourselves with a giant pole and leave it alone....

Are you saying you agree with our previous president's (George Bush) actions?

LOL

Words, not actions. But we know that GOP politicians in the US are 99% bullshit.

Not that Democrats are all that much better. Better, but not by much.

I was referring to some guy called Lyndon B.. Johnson. Maybe you have heard of him?

I'm an American and I understand the reason why so many Americans, at least middle class and above are against welfare, not necessarily medicaid or medicare. I don't know if you in other countries get a lot of the American national "society" news for lack of a better term, but a couple of years ago, there was a rash of stories about how the "poor" woman who lived on welfare, had six kids (and no I am not exaggerating) could afford gold jewelry, a television for every room including the kitchen in the apartment all paid for within the past two years, and numerous other items that would be considered 'luxury' goods, afforded this on her welfare check. She responded to what job she had, and she said that she made more on welfare than off it. When asked she also talked about how at least two of her children were born "after" she was on welfare and asked about her thoughts, said that she got more money. Now I know this is not a good example of how most recipients of welfare live, but the fact that she was only one of several across numerous states that abused the system and were publicized by the media...well bad press for welfare.

Although I don't see that type of news or at least have seen it recently, I assume it isn't a major concern but when most Americans who are NOT on welfare or some type of subsidy from the government hear about welfare, those types of articles spring up in their thoughts. Even a decade ago, there was a newsweek article about these types of abuses of welfare and it has left a lasting negative impression.

It doesn't help that no one really speaks objectively about welfare, only that the poor 'need' or 'don't need' it without any statistics to show that welfare helps people get back to their feet or not as the case may be due to how the government has it set up.

P.S.-I thought Johnson continued the great society stuff from "Camelot" (Kennedy who died before he could implement a large amount of his social reforms) and I think Johnson was accused of getting votes from graveyards as some people hadn't been removed from the registry rolls in his home state of Texas. My point is like my great-grandfather's, "You can trust people going into politics, but you can't trust politicians while they're in the political arena or after they leave."

But this is getting off topic of privacy and it is kind of scary what they the government are coming up with to try and restrict a non-geographical area(the internet). This stuff makes me think alot of people will start web servers on ships in international waters to try and get around this crap. I mean there are already medical research ships in international waters that hope to do research "illegal" by the UN, though to be honest I haven't heard about those types of doctors/researchers in seven years so maybe they didn't go through with those plans. (One was a crazy doc who wanted to recreate Jurassic Park for real but couldn't due to international laws and planned to his "creating" on a ship in international waters where no one had jurisdiction. Another had to do with human cloning for organs and the like similar to that movie "The Island" though they hoped to create bodies without sentience, something about severing the brain stem or something, sorry the article was after info about Dolly's premature aging was released and I can't remember the details.)

Don't mean to step on anyone's toes, just putting an average American's perspective on government. Though I have to admit sometimes I wish I could just move to another country and get citizenship there like Canada, or Great Britain as our politicians come up with the stupidest laws or ideas merely because someone with a lobbyist, tells them it is a good idea.

Eh, Democrats are the better of two evils in my opinion.

Just as I said.

The majority of the Democrats are either armchair socialists (not meant as an insult against socialism by the way - I'm a socialist) or closet Republicans. Barack Obama is probably one of the best to come along, but he has his limits when faced with the lobby-contaminated House of Reps and Congress.

During Obama's presidency, US debt has grown rapidly, public health care upkeep is several times bigger but yes, democrats are "lesser evil" , lol.

I know that after Bush's presidency everything looks bright and great, but don't exaggerate, please.

The reason of the debt grows have been two wars and massive tax cuts for the rich.Which were both done by, *drummroll* Jesus! Oh wait, that other guy...

And of course public health upkeep is going up, because more people are actually insured. That's like complaining that the number of head injuries go up because a new helmet was introduced.

The last balanced budget was under Clinton who actually had a surplus which he used to cut the deficit.

Yeah, and another war, and another (Iran coming) is also Bush's fault , yes.... and Guantamo Obama promised to close. Oh wait, he hasn't.

more peace nobel prizes for Obama please...

and no, upkeep goes up when it's guaranteed by state. For example, Polish govt. was greatly surprised when price for meds dropped six times, when they cancelled public funding on them. What a surprise that people abuse the system. (and will always abuse)

The Guantanamo issue is a huge stain on Obamas track record, but at least he is trying to close it. Under McCain we would probably have Patriot Act III by now. So, the fact that the US state is now covering the medical bills of 40 million people who were before that uninsured, should not increase the costs of Medicaid? What is the alternative? Let them die?

The war with Iran is completly unrelated to the last two, as this will break out because of the international oil embarko against Iran. How can you not blame Iraq on the Bush administration? Seriously? "Saddam was a bastard, but he was our bastard" as Rumsfeld so nicely said. And now people are suprised that Iran is the new regional power?

The biggest fault of the bush administration wasn't even the "if" of war (pretty much inevetable for Afghanistan) but the "how". While the "if" of war should always be decided by civilians, the "how" should remain in the hands of the people who actually know what they are doing.

Anyway, you are obviously trolling, so I'm breaking it up here.