If McCain Wins Will You Leave the Country?

Please post in the Politics forum. I'll pay for your bus ticket BTW.

You must be a hit at parties FloorJack!

But we should move this to PO. In answer to your question, NO.

If McCain wins I pray that he lives a long life.

I shudder to think of the words President Palin used.

He won't win.

+++

You don't come around enough Murch.

There's a chance I might go back to the US in about three years...

If McCain is president, I may wait. If Palin is President, I may find religion and pray.

It certainly will bias decisions about post-docs...

How does it affect your post-docs?

That's what got us in the mess we're in now.

If the celebrities can't do it when they say they will, what makes me think those of us who get by can afford it????

When will people learn, there is a house and a senate too. It takes two to tango!

I'm not into US politics but here's what I can gather from the situation.

McCain made a gamble. He knew that the needed a strong running-mate to be able to stand a chance in winning against Obama in the forth coming elections. However, it appears to me that this gamble has somewhat backfired. The running mate that he did choose doesn't really float the boat with people outside of his party. Everyone knows that should McCain win the election this year, the real mastermind behind the new US government would probably be this Sarah Palin character.

I prefer to be impartial as much as I can. These are public forums.

From what I have heard, everyone seems to be concerned about Sarah Palin's agenda for the country should she come into office. I am not going to discuss the Iraq/Afghanistan issue as I don't really know enough about the topic except that George Bush shouldn't have gone in in the FIRST PLACE. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

On the news, it seems to me that Mrs Palin may be misguided in her ideas as to what should be done in the US. Firstly, some time in the future, the US should actually help Iraq/Afghanistan to sort themselves out so that they can bring US troops (and other allied forces' troops home), there has been too much bloodshed over the years and many innocents are losing their lives for the gain of very few.

What the government SHOULD do is think about sorting their economy out. Sure the war in the middle east spurs the economy with expenditure on weapons and so forth. It's a large proportion of the US economy. They need to think about sorting their own poor out. The government is hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars in debt. They are by FAR the most indebted government worldwide. What they should do is think about ways of generating revenue instead of the war machine. They should reduce the total expenditure on the defense industry. Sure this will create shortage of demand but then they should encourage demand in other areas of the economy. Sure alot of manufacturing is moving to China, it's only because China is cheaper (possibly of the same quality) that production is moving there. That doesn't mean that the workforce in the US should then be made redundant. They need to be retrained to work in other industries that have shortages. Perhaps in industries that China may not be so specialized in since China can largely classified as a developing nation. This way people would still be able to generate income for themselves and not have to rely on the government for payouts all the time, this releasing pressure on the government system to provide. They need to be resourceful in redirecting the country's resources. Sure 2 large banking firms in the US are requiring bailout by the government. It doesn't mean that things can't be done NOW so that the general population that are suffering have a means of helping themselves for the long term, and not just sitting idle.

sorry about that.

//end rant

Palin is a blank page - the Republican pundits tend to write all these imaginary wonderful qualities on that blank page, and then hold it up and say "see! She is Great!", but in the end that page is empty. She has no knowledge or experience that would make her a great president, and she could do tons of damage.

IMHO it was pretty close to treason when McCain picked her.

Yep.

"Country First" is the biggest farce I've ever heard from any politician.

no, no. not hiring post-docs. seeking a position as one.

Leaving the country might not be a bad idea. No reason to go down with the sinking ship.

It will be a long time before the ship sinks, no matter what. It may also improve, eventually.
- USA was worse off during and after civil war, really until 1900.
- USA was worse off from 1930-1945.
- USA was worse off in the 70's.

The massive corruption in politics and the general inadequacies of a two party system for the modern era could be remedied in time. Due to the inherited situation, though, we're going to get at least 4 more years of general discontent no matter who wins. It is likely to be enough of a problem that a real candidate will step up and run in 2012 or 2016. The next president will be a one-termer.

Even so, I'm of the position that if socialist reforms take place and US taxes meet average EU levels, I may as well move to continental Europe: same taxes, better sports, better food, prettier girls.

Better healthcare, cleaner air, better education, better public transport...

Hey. Maybe there's something in this 'taxes'...

No way... We're just very masochistic over here.

And we get to miss all the fun of those nifty sheriff, uhm, I mean president elections over here

Of course that could be re-written...

Palin is a blank page - the Democrat pundits tend to write all these imaginary awful qualities on that blank page, and then hold it up and say "see! She is Terrible!", but in the end that page is empty.
She has no insider knowledge or experience that would make her a typical president, which could keep her from doing tons of damage.



I have no desire to leave, but I'd like to hear the REASONS that Tauron is "thinking about it".

How many would leave if Palin took over if McCain buys the farm?

OK, don't look to me to defend Bush...
I was just wondering WHY you are "thinking about leaving"... so?... why??

(As in... I think "x" is going to happen and I don't want to be anywhere near here when it does. ... fill in the "x")

Bush is a curiosity, an "everyman" who isn't. Born rich, spoilt and Yale educated, but dumb enough for the Neo-Cons to think he is like them.

The American public has taken a turn for the worse about 20 years back when dumbformation took over from education and Americans seriously began to think they no longer occupy the same planet as everyone else.

If only more Americans travelled and paid more attention to other people when they did. They wouldn't apply selfcentred stereotypes to everything and guess at the very large number of things they don't know anything about. Intellectuals have been left cowering in a corner under attack from all directions.

Do Americans seriously study other political systems or do they merely assume that theirs is so clearly the best that there is no point?

Bush has shown up several serious flaws in the system.

That it is relatively easy to buy elections.

The constitution matters for little if it is ignored and opponents are labelled unpatriotic.

That too much power in one hand is much too much power.

That fixed terms mean you can't get rid of a failure early and lame ducks are left at the wheel for a very long time.

That poor education snowballs problems such as apathy, greed and ignorance. Decisions are made on guesswork or hearsay or mere blind prejudice.

Every man for himself becomes individual corruption becomes general corruption, becomes a corrupt state.

Slogans and silly names such as "Operation Freedom", "Liberty Fries" etc repackage nonsense and are bought just like Nikes etc on external appearances only.

Corporations now rule more than government "By the people, for the people, of the people".

And that's why you're "thinking about leaving"? ... Where are you planning to go?

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. I am not in favor of big government or high taxes, but if it's going to be there and I'm going to pay for it, I might as well pay into a socialized system that is proven.


This responds to your whole post:

I'm no nationalist, but people are panicking beyond what is probably realistic. Yes there are problems, but no system is perfect. The EU governments have plenty of problems, too. For one thing, they haven't been able to coordinate a defense directorate, partly because the post-WWII armament restrictions are still in place over Germany. That's just one example, and it's not a great one, but the point is that we're not the only ones screwed by legacy laws.

The two party system needs to go, badly. It allows party lines to become more important than the issues. The other thing I think we need is a term limit for the legislature. In addition to jacking up their wages substantially, in my opinion it's the only realistic way to cut back wasteful spending, campaign finance bloat, and corrupt practice by lobbyists. The idea of public service needs to come back. Right now we have two houses full of career politicians.

If it gets bad enough, we'll see reforms.

I was having the same debate last year but substitute for Australia and John Howard, who we'd had for a lot longer than you've been stuck with George Bush (there is no limit to the number of terms in Australia). I would definitely have left for NZ or Canada if he wasn't completely gutted in the election. Fortunately that was the case. Still, it's going to take a while to undo the damage.

As for America, I think Bush has done a generation's worth of damage but it isn't all lost. There are plenty of places in America I could see myself living. But the lack of health care really worries me.

Look on the bright side, with Palin's International experience dealing with Russia, we don't have to worry about another Cold War.

What lack of health care? There are hospitals, clinics, and doctors ALL OVER this country. Health care is easy to find. Your concern is that you don't want to PAY for health care. You want ME to pay for YOUR health care. (OK, not you specifically, you being in an entirely different hemisphere and all.)

I love you guys. You can just make stuff up because it sounds good, then run away. Care to elaborate?

Also...we need to move this to PO.

Australia has reciprocal arrangements with other countries that have similar national health care, UK, Ireland, Canada etc. That means if someone from that country visits Australia they won't have to sell a kidney if their drink gets spiked and they end up in hospital overnight. I'm concerned that even with health insurance that there might be hidden gaps etc...

Also, if you're on a low income or unemployed you can get a prescription for $5 (US $4). Thus my monthly prescription only cost me $5 when I was unemployed and the regular price is about $20 (US $18). Not sure how much you pay but I thought it's a bit more than that.

In Hong Kong, you get treated, even if you're a visitor, from anywhere in the world. In fact you don't have to present any documents, proof of income, proof of citizenship, etc., at all except your identification. Certainly cuts the red tape. This is how a good health care policy should work.

I was thinking the same thing.

Where is your idea of paradise, or near substitute thereof?

It's called health insurance.

It is NOT free, but the risk is spread, as is the cost.

America has the worst of both worlds where the risk is concentrated in the working poor and the costs are driven up by every possibly measure by the self satisfied rich:

Expensive education funded by debt; exhortations to constant greed as next to Godliness; litigious selfishness resolving even minor issues through courts run by greedy lawyers, who got their degrees through expensive education funded by debt; driven by a pointless and unceasing chase for "enough" in a materialist society; innundated by endless pounding propaganda that says there can never be "enough".

Oh and I forgot the world's worst diet, subsidised by agrarian socialism for big agribusiness.

Ok... so tell me... how much does a visit to the GP cost in the US these days if you're not insured? In 2005 I had an ear infection when I was visiting my parents. Total bill for the doctor to prescribe antibiotic ear drops was $120. I could have walked into a pharmacy and got the myself for $5.

In Hong Kong, a visit to the GP costs between $20 and $40, if you're not insured.

That's one thing that's fucked up in the US, and another reason why the poor need a government program that can give them access to affordable health care.

Of course that's not the cost. That's how much the patient pays at the office. Much more is paid via taxes for health care under a government controlled system.

If you're poor and a US citizen, you're probably getting handouts from medicare. If your poor and not a US citizen, you can abuse the ER system.

The system is fucked, but there are more ways to solve it than simply by getting government involved. For example, if ERs were allowed to refuse service to the non-insured (or those who can't pay) for non-life-threatening conditions, that alone would solve a lot of problems. Additionally, the lack of commonality in forms and medical informatics creates a web of confusion that has led to an overly convoluted payment system replete with middlemen. The cost of processing insurance claims is so high, due to this mess, that doctors have to pad their fees. And due to various other laws, they have to charge the same price for services, whether it goes through insurance claims or not. The bottom line is that if you had explained you situation and then handed the doctor $40 cash, you would have gotten the same prescription. It's very likely he also would have given you the medicine, straight up.

Yes, it's a mess. But 90% of the mess could be solved by rewriting a few laws, very slightly, and by mandating a clear standard in medical informatics for processing insurance claims. The first part is conceivably possible, but the second part is unlikely due to graft in washington. The recent bailout highlights this. I don't know too much about McCain's situation, but Obama gets much of his campaign funding from the financial groups that just got bailed out. I presume it's not too much different for McCain. This is all very disconcerting, because even if government were to implement nationalized health care, the major problems would still exist. We'd just be paying for it differently, and almost certainly paying more due to the poor track record the US government has in efficiently running any nationalized program.