Standards of Living, Goverment plans, benefits, and lack of.. Options

I consider americans as an example, has a good standard of living where the goverment supports it's citizen, unlike many developing countries where beggars, woman and children are still roaming, sleeping in the street, knocking for small changes on your window at most busy traffic lights.

American living isn't all groove and juice. I moved from Canada where the health care system kicks some major butt. Here, It costed me almost $200 for a friggen appointment that resulted in absolutely nothing (I required it for college...ugh). My health care costs for insurance are almost $800 a year, which from what I hear, is wicked cheap. In Canada....it would have costed me maybe $300 annually, and that covers everything. If I wanted to get a prescription, my plan would cover it without having to go through months of paperwork and crap. Here, in America, health care is given to the rich.

Here in America, you have those people who are roaming the streets, sleeping in the streets, begging for change at traffic lights. Everytime I go to Holyoke, there is ALWAYS a guy standing at the intersection by Barnes and Noble begging for money. American government taking care of their citizens?

In Canada, there are a bazillion outreach programs for the homeless. About two years ago, Vancouver starting kicking out the homeless from the city and forced them to come over to Kelowna. For a few months business' where actually shutting down because of the increase in homeless people crowding their front doors. The government set up more shelters, even a few of the churchs started shelters and programs. In about 6 months time, the percentage of homeless went down by at least %50, if not a little more. The Canadian government is putting more emphasis on finding these people jobs, getting them adequate housing, and necassary training to allow them to be self-sufficient. Here, I see nothing of that. I read the paper every day, keep up with the news on news talk radio, and not a single thing is mentioned on helping the homeless. Barely anything is ever mentioned on immigrants either, in regards to helping them. I see something wrong with this, or it could just be me.

Third world countries aren't the only ones lacking in proper government.

As with everything else, I do think it is a good thought to bring unity and peace. But, I also understand that it will never happen. Like what has already been stated, a whole government certainly wouldn't maintain peace, especially if that government was based in religious rootings. One major draw back, is naturally assuming this would ever happen, it would be under the basis of ONE single faith. What if someone decided that that faith was not good for them? What would happen to that person? What would happen to the groups that went with their own paths?

With the education system, as has been mentioned (pardon my lack of rememberance for who it was), finding a teacher who lacks any of those prejudices will be damn near impossible. Finding Anyone who lacks them will be next to be impossible.

Prayer is for those who choose to prayer, not to be forced. Freedom of will and thought and expression.

Turning the military force into a police force? My total lack of understanding of how that would be a good thing prevents me from saying anything at all about it.

Has anyone seen the movie Equillibrium? If not, it's a film about a society that doesn't feel a damn thing. Nothing. A society that doesn't have art, diversity, etc. It's all white and gray, straight walled, perfect organization, one government who controls millions of drones. People who walk the same way, dress the same way, eat the same way, look the same way, everything is done the same friggen way.

How boring, uneducational, dull, and almost revolting. How would that constitute as being good? To not even be yourself is setting you up for being incinerated. Fun.

Disclaimer: I probably worded some things wrong, or missed a few points. Being in a hurry isn't good, lol.

~ Title and description changed to reflect more accurately on topic content. ! Kinjo

This post has been edited by | Kinjo: Sep 21 2005, 07:23 AM

BTW, students attending college, of voting age, can not vote in area politics because they are not registered in that area. One should always check the voting laws in your area. One is entitled to vote with absentee ballot during federal elections. Local politics which govern the town/city are for registered voters that live there year round.

This idea is understood yet most who attend school here also receive mail here. Changing your registration area is as easy as changing your address. And most who attend change their address so that after two years they are eligible to pay state rates for tuition. If you are from in-state you can change your registration along with your address in under 5 minutes. Most don't bother to vote in the area they hold registration (whether it is at school or home) it is a matter of inactivity not being screwed by a loophole in this case. The reason I know this is because this year over 2.000 students have switched registration in the last two years in order to help lead a USG(university student govt.) led coup of the town council. Here is a case where a group has realised it's potential and seized it. Effectivenes of this attempt will be determined in the end of october.

Whether Bush swept the southern cities or not is irrelevant. He won the states, that is all that matters. In fact this idea illustrates my point as these states usually went blue becaue the cities outweighed the other areas. In these elections the non-cities voted at higher rates than normal causing the shift.

"Fudging" the tally is a problem on both sides of the coin. Both parties attempt to rig elections to the best of their abilities. It is one of those unsolvable problems. You can't let the rats guard the cheese. But the action of guarding the cheese makes you a rat from the beginning.