Do USA politicians have any policies on health care, pensions, and education?
821949
Yes but only in general terms.  The DNC supports health care reform but ONLY for the very poor and elderly, nothing for the working class or working poor.  Pensions have been off the table for years and education reform has been left to local governments by both parties.\n\nIn Florida the third party candidate has address all of these issues though.  Health care..ending jackpot and frivolous lawsuits..  Pensions holding state congress accountable for waste and pork projects funneling the savings to a state run health program (such as Minnesota's MN Care).  Max Linn is strongest in education.  He wants to begin by giving teachers a decent salary 50K a year to start.  This will  increase competition for these jobs and lure some of the best teachers in the country.\n\nIn short it takes a third party to get off the mud slinging and get back to the issues.
599121
Depends what kind of liberal you mean (classical, American, etc.)\n\nAny way, it's such a huge answer I would just look it up on wikipedia.\n\nHere are some positions Americans liberals *may* take:\n\n    * A social "safety net" to minimize the suffering due to poverty, including welfare, medicare, unemployment benefits, health insurance, and retirement programs.\n    * Increased government role and funding for public education, public transportation, and alternative energy development.\n    * Increased regulation of business practices through OSHA, child labor laws, anti-trust laws, and minimum wage laws.\n    * Strong, government-protected labor unions\n    * Civil rights, including laws against discrimination based on gender, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.\n    * Affirmative action and transitional multi-lingual educational programs for children whose first language is not English.\n    * Broad voting rights\n    * Public assistance for undocumented aliens\n    * A spirit of international community and service to all people\n    * A woman's right to an abortion in private and without interference\n    * The right of the terminally ill to end their life\n    * Laws to protect the environment\n    * The elimination of the death penalty\n    * Animal rights\n    * Gun control\n    * A progressive tax system\n    * Marijuana legalization\n    * Advocacy of stem cell research and support of scientific study\n    * Adherence to the principle of separation of church and state\n\n\n\nShould add that Republicans over the last few decades have successfully turned the word "liberal" into a bad wor. So in politics what is and what is perceived to be "liberal" is not so clear.
801602
When it comes down to the issues that truly affect Americans. There is not much of a difference at all.\n\nFree Trade, Immigration, and Balanced budgets.
965348
Hi again Mayso...\nGoing by what I have learnt (we don't exactly worry about the US here in Australia :P) American politics has never been driven by democratic ideals, rather the economics was the driving force behind many decisions made. However, these decisions were made with the American people in mind.\nI would suggest going to Google, and having a looksie...\n:)\nGood luck
479347
He succeeded Kennedy.  He has the policy of the Great Society.  from wikipedia.org.. The Great Society program became Johnson's agenda for Congress in January 1965: aid to education, attack on disease, Medicare, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, development of depressed regions, a wide-scale fight against poverty, control and prevention of crime and delinquency, and removal of obstacles to the right to vote. Congress, at times augmenting or amending, rapidly enacted Johnson's recommendations. Millions of elderly people found succor through the 1965 Medicare amendment to the Social Security Act.
418287
The statements of policy that a political party claims it will implement if elected.
236395
we have medicare \n(everybody does)but the controversy now is about \nfor those who need surgery , sooner than later for something like cancer, can face long wait times for the surgery (that is what i think is a problem). there is a move towards a'two -tiered' helathcare system, in which those who can and want to pay for it,  can do so, and get service when they want it.\nEvery province handles health care somewhat differently. you still need some insurance to be sure you are covered when you visit another province(like a state), but you can get healthcare in other provinces and get reinbursed for it ( i havent ever done it so not sure how it works).\n\ntho we don't pay for it directly, we pay via taxation. Sales tax and taxes in general. I think Quebec has the highest tax rate in....North America?! fourteen and a half percent sales tax, extra taxes on cigarettes....\nwe do have welfare and unemployment insurance also- but you can barely get by on "social assistance". However there are many training programs available for those on social assistance, and if they attend they get extra $.\nbut we aren't talking Harvard quality education here, but i suppose it's better than zilch.
812388
The only way to save Education is Private Schools with Vouchers.   Democrats stopped.\nThe only way to save Social Security is to Privatize.   Democrats stopped.\nLBJ's War on Poverty.   Poverty won.\nWar on Drugs.   Drugs won.\nYou have Good Point.
65471
Liberal Democrats would like to control the citizenry from the cradle to the grave and treat them as property of the government. Just check out some of the NEA's policies about teaching our children. There's a book titled, 'The Giver', similar to 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley, which depicts such a society. The general population would essentially become drones to work FOR the government.\n\nConservatives, usually Republicans, want lesser interference in day-to-day life by the government. \n\nSo to compare safer or better, safer would be under the liberal Democratic scheme wherein everything is controlled by the government. Your daily schedule is planned by the powers that be. But there's no room for individual actions personally or civically.\n\nBetter, would be under the conservative rule, wherein people are allowed to make their own decisions about careers, education opportunites, etc, and let the government worry about the big things like our national economy, foreign policy, etc.
1120604
My guess would be no. They have a state income tax, coming from a highly taxed state - that is good. Health Care bill signed today for small business seems like a good idea too. I am ultra-conservative but not against the people who are trying to fend for themselves.
518995
I doubt you will find their hand books or policies &#92; service plans in print.  They have to follow the rules of the state.  You should emplore your local state representative to get this information for you.
1067497
Should they? No. Will they? Yes. \n\nPoliticians are a breed of short term thinkers. They care about today, ignore the past, and are oblivious to the future. \n\nIf someone is going to wave a huge bundle of cash to a cash strapped government, then you'll see many things be privatized without consideration of the long term impacts.\n\nI work for a government agency, and there was talk of privatizing it. Nobody but the governor was in favor of the idea. Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, and many others in the community agreed that making the public service private would be worse for the community at large. \n\nThe governor has recanted his desire to privatize the institution. \n\nConsider for a moment what our lives would be like if every public service were privatized? We'd live in a very marginalized society with distinct differences between rich and poor. The middle class would be small, and almost non-existent. \n\nTake education. The GOP has been deliberately underfunding public schools so that they'll fail. As schools get worse, they begin to promote the idea of privatized schools. They'll sell us the notion that businesses are more efficient than government, and that businesses are not going to be pushed about by "liberal" politics. \n\nBottom line: they wish to create an expensive, class-based, tiered educational structure that panders to consumer interest at the expense of the public at large. \n\nProfit is the bottom line of businesses and private interests. Public welfare is no concern to the monied interests. \n\nJust image what kind of education poor Americans would receive if education was privatized. They'd get the McDonald's variant of education. Many middle income families would find themselves even further cash-strapped by having to pay for their child's education personally. \n\nNot to be rude, but there are things children need to learn away from the home beyond a watchful parent's eye. In particular, sex education. \n\nAs such, a privatized system would create a tailorized and custom made education instead of giving a broad and general education. \n\nSchools could teach their "preferred" method of teaching subjects like history, religion, and other humanities. \n\nWe'd lose cohesiveness and unity as a people if the system was privatized. \n\nLook at Indiana and other states that have privatized their tollway systems. Nobody is happy with the arrangements except the politicians that engineered the deal and the businesses that are raking in profits from the deal.\n\nPrivatization is basically a lose-lose situation for the public at large in a long-term context. It's a win-win for businesses and politicians of cash strapped governments. \n\nLastly, how do you hold a private business/group accountable. If they have millions of dollars and armies of lawyers and lobbyists, how do you compete with them if they do you or your community wrong? \n\nMoney corrupts. \n\nIt's our duty as citizens to safeguard our liberties. We need to stay informed, stay active, and keep our friends and family in the know. \n\nWe have to work against privatization if we wish to keep living in a free society.\n\nKeep in mind the purpose of having a government: to protect the public from each other, from private and secretive interests that have ambitions of power and control. \n\nGovernment is a tool that should provide protection of our civil liberties, our property, and our rights to pursue our own happiness. \n\nAs a tool, it's only as effective as the people running it. We need to put people in office that understand what government is, and how to use it. We need to stop putting people in government that use it for enhancing their business dealings and that have contempt for the government and its purpose. \n\nWe wouldn't hire a carpenter who hated tools. Why elect someone who hates government?
504975
Yes they do (a little less in retirement but more than many)-add the benefits too-Health (lifetime) security (lifetime if needed). One reason they have no understanding of our issues-they are secure.
366354
You would be well advised to reconsider comparing any specific US social policy program to anything of Denmark or other North-European countries. Denmark and most of Europe don't have particular 'programs', they have so-called universal social security policies in which a high tax rate finance social policies open to all (hence 'universal'). \n\nPoverty is not a big problem in these countries, but in so far as there are poverty stricken areas or families (or children), these would normally receive substantial social security benefits from the government, such as unemployment pay, tax reduction, housing benefits and so on.
137462
Some general positions across parties:\n\nRepublicans:\n* Lower taxes and belief in economic forces/capitalism\n* Smaller government with private sector involvement/outsourcing\n* Pro-big business\n* Wealth creation and preservation across generations\n* Pro-education\n\nDemocrats:\n* Higher taxes, more social programs, and less reliance upon economic forces\n* Larger government; insourcing from private sector\n* Anti-big business\n* Wealth redistribution (via various forms of taxes including income, inheritance, etc.)\n* Pro-education
972213
Yes. They keep up the mantra of "no tax breaks for the rich" but they fail to mention who they consider "rich", which is anyone who isn't on welfare and voting democrat. In any event, they are very much in favor of wealth redistribution, which is a basic tenet of socialism, along with "universal health care" (SOCIALIZED medicine), and government control of property (EPA mandates, and eminent domain if it takes property from owners to advance higher tax collections). Sounds like a socialist to me.
775985
I believe people, Democrat or Republican, vote for a person on only ONE ISSUE, especially in recent elections around the country. A politician may state he will not vote for minimum wage, refuse to fix the Medicare disaster, and could care less about public schools, however, if that same person makes a stand against or for ONE ISSUE, then people will vote for that person.\n\nUnfortunately, that is how it is. Good luck with trying to change educational policies by going around him.