Tomorrow, Nov 2nd, voting begins in the U.S. midterm elections. This thread is for live report and opinions on what the results will mean for the country moving forward.
Current state of the House of Representatives:
255 Democrat 178 Republican
Republicans need a +39 seat net gain for control.
Current state of the Senate:
59 Democrat 41 Republican
Republicans need a +10 net to gain control, 50/50 results in VP Biden giving control to Democrats.
In the newspapers, professional estimates have settled on about a 55+ seat gain in the House for Republicans and a 6-8 seat swing in the Senate. RealClearPolitics averages are a whopping ~68 seats in the House and 7.5 in the Senate if you split the tossups equally among the parties. If the predictions are accurate, Republicans will gain control of the House by a significant margin and will cut the Democratic majority in the Senate to below a working level with the filibuster rules.
I think this is an absolute recipe for total gridlock in Washington. I know it is the common opinion that Congress is "do-nothing", but there have been major legislative bills passed in the 2 years Obama enjoyed a sizable Democratic majority such as the Stimulus Bill, Health Care Reform, and Financial Regulatory Reform. Republicans opposed these almost unanimously, but simply did not have the votes to stop them. That won't be the case after this election. Some of the open Senate seats are filled immediately by the victors, instead of waiting for January like most seats, meaning Democrats won't have the lame duck session to pass legislation without Republican support either.
My question to you is what kinds of bills do you think the President and a new Republican Congress can work on together? It seems like big-ticket progressive legislation such as an energy bill with cap and trade in it are completely dead. The only thing I've heard commentators talking about are smaller items like free trade deals which Republicans are more likely to support.
I can guarantee that no matter what happens, nothing will be different for the next 2 years. It'll just be constant partisan BS that stops Washington cold.
On November 02 2010 09:30 Ferrose wrote: Edit: Why should we get all the Democrats out and put in Repubs? Doesn't that kind of fuck everything up to get totally new people in there?
This is the logic someone used to disagree with me when I suggested that we replace George W Bush in 2004. There's a time and a place for this type of logic, and I don't think my case or your case is it.
I'll be voting, although new york educators are really screwed this year in the governor race.
Republicans will gain control of the House by a significant margin and will cut the Democratic majority in the Senate to below a working level with the filibuster rules.
Discuss, speculate, report!
The senate is already below a working level. You need 60 votes to oppose a filibuster.
During the great depression the predominant players in economic policy are what we would today describe as libertarians (the main unifying theme of the tea party). Things got progressively worse until liberal economists, led by John Maynard Keynes, came in and cleaned up their mess.
It amazes me how short American's memories are. Not 2 years ago there was HUGE backlash against the Republicans for, without any uncertainty, breaking the economy. So much that they looked done. Now they are going to get all that back?
In some countries, people use voting to get back at each other for shit that happened hundreds of years ago, but in America everyone just forgot that a (and I have to be very specific with my language here) less shitty version of the tea party platform blew up the world's single largest economy.
Ive been able to vote for several years now but don't. The second I see a candidate I think is on the right track, I will leap out of my chair. Unfortunately, the career of John Edwards appears to be more done than one of those rotisserie chickens left at the grocery store at 10pm.
The question isn't about what the republicans will do when they control the house /and senate, but what will Obama do. This would be the first time as president that he actually would need to have republicans support his policies to get them passed. If we go by what he's said, he thinks that republicans will need to move left and work with him, instead of the 1994 Clinton way of moving right. Assuming nothing happens (because Obama and republicans refuse to budge), the blame falls on Obama (just like how the blame fell on Bush even though democrats controlled congress). Obama either moves right, or faces even more losses in 2012 (with Nancy Pelosi quitting when she loses speakership and about 20 other house members following her, and republicans taking control of congress, even a reelected Obama would face extensive problems with his agenda).
On November 02 2010 09:43 red_b wrote: During the great depression the predominant players in economic policy are what we would today describe as libertarians (the main unifying theme of the tea party). Things got progressively worse until liberal economists, led by John Maynard Keynes, came in and cleaned up their mess.
And by clean up their mess you mean create unemployment that lasted for 30 years after the depression ended, and extended the great depression by 7 years. It's your memory that is extremely short.
Einsteins definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results. If Obama wants to do the same as FDR, I expect the depression to last longer and for unemployment to extend into the far future (2050 assuming history repeats itself).
Republicans will gain control of the House by a significant margin and will cut the Democratic majority in the Senate to below a working level with the filibuster rules.
Discuss, speculate, report!
The senate is already below a working level. You need 60 votes to oppose a filibuster.
You are correct that you need 60 to break a filibuster, but quite often the parties can pick off a moderate or two like Snowe or Lincoln (if Republicans had control) to agree to end the filibuster but vote against the bill later to cover their political ass if there is consideration in the bill for them. 59 is still what I consider a working majority. 52 definitely is not. There will have to be considerable bipartisan compromise to get anything passed with 52, with 59 you just have to pay off one defector.
Republicans will gain control of the House by a significant margin and will cut the Democratic majority in the Senate to below a working level with the filibuster rules.
Discuss, speculate, report!
The senate is already below a working level. You need 60 votes to oppose a filibuster.
You are correct that you need 60 to break a filibuster, but quite often the parties can pick off a moderate or two like Snowe or Lincoln (if Republicans had control) to agree to end the filibuster but vote against the bill later to cover their political ass if there is consideration in the bill for them. 59 is still what I consider a working majority. 52 definitely is not. There will have to be considerable bipartisan compromise to get anything passed with 52, with 59 you just have to pay off one defector.
Ugh I am not excited to vote tomorrow. I'm probably going to vote Democrat for my congressional district and for governor since I don't really agree with the message of these tea party endorsed republicans. I don't think there's much to this "movement" but I won't support it. Locally I will vote Republican as always. We're an oddly conservative county.
I would rather see a Democrat majority in the house/senate so the Democrats have the next 2 years to prove they can further along change, otherwise it's going to be a tough call to vote in 2012 for president. You know it's going to be a nightmare if the Republicans just halt EVERYTHING.
I want Republicans to win and get majority, just because I think the government will only succeed if both parts work together, i.e. Clinton (the last good president).
Yet, I'll be voting Democrat for my local rep. He seems to be real, while the Republican is constantly calling him unpatriotic and is running a pretty bad campaign.
if there's room to write a name in, i'll be putting arnold schwarzenegger for governor again. honestly, i'm pretty pessimistic about the candidates we have to choose from in california
On November 02 2010 09:43 SnK-Arcbound wrote: And by clean up their mess you mean create unemployment that lasted for 30 years after the depression ended, and extended the great depression by 7 years. It's your memory that is extremely short.
Einsteins definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results. If Obama wants to do the same as FDR, I expect the depression to last longer and for unemployment to extend into the far future (2050 assuming history repeats itself).
You are demonstrably wrong:
FDR took over in 1933. Get the fuck over it, you're wrong, period, end of story. Take a look at reality and reevaluate how you can be so utterly wrong.
Hoover and his bunch of idiot libertarians did nothing and it blew up spectacularly in their faces. Keynesian economics was so right it is STILL the predominant economic theory, albeit it has at this point basically merged with neoclassical economics.
Where the fuck did you learn economics? Your dad? Your basketball coach in high school?
When I talk to libertarians, it is like my own personal version of Heart of Darkness. I come face to face with pure, unadulterated idiocy and stare it in the face.
On November 02 2010 09:43 SnK-Arcbound wrote: And by clean up their mess you mean create unemployment that lasted for 30 years after the depression ended, and extended the great depression by 7 years. It's your memory that is extremely short.
Einsteins definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results. If Obama wants to do the same as FDR, I expect the depression to last longer and for unemployment to extend into the far future (2050 assuming history repeats itself).
You are demonstrably wrong:
FDR took over in 1933. Get the fuck over it, you're wrong, period, end of story. Take a look at reality and reevaluate how you can be so utterly wrong.
Hoover and his bunch of idiot libertarians did nothing and it blew up spectacularly in their faces. Keynesian economics was so right it is STILL the predominant economic theory, albeit it has at this point basically merged with neoclassical economics.
Where the fuck did you learn economics? Your dad? Your basketball coach in high school?
When I talk to libertarians, it is like my own personal version of Heart of Darkness. I come face to face with pure, unadulterated idiocy and stare it in the face.
GDP has nothing to do with unemployment, or wealth creation. GDP =CGI, consumer spending, government and investment. Decrease consumer spending and investment and increase government, the population is poorer, but GDP goes up. Amazing how math works. What you demonstrated is absolutely nothing.
I never said that Hoover did anything right. But if you want to explain how Keynes didn't create 10 year of unemployement and depression when his policy was used, that is entirely up to you.
On November 02 2010 09:43 SnK-Arcbound wrote: And by clean up their mess you mean create unemployment that lasted for 30 years after the depression ended, and extended the great depression by 7 years. It's your memory that is extremely short.
Einsteins definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results. If Obama wants to do the same as FDR, I expect the depression to last longer and for unemployment to extend into the far future (2050 assuming history repeats itself).
You are demonstrably wrong:
FDR took over in 1933. Get the fuck over it, you're wrong, period, end of story. Take a look at reality and reevaluate how you can be so utterly wrong.
Hoover and his bunch of idiot libertarians did nothing and it blew up spectacularly in their faces. Keynesian economics was so right it is STILL the predominant economic theory, albeit it has at this point basically merged with neoclassical economics.
Where the fuck did you learn economics? Your dad? Your basketball coach in high school?
When I talk to libertarians, it is like my own personal version of Heart of Darkness. I come face to face with pure, unadulterated idiocy and stare it in the face.
its the whole damn (political) teaching agenda, more liberal teachers i have known put more and more credit to FDR for solving the whole damn depression while more right wing teachers take shit away from his credit and some just blatantly state that he made it worse and that had the economy been left alone it would have gotten "better" than it would have done without him and keynes etc.
btw i liked how many times you said face in your last sentence :3
i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives.
On November 02 2010 10:21 pfods wrote: i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives.
The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here.
On November 02 2010 10:16 Navi wrote: its the whole damn (political) teaching agenda, more liberal teachers i have known put more and more credit to FDR for solving the whole damn depression while more right wing teachers take shit away from his credit and some just blatantly state that he made it worse and that had the economy been left alone it would have gotten "better" than it would have done without him and keynes etc.
btw i liked how many times you said face in your last sentence :3
On November 02 2010 10:19 Tuneful wrote: Consumer spending reflects incomes and ease of credit, so yeah, GDP does have something to do with employment.
Consumer spending reflects lack of savings and debt accrued. Wealth is not created by spending money, but by investing and saving.
On November 02 2010 09:43 SnK-Arcbound wrote: And by clean up their mess you mean create unemployment that lasted for 30 years after the depression ended, and extended the great depression by 7 years. It's your memory that is extremely short.
Einsteins definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results. If Obama wants to do the same as FDR, I expect the depression to last longer and for unemployment to extend into the far future (2050 assuming history repeats itself).
You are demonstrably wrong:
FDR took over in 1933. Get the fuck over it, you're wrong, period, end of story. Take a look at reality and reevaluate how you can be so utterly wrong.
Hoover and his bunch of idiot libertarians did nothing and it blew up spectacularly in their faces. Keynesian economics was so right it is STILL the predominant economic theory, albeit it has at this point basically merged with neoclassical economics.
Where the fuck did you learn economics? Your dad? Your basketball coach in high school?
When I talk to libertarians, it is like my own personal version of Heart of Darkness. I come face to face with pure, unadulterated idiocy and stare it in the face.
GDP has nothing to do with unemployment, or wealth creation. GDP =CGI, consumer spending, government and investment. Decrease consumer spending and investment and increase government, the population is poorer, but GDP goes up. Amazing how math works. What you demonstrated is absolutely nothing.
I never said that Hoover did anything right. But if you want to explain how Keynes didn't create 10 year of unemployement and depression when his policy was used, that is entirely up to you.
what is this.... just because the government increased spending does not mean that consumer spending was decreased at all. in fact a couple of the programs, such as the famous CCC and its nowadays slightly less so (but even bigger) brother program, the WPA, were directly involved in improving consumer spending via giving jobs. the more money flow, the stronger the economy. a very dangerous notion going around during the depression was the notion that "the banks aren't safe, the best thing we can do to look out for our future is to save money under the mattress and use it sparingly to survive". this would only help to ruin the private sector and thus eventually the majority of the economy. keynes and his ideas of public sector fiscal policy influenced the very heart of the new deal, and several of the new deal policies aided in stimulating the economy in the way that the CCC and the WPA were able to. and if you don't think that they contributed much, the WPA was clocking in at about 10 billion (i believe?) at around the 42s-43s.
On November 02 2010 10:21 pfods wrote: i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives.
The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here.
what kind of an argument is that? that's the most bland, generic herpderp of a statement i've ever read.
we have one of the most broken political systems in the developed world. our congressional process is so bogged down in partisanship and procedural rules it's a joke.
oh look at that unemployment is falling during FDR's term.
what a coincidence.
btw pump out huge amounts of money in government spending projects and consumer spending and investment will go up as a function of the multiplier.
this is a ridiculous "conversation". employment, GDP and living conditions improved because of keynesian theory which is supported econometrically.
your argument boils down to "nuh uh didnt happen that way because I say it didnt".
btw i liked how many times you said face in your last sentence :3
just thinking about libertarianism decreases my lucidity. I suspect that idiocy is contagious to some degree.
read a book, and not one by a hack like Haszlitt but by a real economist like Stiglitz or Blanchard.
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
unfortunately for you Ive actually read the paper.
they did not count any job created by new deal policy.
add those jobs in, and their claims are statistically unsupportable. you should read the criticisms of the things you put out there as evidence before you do, btw.
there are people out there who are "scientists" who put out similar bullshit to deny global warming. no one takes them seriously.
and just as fast as you can check the wikipedia page for criticisms of FDR I can find you someone who will systematically destroy that paper:
On November 02 2010 10:21 pfods wrote: i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives.
The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here.
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
unfortunately for you Ive actually read the paper.
they did not count any job created by new deal policy.
add those jobs in, and their claims are statistically unsupportable. you should read the criticisms of the things you put out there as evidence before you do, btw.
there are people out there who are "scientists" who put out similar bullshit to deny global warming. no one takes them seriously.
and just as fast as you can check the wikipedia page for criticisms of FDR I can find you someone who will systematically destroy that paper:
ya i helped write a dissertation on how nobody fucking counted the WPA in statistics... its so ridiculous they provided what, 7-8 million jobs over a 8 year tenure? It was the largest employer in the country when it was ended... I find it so ridiculous hahaha
oh look at that unemployment is falling during FDR's term.
what a coincidence.
btw pump out huge amounts of money in government spending projects and consumer spending and investment will go up as a function of the multiplier.
this is a ridiculous "conversation". employment, GDP and living conditions improved because of keynesian theory which is supported econometrically.
Living conditions improved because of deflation. And pumping out huge amounts of money increases inflation, and if the dollar is inflating I wouldn't want to hold onto dollars either, and would invest it so I try to lose as little value as possible.
unfortunately for you Ive actually read the paper.
they did not count any job created by new deal policy.
add those jobs in, and their claims are statistically unsupportable. you should read the criticisms of the things you put out there as evidence before you do, btw.
there are people out there who are "scientists" who put out similar bullshit to deny global warming. no one takes them seriously.
Digging holes and filling them back up aren't jobs. They are the equivilent of unemployment checks, because employment is productive, what FDR did wasn't. Again, unemployment fell but they weren't productive jobs, which is why the depression was extended by a huge margin.
But I'm not going to pull the thread off topic anymore. Enjoy the coming depression, because you are insane if you expect different results from doing the same thing.
On November 02 2010 10:19 Tuneful wrote: Consumer spending reflects incomes and ease of credit, so yeah, GDP does have something to do with employment.
Consumer spending reflects lack of savings and debt accrued. Wealth is not created by spending money, but by investing and saving.
but a lack of consumer spending, as was often the case during the great depression, was due to the fact that they had no fucking money in the first place.
you can't apply regular economics to the great depression; it was an anomaly, and i think it ridiculous to treat it as if it wasn't.
another point was that people stopped investing for sure (and many people had very little to "save") due to the complete change in attitude post stock market crash.
i have no problem with different views on the depression, and as to whether or not different ways of working to fix it would have been more effective than those that had been utilized. But it really grinds my gears when people apply their regular logic to the great depression without attempting to have any scope as to how the people in that time were feeling and the general attitude and mood of the economy and its people. There is a reason why it is the "great" depression, it is on a far different scale than any modern recession that we see today in an industrialized society.
On November 02 2010 09:43 SnK-Arcbound wrote: And by clean up their mess you mean create unemployment that lasted for 30 years after the depression ended, and extended the great depression by 7 years. It's your memory that is extremely short.
Einsteins definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results. If Obama wants to do the same as FDR, I expect the depression to last longer and for unemployment to extend into the far future (2050 assuming history repeats itself).
You are demonstrably wrong:
FDR took over in 1933. Get the fuck over it, you're wrong, period, end of story. Take a look at reality and reevaluate how you can be so utterly wrong.
Hoover and his bunch of idiot libertarians did nothing and it blew up spectacularly in their faces. Keynesian economics was so right it is STILL the predominant economic theory, albeit it has at this point basically merged with neoclassical economics.
Where the fuck did you learn economics? Your dad? Your basketball coach in high school?
When I talk to libertarians, it is like my own personal version of Heart of Darkness. I come face to face with pure, unadulterated idiocy and stare it in the face.
One of the reasons the world doesn't take economists seriously is because of statements like this. The notion that economics is so perfectly understood that you can correlate FDR's takeover in 1933 with a positive increase in GDP (which is easily debatable as a "reliable measure" of an economy) is absurd. Economics is not as black and white like you think it is. I don't know what "libertarians" did to you to make you so butthurt, but not all of them are idiots. Take Milton Friedman for example. Keynesian economics is also not perfect, just look up stagflation of the 70's, which Friedman predicted as a possible outcome of Keynesian thought. Post late 1970's, Keynes theory was albeit rejected from most major governments in favor of Friedman economics, but with the latest recession, Keynes is seeing a comeback (so no, it has not been the predominant thought since the 30's).
I think that different schools of thought formulate after some sort of catastrophic financial event occurs, when everyone is scrambling around trying to figure out why it happened so they can attempt to prevent it again. I'm a fan of Friedman economics, but I'm not naive enough to think any one school explains an economy perfectly. I'm anxious to see where economics goes after this recession is over, but it does look like Keynes is coming back with a vengeance.
oh look at that unemployment is falling during FDR's term.
what a coincidence.
btw pump out huge amounts of money in government spending projects and consumer spending and investment will go up as a function of the multiplier.
this is a ridiculous "conversation". employment, GDP and living conditions improved because of keynesian theory which is supported econometrically.
Living conditions improved because of deflation. And pumping out huge amounts of money increases inflation, and if the dollar is inflating I wouldn't want to hold onto dollars either, and would invest it so I try to lose as little value as possible.
unfortunately for you Ive actually read the paper.
they did not count any job created by new deal policy.
add those jobs in, and their claims are statistically unsupportable. you should read the criticisms of the things you put out there as evidence before you do, btw.
there are people out there who are "scientists" who put out similar bullshit to deny global warming. no one takes them seriously.
Digging holes and filling them back up aren't jobs. They are the equivilent of unemployment checks, because employment is productive, what FDR did wasn't. Again, unemployment fell but they weren't productive jobs, which is why the depression was extended by a huge margin.
But I'm not going to pull the thread off topic anymore. Enjoy the coming depression, because you are insane if you expect different results from doing the same thing.
one of the main agendas of the WPA was to provide training for its members for new skills as to best aid them in a longer run. and construction in the public sector isn't productive while building houses in the private sector is? if there ever was a "job" to dig up a hole and fill it up again without trees or structural support, I would love to see some evidence of it.
the man gives you evidence and you reply with that it is the "equivilent" of unemployment checks, when many would argue that they really were not. and what i seem to find that people seem to ignore in the face of sheer numbers that some of the greatest value that people attributed to these "unemployment checks" were the food and shelter that they were able to provide, even in the short term. When there are many people struggling to make a living, the difference in morale and money that even a small, seemingly part time job can make is huge. the lack of perspective that people (other than relatives of people who have lived through the depression) have of the individual in such an economic catastrophe is unsettling.
On November 02 2010 10:42 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Enjoy the coming depression, because you are insane if you expect different results from doing the same thing.
I am going to save this in a notepad titled "SnK-Arcbound" and I'll get back to you in a few years. Challenge accepted.
Side note again, deflation improved the standard of living? Oh Lord he doesn't even know total spending = total income.
On November 02 2010 09:27 NovaTheFeared wrote: My question to you is what kinds of bills do you think the President and a new Republican Congress can work on together? It seems like big-ticket progressive legislation such as an energy bill with cap and trade in it are completely dead. The only thing I've heard commentators talking about are smaller items like free trade deals which Republicans are more likely to support.
Discuss, speculate, report!
I really hope the new congress can work with the president on an immigration bill. We need a bill to settle this issue and help the undocumented ppl living here while protecting our border and getting immigration from our southern border under control. Hopefully we can get something done between the two parties on this important issue since the democrats alone have completely ignored this issue favoring to focus instead on health care and climate change legislation.
Living conditions improved because of deflation. And pumping out huge amounts of money increases inflation, and if the dollar is inflating I wouldn't want to hold onto dollars either, and would invest it so I try to lose as little value as possible.
Digging holes and filling them back up aren't jobs. They are the equivilent of unemployment checks, because employment is productive, what FDR did wasn't. Again, unemployment fell but they weren't productive jobs, which is why the depression was extended by a huge margin.
But I'm not going to pull the thread off topic anymore. Enjoy the coming depression, because you are insane if you expect different results from doing the same thing.
You may not understand why, but your arguments are contradictory. Allow me to explain.
You claim that there is deflation. OK, that's fine, because there was.
Deflation was almost certainly a result of reduced prices because of a drop in aggregate demand, which is universally considered as the largest problem during the depression.
But then you make a crowding out argument.
There will not be crowding out when the economy is underemployed enough that there is deflation. Crowding out occurs when the economy is at near efficient levels of employment, not dramatically lower levels of employment.
The coming depression will come on the back of libertarians, just like the last one.
And how do you distinguish between productive and nonproductive jobs? It just seems to be that any government job is nonproductive because its from the government. That is unsupported by micro theory so that's not an acceptable argument in the post 70s economics world.
The depression was not extended. GDP shrunk at a decreased rate. That is evidence that the policies were working.
Christina Romer returns to my university! I am excited. Her daughter is more important than the US economy haha.
On a more relevant note: regardless of policies from 70-80 years ago, I think Obama definitely does not lead as much as FDR. As inspiring as he was during the election, his two years thus far have been marked by increasing partisan bickering and contentious legislation.
The whole "let them eat cake" mentality of the administration is a major turn-off; his party will suffer as a result.
On November 02 2010 10:21 pfods wrote: i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives.
The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here.
what kind of an argument is that? that's the most bland, generic herpderp of a statement i've ever read.
we have one of the most broken political systems in the developed world. our congressional process is so bogged down in partisanship and procedural rules it's a joke.
Yes, but I still wouldn't trade it away. Every day I am thankful that I live here and not somewhere else. I don't think that being grateful for what you have, despite it being "broken," is "herpderp."
Post late 1970's, Keynes theory was albeit rejected from most major governments in favor of Friedman economics, but with the latest recession, Keynes is seeing a comeback (so no, it has not been the predominant thought since the 30's).
Friedman's version of economics never displaced neoclassical synthesis as the main theoretical background taught at the university level.
And for all the stuff Friedman said, much of it proved to be incorrect. There is significant video of him saying that socialized medicine would break countries and here we are in 2010 and the best systems all have some degree of socialization.
and what is the deal with so many people saying that output levels are a poor measure of economic performance? this must be the one of the new conservative excuses for why their policies blow ass so hard.
GDP can increase in bad times (although not as much as it should), since employers cut jobs and the current workers have to become more productive to keep up/keep their jobs. Still doesn't mean unemployment doesn't suck. Points to our current jobless recovery.
Post late 1970's, Keynes theory was albeit rejected from most major governments in favor of Friedman economics, but with the latest recession, Keynes is seeing a comeback (so no, it has not been the predominant thought since the 30's).
Friedman's version of economics never displaced neoclassical synthesis as the main theoretical background taught at the university level.
And for all the stuff Friedman said, much of it proved to be incorrect. There is significant video of him saying that socialized medicine would break countries and here we are in 2010 and the best systems all have some degree of socialization.
and what is the deal with so many people saying that output levels are a poor measure of economic performance? this must be the one of the new conservative excuses for why their policies blow ass so hard.
As populations increase, GDP should be higher. Therefore GDP isn't the greatest indicator. GDP per capita may be a little better measurement. Keynesian economic theory is all sorts of fail. Look how it has turned out for us, Japan, and the UK. And don't say China, they can actually afford it (we can't).
Post late 1970's, Keynes theory was albeit rejected from most major governments in favor of Friedman economics, but with the latest recession, Keynes is seeing a comeback (so no, it has not been the predominant thought since the 30's).
Friedman's version of economics never displaced neoclassical synthesis as the main theoretical background taught at the university level.
And for all the stuff Friedman said, much of it proved to be incorrect. There is significant video of him saying that socialized medicine would break countries and here we are in 2010 and the best systems all have some degree of socialization.
and what is the deal with so many people saying that output levels are a poor measure of economic performance? this must be the one of the new conservative excuses for why their policies blow ass so hard.
As populations increase, GDP should be higher. Therefore GDP isn't the greatest indicator. GDP per capita may be a little better measurement. Keynesian economic theory is all sorts of fail. Look how it has turned out for us, Japan, and the UK. And don't say China, they can actually afford it (we can't).
Whoa whoa. I agree the Keynesian Theory has severe limits but citing Japan as an example of that is pretty bad. I mean, the Japanese government was making interventions into the economy that Keynesian theory would absolutely not recommend, and they intervened in ways that Keynes would recommend a long time after the Lost Decade began. Basically, referring to Japan as a failed instance of applied Keynesian theory is a massive strawman argument.
Post late 1970's, Keynes theory was albeit rejected from most major governments in favor of Friedman economics, but with the latest recession, Keynes is seeing a comeback (so no, it has not been the predominant thought since the 30's).
Friedman's version of economics never displaced neoclassical synthesis as the main theoretical background taught at the university level.
And for all the stuff Friedman said, much of it proved to be incorrect. There is significant video of him saying that socialized medicine would break countries and here we are in 2010 and the best systems all have some degree of socialization.
and what is the deal with so many people saying that output levels are a poor measure of economic performance? this must be the one of the new conservative excuses for why their policies blow ass so hard.
As populations increase, GDP should be higher. Therefore GDP isn't the greatest indicator. GDP per capita may be a little better measurement. Keynesian economic theory is all sorts of fail. Look how it has turned out for us, Japan, and the UK. And don't say China, they can actually afford it (we can't).
Whoa whoa. I agree the Keynesian Theory has severe limits but citing Japan as an example of that is pretty bad. I mean, the Japanese government was making interventions into the economy that Keynesian theory would absolutely not recommend, and they intervened in ways that Keynes would recommend a long time after the Lost Decade began. Basically, referring to Japan as a failed instance of applied Keynesian theory is a massive strawman argument.
ya i didn't want to talk more in this thread about econ but Japan is a terribad example
there is no completely right theory, so people don't have to get their asses up the wall trying to prove so. that's why they are theories, they help guide us through their principles.
there will be certain market times and conditions where a certain theory seems to hold more truth than another, but that's why economics exists as a viable field of study, innit?
On November 02 2010 11:41 Chex Mix wrote: Ahh, Republicans vs. Democrats. The classic battle between the insane and the incompetent.
You'd think in a battle the insane would win that though, easily... in Japan we have like 20 odd political parties, so it is all a joke. Best party name is "Happiness realization party". And that isn't my translation of their name, that's their's.
On November 02 2010 10:21 pfods wrote: i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives.
The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here.
what kind of an argument is that? that's the most bland, generic herpderp of a statement i've ever read.
we have one of the most broken political systems in the developed world. our congressional process is so bogged down in partisanship and procedural rules it's a joke.
Yes, but I still wouldn't trade it away. Every day I am thankful that I live here and not somewhere else. I don't think that being grateful for what you have, despite it being "broken," is "herpderp."
cool patriotism bro. i can think of five other countries that i would rather live in off the top of my head(that might actually care about me). america is not one of them.
already plan on moving, so save the genius come back.
On November 02 2010 11:09 red_b wrote: And for all the stuff Friedman said, much of it proved to be incorrect. There is significant video of him saying that socialized medicine would break countries and here we are in 2010 and the best systems all have some degree of socialization.
Socialized Medicine to one degree or another has been in place for about 30-40 years? It may not be breaking countries but it has been chipping away little by little over time. The economic explosion of the late 80s and 90s with the .coms had the ability to absorb and hide a large number of choices both Keynesian and Friedman. I think it is a little hasty to consider Friedman wrong on socialized medicine.
On November 02 2010 11:41 Chex Mix wrote: Ahh, Republicans vs. Democrats. The classic battle between the insane and the incompetent.
You'd think in a battle the insane would win that though, easily... in Japan we have like 20 odd political parties, so it is all a joke. Best party name is "Happiness realization party". And that isn't my translation of their name, that's their's.
On November 02 2010 10:21 pfods wrote: i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives.
The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here.
what kind of an argument is that? that's the most bland, generic herpderp of a statement i've ever read.
we have one of the most broken political systems in the developed world. our congressional process is so bogged down in partisanship and procedural rules it's a joke.
Yes, but I still wouldn't trade it away. Every day I am thankful that I live here and not somewhere else. I don't think that being grateful for what you have, despite it being "broken," is "herpderp."
cool patriotism bro. i can think of five other countries that i would rather live in off the top of my head(that might actually care about me). america is not one of them.
already plan on moving, so save the genius come back.
It's cool when the country actually allows you to do that, I mean ins't that something to be grateful for? You might actually have a hard time finding a country made for you....
On November 02 2010 10:21 pfods wrote: i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives.
The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here.
what kind of an argument is that? that's the most bland, generic herpderp of a statement i've ever read.
we have one of the most broken political systems in the developed world. our congressional process is so bogged down in partisanship and procedural rules it's a joke.
Yes, but I still wouldn't trade it away. Every day I am thankful that I live here and not somewhere else. I don't think that being grateful for what you have, despite it being "broken," is "herpderp."
cool patriotism bro. i can think of five other countries that i would rather live in off the top of my head(that might actually care about me). america is not one of them.
already plan on moving, so save the genius come back.
My ingenious comeback is that you're awfully redundant. Notice I used the word "ingenious" there, since "genius" is not an adjective but a noun.
Anyway, this midterm will be interesting. The validity of their complaints can be debated ad infinitum, but many people simply aren't satisfied with the current state of things. If the GOP can somehow reach 60 in the Senate, the next two years of Obama's tenure will not be fun for his administration.
On November 02 2010 10:21 pfods wrote: i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives.
The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here.
what kind of an argument is that? that's the most bland, generic herpderp of a statement i've ever read.
we have one of the most broken political systems in the developed world. our congressional process is so bogged down in partisanship and procedural rules it's a joke.
Yes, but I still wouldn't trade it away. Every day I am thankful that I live here and not somewhere else. I don't think that being grateful for what you have, despite it being "broken," is "herpderp."
cool patriotism bro. i can think of five other countries that i would rather live in off the top of my head(that might actually care about me). america is not one of them.
already plan on moving, so save the genius come back.
It's cool when the country actually allows you to do that, I mean ins't that something to be grateful for? You might actually have a hard time finding a country made for you....
what is with you people? do you actually think america is the only country with "freedom"? and why should i be grateful? that i wasn't born in north korea? what did the country have to do with that? i thank my parents for not being korean for that one. country had nothing to do with it.
Dear Americans, do yourself a favor. Vote for a majority, so shit can actually get done in your government. I'm tired of hearing on the news how "fed up" people are with obama, when for some reason they don''t realize its the partisan tomfuckery of the house.
It should be noted (for any interested non-US citizens) that only 37 of the 100 total US senate seats are being voted on this year (as they attempt to replace 1/3 of the senate every cycle, it doesn't always work out that way though, due to deaths/retirings, etc.), 19 of which held by the Democrats, 18 of which held by Republicans. 4 of the above Democrat districts are considered 'safe.' 11 of the Republican districts are considered 'safe.'
On November 02 2010 10:21 pfods wrote: i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives.
The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here.
what kind of an argument is that? that's the most bland, generic herpderp of a statement i've ever read.
we have one of the most broken political systems in the developed world. our congressional process is so bogged down in partisanship and procedural rules it's a joke.
Yes, but I still wouldn't trade it away. Every day I am thankful that I live here and not somewhere else. I don't think that being grateful for what you have, despite it being "broken," is "herpderp."
cool patriotism bro. i can think of five other countries that i would rather live in off the top of my head(that might actually care about me). america is not one of them.
already plan on moving, so save the genius come back.
It's cool when the country actually allows you to do that, I mean ins't that something to be grateful for? You might actually have a hard time finding a country made for you....
what is with you people? do you actually think america is the only country with "freedom"? and why should i be grateful? that i wasn't born in north korea? what did the country have to do with that? i thank my parents for not being korean for that one. country had nothing to do with it.
Hmm, it actually does, when the country give you the ability to get things down, you kinda want at least to be grateful you had the opening to do what you want. Hint, it's not just being born, it's what they offer YOU.
Oh don't go to another country thinking they need to cater to you, it doesn't happen.
Any one else sympathetic to Krugman's column last friday?
The apocalypse is coming. Government gridlock and no sign of the fiscal stimulus that we clearly need. The fears of a liquidity trap aren't too ridiculous imo. To touch on the Japan argument, Japan never really engaged in a proper stimulus effort. There was a good deal of monetary work, but limited fiscal stimulus and a limited banking sector revamp. At least this holds true as far as 1999, I am a bit unfamiliar with the policies post 2000.
Being a Cali voter just sucks. Hopefully the gerrymandering and marijuana laws pass. Just unhappy with the legislature. I really really don't like what the Dems have done and they deserve to be punished harshly, but the California republican party is... T_T .
It's going to be fun once we see what liabilities we are on the hook for once the ridiculous pension benefits start coming due/ we are required to properly fund them. Cops and firefighters are robbing the people with a smile.
On November 02 2010 13:16 Sabu113 wrote: Any one else sympathetic to Krugman's column last friday?
The apocalypse is coming. Government gridlock and no sign of the fiscal stimulus that we clearly need. The fears of a liquidity trap aren't too ridiculous imo.
not too sure about that. just hold strong and work together to get through this. don't let religious fear mongering get to you. Albert Einstein issued one of my favourite quotes in the history of the spoken word, and it is as follows: in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity!
Post late 1970's, Keynes theory was albeit rejected from most major governments in favor of Friedman economics, but with the latest recession, Keynes is seeing a comeback (so no, it has not been the predominant thought since the 30's).
Friedman's version of economics never displaced neoclassical synthesis as the main theoretical background taught at the university level.
And for all the stuff Friedman said, much of it proved to be incorrect. There is significant video of him saying that socialized medicine would break countries and here we are in 2010 and the best systems all have some degree of socialization.
and what is the deal with so many people saying that output levels are a poor measure of economic performance? this must be the one of the new conservative excuses for why their policies blow ass so hard.
You're right, I was taught the IS/LM model at my university. It's a fantastic model for the short run, but poor for long run. You should have learned why. That's why they move into the AD/AS model, which is acceptable for modeling the effects of various changes in a classroom. As for much of Friedman's stuff being proved incorrect, source? Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Output levels are a poor measure of economic performance because it fails to take into account several key things, ie. a housewife staying at home raising the children, preparing dinner, cleaning the house, while the husband brings in the cash (it could very well be the other way around, this is just an example). GDP doesn't take into account any of that, but it's still an integral aspect to how people make decisions on a daily basis, decisions which DO fuel measured GDP.
On November 02 2010 13:16 Sabu113 wrote: Any one else sympathetic to Krugman's column last friday?
The apocalypse is coming. Government gridlock and no sign of the fiscal stimulus that we clearly need. The fears of a liquidity trap aren't too ridiculous imo.
not too sure about that. just hold strong and work together to get through this. don't let religious fear mongering get to you. Albert Einstein issued one of my favourite quotes in the history of the spoken word, and it is as follows: in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity!
I remember reading a Krugman article in Rolling Stone at an old job. He wanted a second, bigger stimulus. If you are gonna throw money away, at least have a way to pay it back. Krugman is all over the place with his positions. I don't take him very seriously anymore.
On November 02 2010 10:21 pfods wrote: i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives.
The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here.
what kind of an argument is that? that's the most bland, generic herpderp of a statement i've ever read.
we have one of the most broken political systems in the developed world. our congressional process is so bogged down in partisanship and procedural rules it's a joke.
Yes, but I still wouldn't trade it away. Every day I am thankful that I live here and not somewhere else. I don't think that being grateful for what you have, despite it being "broken," is "herpderp."
cool patriotism bro. i can think of five other countries that i would rather live in off the top of my head(that might actually care about me). america is not one of them.
already plan on moving, so save the genius come back.
It's cool when the country actually allows you to do that, I mean ins't that something to be grateful for? You might actually have a hard time finding a country made for you....
what is with you people? do you actually think america is the only country with "freedom"? and why should i be grateful? that i wasn't born in north korea? what did the country have to do with that? i thank my parents for not being korean for that one. country had nothing to do with it.
Hmm, it actually does, when the country give you the ability to get things down, you kinda want at least to be grateful you had the opening to do what you want. Hint, it's not just being born, it's what they offer YOU.
Oh don't go to another country thinking they need to cater to you, it doesn't happen.
Actually, it totally does. Take like, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, France, New Zealand, Australia, etc. as examples. You might think taxes are a big deal but you can get free college/healthcare/time off/vacations etc. just for being a citizen in many places and that's way less expensive than paying for any of that in the US.
I don't really like either party that much, but I'm really excited about this election because of Prop 19 and Jimmy McMilian. Honestly, it might totally suck for NY if McMilian won the governor race but then again it might not and it'd be so fucking badass if he somehow won. But, for now, I'm just hoping that he can somehow manage 7-10% of the vote (highly doubtful but I can hope).
On the other side of the country, I'm very interested in Prop 19 and want it seems like it has a great chance of passing which is awesome. Should change a lot of things not just in CA but the rest of the country. I mean, I don't think it'll culturally change very much as a great deal of people already smoke weed and it's not like when/if it's legalized everyone is gonna start lighting up. It'll, in my opinion, reduce crime and gang violence while generating an enormous amount of money for California. I feel pretty confident that other states will try to emulate that sort of law as well. Wonder how the feds will react though if it passes?
On November 02 2010 09:43 SnK-Arcbound wrote: And by clean up their mess you mean create unemployment that lasted for 30 years after the depression ended, and extended the great depression by 7 years. It's your memory that is extremely short.
Einsteins definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results. If Obama wants to do the same as FDR, I expect the depression to last longer and for unemployment to extend into the far future (2050 assuming history repeats itself).
You are demonstrably wrong:
FDR took over in 1933. Get the fuck over it, you're wrong, period, end of story. Take a look at reality and reevaluate how you can be so utterly wrong.
Hoover and his bunch of idiot libertarians did nothing and it blew up spectacularly in their faces. Keynesian economics was so right it is STILL the predominant economic theory, albeit it has at this point basically merged with neoclassical economics.
Where the fuck did you learn economics? Your dad? Your basketball coach in high school?
When I talk to libertarians, it is like my own personal version of Heart of Darkness. I come face to face with pure, unadulterated idiocy and stare it in the face.
GDP has nothing to do with unemployment, or wealth creation. GDP =CGI, consumer spending, government and investment. Decrease consumer spending and investment and increase government, the population is poorer, but GDP goes up. Amazing how math works. What you demonstrated is absolutely nothing.
I never said that Hoover did anything right. But if you want to explain how Keynes didn't create 10 year of unemployement and depression when his policy was used, that is entirely up to you.
"Shit.
This guy has caught me.
Okay. What did I learn in sophomore macroeconomics that I can tell him to fuck off with.
Hmmm. I know. Let's just say that GDP is consumer spending + public spending + investment.
That means it's not unemployment right?
Jesus, I really should've taken macro in my junior year too. Okay, let's just go with that. Hopefully that's as far as anyone ever got."
Seriously, if you're going to debate economics, make goddamn sure you know something about it.
As for the midterm elections, if you vote teaparty, you're a fucking idiot and you're helping to destroy this country.
Otherwise, your republican / democrat vote should probably be decided on what you know (e.g. a vote for Matt Doheny would be a great way to put an asshole shill into congress AND simultaneously damage your state, whereas John McCain, though still pretty evil by most conventional measures, does pretty well by Arizona.
On November 02 2010 13:16 Sabu113 wrote: Any one else sympathetic to Krugman's column last friday?
The apocalypse is coming. Government gridlock and no sign of the fiscal stimulus that we clearly need. The fears of a liquidity trap aren't too ridiculous imo.
not too sure about that. just hold strong and work together to get through this. don't let religious fear mongering get to you. Albert Einstein issued one of my favourite quotes in the history of the spoken word, and it is as follows: in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity!
I remember reading a Krugman article in Rolling Stone at an old job. He wanted a second, bigger stimulus. If you are gonna throw money away, at least have a way to pay it back. Krugman is all over the place with his positions. I don't take him very seriously anymore.
Krugman wanted a stimulus that stimulated.
That means public spending.
The first stimulus was a whole bunch of bull shit bailouts. No fucking wonder it didn't work.
What did we build with it? Approximately nothing. Where did the money go? Largely to large financial institutions.
Stimulus can work. We've seen it before. It just can't be a bunch of cash payouts to everyone and their dog.
On November 02 2010 10:21 pfods wrote: i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives.
The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here.
what kind of an argument is that? that's the most bland, generic herpderp of a statement i've ever read.
we have one of the most broken political systems in the developed world. our congressional process is so bogged down in partisanship and procedural rules it's a joke.
Yes, but I still wouldn't trade it away. Every day I am thankful that I live here and not somewhere else. I don't think that being grateful for what you have, despite it being "broken," is "herpderp."
cool patriotism bro. i can think of five other countries that i would rather live in off the top of my head(that might actually care about me). america is not one of them.
already plan on moving, so save the genius come back.
It's cool when the country actually allows you to do that, I mean ins't that something to be grateful for? You might actually have a hard time finding a country made for you....
what is with you people? do you actually think america is the only country with "freedom"? and why should i be grateful? that i wasn't born in north korea? what did the country have to do with that? i thank my parents for not being korean for that one. country had nothing to do with it.
Hmm, it actually does, when the country give you the ability to get things down, you kinda want at least to be grateful you had the opening to do what you want. Hint, it's not just being born, it's what they offer YOU.
Oh don't go to another country thinking they need to cater to you, it doesn't happen.
Actually, it totally does. Take like, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, France, New Zealand, Australia, etc. as examples. You might think taxes are a big deal but you can get free college/healthcare/time off/vacations etc. just for being a citizen in many places and that's way less expensive than paying for any of that in the US.
The point is, ultimately, that you shouldn't desire to "tear down" any system that could even modestly be called democratic, because the alternatives are far worse, and if you did eliminate such a system, it would likely take centuries of bloody struggle to restore said system.
On November 02 2010 13:16 Sabu113 wrote: Any one else sympathetic to Krugman's column last friday?
The apocalypse is coming. Government gridlock and no sign of the fiscal stimulus that we clearly need. The fears of a liquidity trap aren't too ridiculous imo.
not too sure about that. just hold strong and work together to get through this. don't let religious fear mongering get to you. Albert Einstein issued one of my favourite quotes in the history of the spoken word, and it is as follows: in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity!
I remember reading a Krugman article in Rolling Stone at an old job. He wanted a second, bigger stimulus. If you are gonna throw money away, at least have a way to pay it back. Krugman is all over the place with his positions. I don't take him very seriously anymore.
Krugman wanted a stimulus that stimulated.
That means public spending.
The first stimulus was a whole bunch of bull shit bailouts. No fucking wonder it didn't work.
What did we build with it? Approximately nothing. Where did the money go? Largely to large financial institutions.
Stimulus can work. We've seen it before. It just can't be a bunch of cash payouts to everyone and their dog.
On November 02 2010 10:21 pfods wrote: i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives.
The same "barely functioning democracy" that allows you to post here.
what kind of an argument is that? that's the most bland, generic herpderp of a statement i've ever read.
we have one of the most broken political systems in the developed world. our congressional process is so bogged down in partisanship and procedural rules it's a joke.
Yes, but I still wouldn't trade it away. Every day I am thankful that I live here and not somewhere else. I don't think that being grateful for what you have, despite it being "broken," is "herpderp."
cool patriotism bro. i can think of five other countries that i would rather live in off the top of my head(that might actually care about me). america is not one of them.
already plan on moving, so save the genius come back.
It's cool when the country actually allows you to do that, I mean ins't that something to be grateful for? You might actually have a hard time finding a country made for you....
what is with you people? do you actually think america is the only country with "freedom"? and why should i be grateful? that i wasn't born in north korea? what did the country have to do with that? i thank my parents for not being korean for that one. country had nothing to do with it.
Hmm, it actually does, when the country give you the ability to get things down, you kinda want at least to be grateful you had the opening to do what you want. Hint, it's not just being born, it's what they offer YOU.
Oh don't go to another country thinking they need to cater to you, it doesn't happen.
Actually, it totally does. Take like, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, France, New Zealand, Australia, etc. as examples. You might think taxes are a big deal but you can get free college/healthcare/time off/vacations etc. just for being a citizen in many places and that's way less expensive than paying for any of that in the US.
Actually what? If you are saying that they want you, you're kidding yourself.
Nothing is free, you ARE expected to pay taxes to actually get this "stuff". Point is you are EXPECTED to work for what you want, not be catered to.
On November 02 2010 09:30 Ferrose wrote: This is the first year that I can vote. I'm so excited to stand outside for an hour when it's thirty degrees!
But really, I'm excited to vote.
Edit: Why should we get all the Democrats out and put in Repubs? Doesn't that kind of fuck everything up to get totally new people in there?
basically nothing will ever happen when the house and senate are opposite parties of the president, i forget what it's called since AP Gov was a while ago
On November 02 2010 09:30 Ferrose wrote: This is the first year that I can vote. I'm so excited to stand outside for an hour when it's thirty degrees!
But really, I'm excited to vote.
Edit: Why should we get all the Democrats out and put in Repubs? Doesn't that kind of fuck everything up to get totally new people in there?
basically nothing will ever happen when the house and senate are opposite parties of the president, i forget what it's called since AP Gov was a while ago
On November 02 2010 14:42 LOLtex wrote: So who do you suggest we give money to this time?
If I did this math right, $800,000,000,000 is about 2.5% of the United State's GDP for three years. It is no surprise this did not create a massive amount of jobs or spur demand to the point that recovery would be exhaustive.
[/QUOTE] As for the midterm elections, if you vote teaparty, you're a fucking idiot and you're helping to destroy this country.
Otherwise, your republican / democrat vote should probably be decided on what you know (e.g. a vote for Matt Doheny would be a great way to put an asshole shill into congress AND simultaneously damage your state, whereas John McCain, though still pretty evil by most conventional measures, does pretty well by Arizona.[/QUOTE]
If you vote Democrat or Republican you're helping to destroy this country too.
On November 02 2010 13:57 keV. wrote: This is actually one of the most horrifying midterm elections in my life.
Aww, poor guy. From "Hope and Change" that resulted in more-of-the-same-supercharged, to Damn These Idiot Voters Because I Disagree With Them.
So much for a mandate: Obama and the Democrat Congress have done more to wake this country up than anything. Because sometimes, people have to actually see Big Government Statism firsthand, to recognize how horrifying it is. So thanks, lefties, for over-exposing your ideology that reminded Americans of precisely what they do not want -- no matter how hard you try to force it down their throats.
As for me, I eagerly anticipate voting today...with a Slurpee and a smile (inside joke).
On November 02 2010 13:57 keV. wrote: This is actually one of the most horrifying midterm elections in my life.
Aww, poor guy. From "Hope and Change" that resulted in more-of-the-same-supercharged, to Damn These Idiot Voters Because I Disagree With Them.
So much for a mandate: Obama and the Democrat Congress have done more to wake this country up than anything. Because sometimes, people have to actually see Big Government Statism firsthand, to recognize how horrifying it is. So thanks, lefties, for over-exposing your ideology that reminded Americans of precisely what they do not want -- no matter how hard you try to force it down their throats.
As for me, I eagerly anticipate voting today...with a Slurpee and a smile (inside joke).
Quick; someone count the number of talking points!
I'll be damned, incumbents lose during midterms and poor economic conditions, who would have guessed?
tipping 39 seats should be a challenge but from what i've seen on the news here in the UK and from watching Bill Maher and other US political talk shows its quite a likely outcome.
Also tipping 10 seats in the senate.... well thats not hard, it happens all the time, all over the world.
I personally hope for the democrats to stay in charge, as from an outside perspective...... Democrats are by far the lesser of two evils. The republican party is piece by piece becoming the Tea Party..... and that scares me.... those nut jobs in power would spell doom for any country that doesn't have a predominantly white, christian population. I think even more so than when Bush the younger had his hands on the nuclear launch codes.
I don't know why Americans are so afraid of socialism..... we have socialised medicine and guess what.... i've never had to live with an illness or medical problem because i couldn't afford treatment..... i pay a small amount in tax and get a hell of a lot back.
On the statue of liberty it says "give me your hungry, your poor" hate to tell you this ladies and gents.... but thats a socialist statement right there. America is supposed to be the dream, the place you can go to live a better life...... not a place driven by fear of change, fear of people, and the opportunity to be shot at any point during your day.
On November 02 2010 19:45 emythrel wrote: I don't know why Americans are so afraid of socialism..... we have socialised medicine and guess what.... i've never had to live with an illness or medical problem because i couldn't afford treatment..... i pay a small amount in tax and get a hell of a lot back.
Whenever you have a certain type of system ingrained into a large country, there is going to be a lot of resistance getting it changed for a variety of reasons. Also, the USA is much bigger so what works for your country would probably not work for ours in the same form.
On the statue of liberty it says "give me your hungry, your poor" hate to tell you this ladies and gents.... but thats a socialist statement right there. America is supposed to be the dream, the place you can go to live a better life...... not a place driven by fear of change, fear of people, and the opportunity to be shot at any point during your day.
On November 02 2010 19:45 emythrel wrote: not a place driven by fear of change, fear of people, and the opportunity to be shot at any point during your day.
1. I love TL, just the economic debate in this thread made the whole thing worth reading.
2. Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie. It has been shown time and again when one party controls the executive and legislative that that party tends to overreach (either to the right or left) and causes a backlash. It was also inevitable that the Republicans would bounce back in the mid term due to the amount of moderate Democrats that got elected on the coattails of President Obama in traditionally conservative districts.
3. I'm thinking Republicans take back the house (but not to the extent of their last majority) and fall short two seats in the Senate. This sets up an interesting dynamic where the House can pass all sorts of legislation and then portray the Senate and White House as obstructionists. My concern is that they'll take a win of 40 of 50 seats as a "mandate" when it really isn't. At this point, the American public is tired of the lack of compromise they see in Washington while their lives get worse and worse. If the Republicans think they can just run out the clock to 2012 I think they will not like the consequences.
4. Either way, if you're a Republican (like me), Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian, Communist go out and take part in the political process. The only way it gets better is if citizens participate. Voting, volunteering for a campaign, writing/calling your representatives, writing an opinion piece, these are all how you can make the system better. Also remember, even if you didn't vote for the guy/gal that represents you in whatever political office they still work for you. You are still their constituent and it's important to make sure they know that.
On November 02 2010 19:45 emythrel wrote: I don't know why Americans are so afraid of socialism..... we have socialised medicine and guess what.... i've never had to live with an illness or medical problem because i couldn't afford treatment..... i pay a small amount in tax and get a hell of a lot back.
Whenever you have a certain type of system ingrained into a large country, there is going to be a lot of resistance getting it changed for a variety of reasons. Also, the USA is much bigger so what works for your country would probably not work for ours in the same form.
On the statue of liberty it says "give me your hungry, your poor" hate to tell you this ladies and gents.... but thats a socialist statement right there. America is supposed to be the dream, the place you can go to live a better life...... not a place driven by fear of change, fear of people, and the opportunity to be shot at any point during your day.
What do you think the USA is really like...?
read this thread. what image of america would you get judging it by the inhabitants voicing their opinion in this thread? id be horrified for even one person announcing to vote anything other than democrat, but from what ive read my estimate is that around 50% of people are not voting democrat at all, when it is as obvious as it can be that republicans ran the u.s. into the ditch and democrates were unable to realize their best efforts to pull it back out because republican/corporate interests, despite their staggering loss in 2008, still have more than enough power to stall, block and obstruct anything they want. the reason the democrats "havent done anything" is because they dont have enough power, yet what people are going to do is taking power away from them. you have short-sighted people everywhere, but only in america are they responsible for the leadership of the most powerful country on earth, screwing up big time and being proud of their country on top of it.
On November 02 2010 22:05 ey215 wrote: Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie.
Haven't you noticed how polarized the country is and how shockingly bad the dialogue has been? US politics are fundamentally sensationalist and the result is that issues are never properly discussed and progress is rarely made.
Went and voted. My state's apparently a tossup according to the NYT, though 538 has it with a high chance of a GOP victory in both the Senate and House.
the reason the democrats "havent done anything" is because they dont have enough power
Oh they've done plenty, which is the problem.
And yes, as baffling it is for you to comprehend -- most Americans do not want to become more like you, and more like Europe. I know, crazy.
Btw, please work on your spelling and knowledge of American politics before attempting to make a coherent argument. You can start by learning who's run Congress since 2006, and by finding a single piece of legislation that O and the D's haven't been able to ram through (despite Republican and public opposition).
On November 02 2010 22:05 ey215 wrote: Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie.
Haven't you noticed how polarized the country is and how shockingly bad the dialogue has been? US politics are fundamentally sensationalist and the result is that issues are never properly discussed and progress is rarely made.
Yeah it's been terrible lately... the republicans know it's quite easy to get a good chunk of their voter base to rally against a black democrat. Forget any philosophical differences...
I really don't think there will be nearly as huge of a backlash against Dems as people think. The TeaBaggers will scare aware a lot of moderate voters. The TeaBaggers are a whacky ass offshoot of the right, just like socialists are a bunch of really crazy fuckers from the left.
On November 02 2010 22:05 ey215 wrote: Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie.
Haven't you noticed how polarized the country is and how shockingly bad the dialogue has been? US politics are fundamentally sensationalist and the result is that issues are never properly discussed and progress is rarely made.
Yeah it's been terrible lately... the republicans know it's quite easy to get a good chunk of their voter base to rally against a black democrat. Forget any philosophical differences...
I really don't think there will be nearly as huge of a backlash against Dems as people think. The TeaBaggers will scare aware a lot of moderate voters. The TeaBaggers are a whacky ass offshoot of the right, just like socialists are a bunch of really crazy fuckers from the left.
So ironic it should be satire:
Poster agrees with how poor the dialogue has been; proceeds to smear the policy-driven people he opposes with sexual epithet name-calling and unsubstantiated charges of racism.
On November 02 2010 20:55 AeroGear wrote: American dream is over, was only real while the fake overconsumption/waste economy was thriving.
An optimist I see.
Its not about being optimistic or not, even in Canada we are regarded as one of the nation who produces the most waste and consumes the most energy. The days of living well at the detriment of every other poor nations are numbered. I'll stop there as it is pretty much off topic.
As for the midterms, well I'm not sure who will win most out of it, I think everyone agress that democrats will lose a lot of ground. Whatever happens in the US, will most likely have an impact on Canada, its a shame Harper is still in place and will most likely be again once elections take place over here >_<
On November 02 2010 22:55 Losticus wrote: mindless drivel
Do you have any coherent opinions to offer or salient points to make, or are you just here to regurgitate Tea Party talking points?
I'm asking seriously, it seems impossible to have any actual civil discourse with a Tea Party member because this is all they do - parrot the same nonsense their candidates are spewing in attack ads.
On November 02 2010 19:45 emythrel wrote: I don't know why Americans are so afraid of socialism..... we have socialised medicine and guess what.... i've never had to live with an illness or medical problem because i couldn't afford treatment..... i pay a small amount in tax and get a hell of a lot back.
Whenever you have a certain type of system ingrained into a large country, there is going to be a lot of resistance getting it changed for a variety of reasons. Also, the USA is much bigger so what works for your country would probably not work for ours in the same form.
On the statue of liberty it says "give me your hungry, your poor" hate to tell you this ladies and gents.... but thats a socialist statement right there. America is supposed to be the dream, the place you can go to live a better life...... not a place driven by fear of change, fear of people, and the opportunity to be shot at any point during your day.
What do you think the USA is really like...?
read this thread. what image of america would you get judging it by the inhabitants voicing their opinion in this thread? id be horrified for even one person announcing to vote anything other than democrat, but from what ive read my estimate is that around 50% of people are not voting democrat at all, when it is as obvious as it can be that republicans ran the u.s. into the ditch and democrates were unable to realize their best efforts to pull it back out because republican/corporate interests, despite their staggering loss in 2008, still have more than enough power to stall, block and obstruct anything they want. the reason the democrats "havent done anything" is because they dont have enough power, yet what people are going to do is taking power away from them. you have short-sighted people everywhere, but only in america are they responsible for the leadership of the most powerful country on earth, screwing up big time and being proud of their country on top of it.
How does any of that produce an image of people randomly getting shot at in the U.S.? Also, republicans and democrats are two sides of the same coin. Our political system is basically an elephant and a donkey skull &#^*ing each others brains out in a 69 position. Sure theres hate, sure they're trying to obliterate the other's brain, but in the end they're still making love, and i'm the one that gets screwed. That is the image you should have of the U.S.
On November 02 2010 09:43 SnK-Arcbound wrote: And by clean up their mess you mean create unemployment that lasted for 30 years after the depression ended, and extended the great depression by 7 years. It's your memory that is extremely short.
Einsteins definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results. If Obama wants to do the same as FDR, I expect the depression to last longer and for unemployment to extend into the far future (2050 assuming history repeats itself).
You are demonstrably wrong:
FDR took over in 1933. Get the fuck over it, you're wrong, period, end of story. Take a look at reality and reevaluate how you can be so utterly wrong.
Hoover and his bunch of idiot libertarians did nothing and it blew up spectacularly in their faces. Keynesian economics was so right it is STILL the predominant economic theory, albeit it has at this point basically merged with neoclassical economics.
Where the fuck did you learn economics? Your dad? Your basketball coach in high school?
When I talk to libertarians, it is like my own personal version of Heart of Darkness. I come face to face with pure, unadulterated idiocy and stare it in the face.
GDP has nothing to do with unemployment, or wealth creation. GDP =CGI, consumer spending, government and investment. Decrease consumer spending and investment and increase government, the population is poorer, but GDP goes up. Amazing how math works. What you demonstrated is absolutely nothing.
I never said that Hoover did anything right. But if you want to explain how Keynes didn't create 10 year of unemployement and depression when his policy was used, that is entirely up to you.
Got to disagree with you there, GDP reflects consumer spending and therefore employment rates and economic stability.
On November 02 2010 22:05 ey215 wrote: Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie.
Haven't you noticed how polarized the country is and how shockingly bad the dialogue has been? US politics are fundamentally sensationalist and the result is that issues are never properly discussed and progress is rarely made.
Despite what the media likes to tell you, we've been a polarized country for decades if not centuries. Hence, adversarial. We're a huge country made up of people from all types of backgrounds that all have varying valid ideas of what "progress" is.
Republicans like to look back at the Reagan years and talk about how he was able to bring the country together, Democrats like to point towards Clinton, or even JFK. This is nostalgia. Things were highly polarized in those times as well. I would argue that this is part of the reason that we have a history of mid term elections going to the opposition party.
The media likes to point towards, well really themselves, and talk about how polarized the country is. Well, Jon Stewart was right at his rally. People from all political backgrounds work together, play together, celebrate and mourn together on a daily basis. We're not defined by being Republicans or Democrats we're defined by being people first. A large portion of this country tends to skew slightly left of center socially and slightly right of center fiscally. We believe in "live and let live" and helping our neighbors, but also want to work for what we get and spend our money as we see fit.
Our political system is not designed to allow sweeping change or "progress". It's designed to have the hot headed House offset by the more measured Senate with the Judicial and Executive branches thrown in to keep things honest. Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers helps us avoid tyranny by the majority and allows for measured adaptation as times change. Does it slow us down sometimes (Civil Rights comes to mind) yes, but it allows for the greater good.
The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted. For all of their faults, the founders sure got that thing right.
Ultimately, it comes down to this. We've been in worse places than we are now. We've been more polarized than we are now (Civil War anyone?), and we'll come through this at the end. There will be other challenges facing us in the future and we can overcome that as well. The polarization comes in how exactly to proceed and varying opinions is a good thing not bad.
On November 02 2010 22:05 ey215 wrote: 1. I love TL, just the economic debate in this thread made the whole thing worth reading.
2. Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie. It has been shown time and again when one party controls the executive and legislative that that party tends to overreach (either to the right or left) and causes a backlash. It was also inevitable that the Republicans would bounce back in the mid term due to the amount of moderate Democrats that got elected on the coattails of President Obama in traditionally conservative districts.
3. I'm thinking Republicans take back the house (but not to the extent of their last majority) and fall short two seats in the Senate. This sets up an interesting dynamic where the House can pass all sorts of legislation and then portray the Senate and White House as obstructionists. My concern is that they'll take a win of 40 of 50 seats as a "mandate" when it really isn't. At this point, the American public is tired of the lack of compromise they see in Washington while their lives get worse and worse. If the Republicans think they can just run out the clock to 2012 I think they will not like the consequences.
4. Either way, if you're a Republican (like me), Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian, Communist go out and take part in the political process. The only way it gets better is if citizens participate. Voting, volunteering for a campaign, writing/calling your representatives, writing an opinion piece, these are all how you can make the system better. Also remember, even if you didn't vote for the guy/gal that represents you in whatever political office they still work for you. You are still their constituent and it's important to make sure they know that.
Like Washington, I disagree with the adversarial political system. Politics are better balanced on a tripod than on two legs. The problem with having only two political partys is that you are placed in a lesser of two evils situation every election. The parties take opposing sides on a few key issues and this basically ignores the interests of most of the population. I support firearms rights and small goverment, but I hate the continuing educational budget cuts and orwellian legislature that republican congress tries to introduce, so I vote democrat. I would love for their to be a party that I actually agreed with more than 51% of what they said. This is impossible with a 2 party system.
On November 02 2010 22:05 ey215 wrote: Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie.
Haven't you noticed how polarized the country is and how shockingly bad the dialogue has been? US politics are fundamentally sensationalist and the result is that issues are never properly discussed and progress is rarely made.
Despite what the media likes to tell you, we've been a polarized country for decades if not centuries. Hence, adversarial. We're a huge country made up of people from all types of backgrounds that all have varying valid ideas of what "progress" is.
Republicans like to look back at the Reagan years and talk about how he was able to bring the country together, Democrats like to point towards Clinton, or even JFK. This is nostalgia. Things were highly polarized in those times as well. I would argue that this is part of the reason that we have a history of mid term elections going to the opposition party.
The media likes to point towards, well really themselves, and talk about how polarized the country is. Well, Jon Stewart was right at his rally. People from all political backgrounds work together, play together, celebrate and mourn together on a daily basis. We're not defined by being Republicans or Democrats we're defined by being people first. A large portion of this country tends to skew slightly left of center socially and slightly right of center fiscally. We believe in "live and let live" and helping our neighbors, but also want to work for what we get and spend our money as we see fit.
Our political system is not designed to allow sweeping change or "progress". It's designed to have the hot headed House offset by the more measured Senate with the Judicial and Executive branches thrown in to keep things honest. Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers helps us avoid tyranny by the majority and allows for measured adaptation as times change. Does it slow us down sometimes (Civil Rights comes to mind) yes, but it allows for the greater good.
The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted. For all of their faults, the founders sure got that thing right.
Ultimately, it comes down to this. We've been in worse places than we are now. We've been more polarized than we are now (Civil War anyone?), and we'll come through this at the end. There will be other challenges facing us in the future and we can overcome that as well. The polarization comes in how exactly to proceed and varying opinions is a good thing not bad.
I definitely agree that there is nothing special about our "polarization" now compared to the last 200 years of our country.
In fact I agree with all of this except the part where our changing the constitution "evolving" without actually amending it is a good thing. The constitution gives our country solidity because it is extremely difficult to change whereas, it is very easy for congress to change hands or the presidency. So making it so the meaning of the constitution can change with just 1 judge (or 9 for that matter) is not a good thing. It undermines the entire purpose of having a constitution separate from just the laws of the country.
On November 02 2010 22:05 ey215 wrote: 1. I love TL, just the economic debate in this thread made the whole thing worth reading.
2. Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie. It has been shown time and again when one party controls the executive and legislative that that party tends to overreach (either to the right or left) and causes a backlash. It was also inevitable that the Republicans would bounce back in the mid term due to the amount of moderate Democrats that got elected on the coattails of President Obama in traditionally conservative districts.
3. I'm thinking Republicans take back the house (but not to the extent of their last majority) and fall short two seats in the Senate. This sets up an interesting dynamic where the House can pass all sorts of legislation and then portray the Senate and White House as obstructionists. My concern is that they'll take a win of 40 of 50 seats as a "mandate" when it really isn't. At this point, the American public is tired of the lack of compromise they see in Washington while their lives get worse and worse. If the Republicans think they can just run out the clock to 2012 I think they will not like the consequences.
4. Either way, if you're a Republican (like me), Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian, Communist go out and take part in the political process. The only way it gets better is if citizens participate. Voting, volunteering for a campaign, writing/calling your representatives, writing an opinion piece, these are all how you can make the system better. Also remember, even if you didn't vote for the guy/gal that represents you in whatever political office they still work for you. You are still their constituent and it's important to make sure they know that.
Like Washington, I disagree with the adversarial political system. Politics are better balanced on a tripod than on two legs. The problem with having only two political partys is that you are placed in a lesser of two evils situation every election. The parties take opposing sides on a few key issues and this basically ignores the interests of most of the population. I support firearms rights and small goverment, but I hate the continuing educational budget cuts and orwellian legislature that republican congress tries to introduce, so I vote democrat. I would love for their to be a party that I actually agreed with more than 51% of what they said. This is impossible with a 2 party system.
Just what education budget cuts are you talking about? Total Education expenditures: Expenditures per pupil: Grants for disadvantaged children: Federal Spending Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Federal Grants to States for Special Education:
Contrary to popular belief, we actually spend a lot on education even compared to most european countries + Show Spoiler +
Annual Secondary Education Expenditures per Student
2. Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie. It has been shown time and again when one party controls the executive and legislative that that party tends to overreach (either to the right or left) and causes a backlash. It was also inevitable that the Republicans would bounce back in the mid term due to the amount of moderate Democrats that got elected on the coattails of President Obama in traditionally conservative districts.
That isn't really true. The center has shifted considerably over time.
There is no value in being divided and pushed toward the center with certain types of people. It would be nice if the division were on complicated questions, and variations on what would be best, but it is not.
On November 02 2010 22:05 ey215 wrote: Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie.
Haven't you noticed how polarized the country is and how shockingly bad the dialogue has been? US politics are fundamentally sensationalist and the result is that issues are never properly discussed and progress is rarely made.
Despite what the media likes to tell you, we've been a polarized country for decades if not centuries. Hence, adversarial. We're a huge country made up of people from all types of backgrounds that all have varying valid ideas of what "progress" is.
Republicans like to look back at the Reagan years and talk about how he was able to bring the country together, Democrats like to point towards Clinton, or even JFK. This is nostalgia. Things were highly polarized in those times as well. I would argue that this is part of the reason that we have a history of mid term elections going to the opposition party.
The media likes to point towards, well really themselves, and talk about how polarized the country is. Well, Jon Stewart was right at his rally. People from all political backgrounds work together, play together, celebrate and mourn together on a daily basis. We're not defined by being Republicans or Democrats we're defined by being people first. A large portion of this country tends to skew slightly left of center socially and slightly right of center fiscally. We believe in "live and let live" and helping our neighbors, but also want to work for what we get and spend our money as we see fit.
Our political system is not designed to allow sweeping change or "progress". It's designed to have the hot headed House offset by the more measured Senate with the Judicial and Executive branches thrown in to keep things honest. Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers helps us avoid tyranny by the majority and allows for measured adaptation as times change. Does it slow us down sometimes (Civil Rights comes to mind) yes, but it allows for the greater good.
The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted. For all of their faults, the founders sure got that thing right.
Ultimately, it comes down to this. We've been in worse places than we are now. We've been more polarized than we are now (Civil War anyone?), and we'll come through this at the end. There will be other challenges facing us in the future and we can overcome that as well. The polarization comes in how exactly to proceed and varying opinions is a good thing not bad.
I definitely agree that there is nothing special about our "polarization" now compared to the last 200 years of our country.
In fact I agree with all of this except the part where our changing the constitution "evolving" without actually amending it is a good thing. The constitution gives our country solidity because it is extremely difficult to change whereas, it is very easy for congress to change hands or the presidency. So making it so the meaning of the constitution can change with just 1 judge (or 9 for that matter) is not a good thing. It undermines the entire purpose of having a constitution separate from just the laws of the country.
Actually, you make a valid point and I struggled with that portion of my post. I do tend to skew towards agreeing with a more strict interpretation of the Constitution than what our current court system tends to have, but I see the need for the Judicial branch to stand up and make a choice even if the wording is not specifically in the Constitution.
I have more concerns in how much of our government has been pushed towards the Federal level, and specifically the rise in power of the Executive since FDR. I'd like to see more given back to the states than we currently have.
On November 02 2010 22:55 Losticus wrote: mindless drivel
Do you have any coherent opinions to offer or salient points to make, or are you just here to regurgitate Tea Party talking points?
I'm asking seriously, it seems impossible to have any actual civil discourse with a Tea Party member because this is all they do - parrot the same nonsense their candidates are spewing in attack ads.
You should listen to yourself. All I've done is articulate my points intelligently, without snark, without name-calling -- and all people like you've done, naturally, is call people you disagree with Teabaggers and crazies spewing "mindless drivel."
What part about me pointing out the profound irony of someone smearing a movement as racist (as par for the course, and with no proof), while begrudging lack of "civility" -- is a talking point or "nonsense spewed in an attack ad"? I mean, is this a joke? Actual civil discourse? Do you have that little self-awareness?
It seems that you folks are entirely incapable of refuting the Tea party on ideas, instead having to resort to name-calling and deriding it as "mindless drivel" so beyond the pale that it doesn't merit serious discussion. The people who claim to be tolerant, open-minded, and sophisticated, can't dare let their worldview be challenged -- so instead they just discredit the challengers as racist/extremist/stupid.
The Tea Party movement is all about ideas, principles, and policies. That's all it's ever been, made plainly clear in every rally ever held. You'd know that if you were intellectually curious enough to listen. I'd be happy to discuss that with you.
The problem with the current two-party system is that if you're person who likes a few things from one side and a few things from the other, you are blasted by BOTH parties.
Since I work, and also need to vote, I'll just share part of a column that may help the confused understand why those crazy teabaggers Americans like me are voting conservative. In fact, it comprehensively sums it up perfectly. Warning, lots of big words and paragraphs ahead:
So why are people angry? I’ll end with a brief list of twenty-one months of examples in no particular order. Each incident in itself was perhaps explicable by Obama supporters given the exigencies of the time or perhaps could be contextualized by the liberal media and political establishment. But in the aggregate they confirm an overwhelmingly damning pattern of ideological extremism, polarization, and basic incompetence — to such a degree that dozens of politicians are not running on the very Obama agenda that they once voted for.
Here We Go…
A vast new healthcare monstrosity that will send private insurance rates through the ceiling. The Machiavellian way in which it was slammed through. Failed stimulus. Wasteful pork-barrel spending of hundreds of billions in borrowed money. Persistent near 10% unemployment. Three trillion dollars in new debt in just two years. Record levels of federal spending. The vast increase in the size of government and its share of GDP. Eight years of projected $1 trillion annual budget deficits. Record high foreclosures. Record high usage of food stamps. The Keynesian zeal of Romer/Summers/Orzag followed by their sudden resignations in the wake of failure. Constant talk of higher taxes on “them” — the promised new healthcare surcharge taxes, the promised return to the Clinton income tax rates, talk of a VAT, talk of lifting the caps on income subject to FICA taxes, new capital gains taxes, new inheritance taxes on the horizon.
The use of extra-cabinet czars to avoid confirmation and audit. The neglect of the law, from reversing the order of Chrysler creditors to announcing a BP $20 billion shakedown and punishments for health insurers who don’t toe the line. The ascendance of ACORN and SEIU. The months-long shutdown of Gulf drilling. The failure to encourage coal, nuclear, and oil and gas new production. The Black Panther voting intimidation mess. The bowing abroad. The apologies. The outreach to enemies, and the snubbing of allies. The unnecessary humiliation of Great Britain and Israel. The Iran serial “deadline” charade. The unnecessary announcement of Afghan troop withdrawal deadlines. “Overseas contingency operations” and “man-made disasters.” The proposed civilian trial of KSM. The Ground Zero mosque mess. The beer summit mess. NASA’s new main mission of Muslim outreach. Stopping the border fence. Suing Arizona and demonizing the state. The apologies to the Chinese over the Arizona law, which was trashed from the White House lawn by the president of Mexico, and sued by foreign governments to the apparent approval of the administration.
The constant “Bush did it” refrain. The gratuitous slurs against limb-lopping doctors. The thrashing of the “rich” going to the Super Bowl and Las Vegas. The artificial divide of them/us based on $250,000 of annual income. The racial divisiveness from a sad cast of characters that gave us “cowards,” “stupidly,” “wise Latina,” and whites polluting the ghetto. Unhinged appointees like Van Jones and Anita Dunn. The occasional unguarded admissions like “never waste a crisis” and “at some point I do think you’ve made enough money.” The wacky behavior from the whining of “like a dog” to the sudden junketing to Copenhagen to lobby for the Chicago Olympics. The Orwellian cheap damning of the Bush anti-terrorism protocols only to accept or expand tribunals, renditions, Guantanamo, Predators, Iraq, and intercepts and wiretaps. The golf obsession and Costa del Sol while trashing the indulgent rich.
I’ll stop there since we have another 27 months to go.
On November 02 2010 22:05 ey215 wrote: 1. I love TL, just the economic debate in this thread made the whole thing worth reading.
2. Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie. It has been shown time and again when one party controls the executive and legislative that that party tends to overreach (either to the right or left) and causes a backlash. It was also inevitable that the Republicans would bounce back in the mid term due to the amount of moderate Democrats that got elected on the coattails of President Obama in traditionally conservative districts.
3. I'm thinking Republicans take back the house (but not to the extent of their last majority) and fall short two seats in the Senate. This sets up an interesting dynamic where the House can pass all sorts of legislation and then portray the Senate and White House as obstructionists. My concern is that they'll take a win of 40 of 50 seats as a "mandate" when it really isn't. At this point, the American public is tired of the lack of compromise they see in Washington while their lives get worse and worse. If the Republicans think they can just run out the clock to 2012 I think they will not like the consequences.
4. Either way, if you're a Republican (like me), Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian, Communist go out and take part in the political process. The only way it gets better is if citizens participate. Voting, volunteering for a campaign, writing/calling your representatives, writing an opinion piece, these are all how you can make the system better. Also remember, even if you didn't vote for the guy/gal that represents you in whatever political office they still work for you. You are still their constituent and it's important to make sure they know that.
Like Washington, I disagree with the adversarial political system. Politics are better balanced on a tripod than on two legs. The problem with having only two political partys is that you are placed in a lesser of two evils situation every election. The parties take opposing sides on a few key issues and this basically ignores the interests of most of the population. I support firearms rights and small goverment, but I hate the continuing educational budget cuts and orwellian legislature that republican congress tries to introduce, so I vote democrat. I would love for their to be a party that I actually agreed with more than 51% of what they said. This is impossible with a 2 party system.
Just what education budget cuts are you talking about? Total Education expenditures: Expenditures per pupil: Grants for disadvantaged children: Federal Spending Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Federal Grants to States for Special Education:
Contrary to popular belief, we actually spend a lot on education even compared to most european countries + Show Spoiler +
Annual Secondary Education Expenditures per Student
I read 2 good reason to vote Republican in your post, and I don't follow you at all on the 2 reasons not to.
And your end resulting decision was to vote democrat?
while it's certainly true the US spends more than any other country on education, I thought the general consensus for analysts and the population was that the US quality of education is not in line with the spending and is [Ironic]more badder than other countries.[/Ironic]
On November 02 2010 22:05 ey215 wrote: 1. I love TL, just the economic debate in this thread made the whole thing worth reading.
2. Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie. It has been shown time and again when one party controls the executive and legislative that that party tends to overreach (either to the right or left) and causes a backlash. It was also inevitable that the Republicans would bounce back in the mid term due to the amount of moderate Democrats that got elected on the coattails of President Obama in traditionally conservative districts.
3. I'm thinking Republicans take back the house (but not to the extent of their last majority) and fall short two seats in the Senate. This sets up an interesting dynamic where the House can pass all sorts of legislation and then portray the Senate and White House as obstructionists. My concern is that they'll take a win of 40 of 50 seats as a "mandate" when it really isn't. At this point, the American public is tired of the lack of compromise they see in Washington while their lives get worse and worse. If the Republicans think they can just run out the clock to 2012 I think they will not like the consequences.
4. Either way, if you're a Republican (like me), Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian, Communist go out and take part in the political process. The only way it gets better is if citizens participate. Voting, volunteering for a campaign, writing/calling your representatives, writing an opinion piece, these are all how you can make the system better. Also remember, even if you didn't vote for the guy/gal that represents you in whatever political office they still work for you. You are still their constituent and it's important to make sure they know that.
Like Washington, I disagree with the adversarial political system. Politics are better balanced on a tripod than on two legs. The problem with having only two political partys is that you are placed in a lesser of two evils situation every election. The parties take opposing sides on a few key issues and this basically ignores the interests of most of the population. I support firearms rights and small goverment, but I hate the continuing educational budget cuts and orwellian legislature that republican congress tries to introduce, so I vote democrat. I would love for their to be a party that I actually agreed with more than 51% of what they said. This is impossible with a 2 party system.
Just what education budget cuts are you talking about? Total Education expenditures: Expenditures per pupil: Grants for disadvantaged children: Federal Spending Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Federal Grants to States for Special Education:
Contrary to popular belief, we actually spend a lot on education even compared to most european countries + Show Spoiler +
Annual Secondary Education Expenditures per Student
I read 2 good reason to vote Republican in your post, and I don't follow you at all on the 2 reasons not to.
And your end resulting decision was to vote democrat?
while it's certainly true the US spends more than any other country on education, I thought the general consensus for analysts and the population was that the US quality of education is not in line with the spending and is [Ironic]more badder than other countries.[/Ironic]
Yes, the problem is that the bureaucracies managing the education in the US are so bad and corrupt that a huge percentage of the billions that we spend on education is wasted. That's why there are stories out there about school districts where $30,000+ per year is spent per child on public education, yet the schools are still failing (See Washington DC). How many of the politicians there send their kids to public schools? Practically none of them do. They'd rather shell out $20,000 per year to send their kids to private school where they are better-educated. And people wonder why teacher's unions are so demonized.... could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that so many of them do an absolutely shitty job?
On November 03 2010 01:06 Losticus wrote: You should listen to yourself. All I've done is articulate my points intelligently, without snark, without name-calling -- and all people like you've done, naturally, is call people you disagree with Teabaggers and crazies spewing "mindless drivel."
What part about me pointing out the profound irony of someone smearing a movement as racist (as par for the course, and with no proof), while begrudging lack of "civility" -- is a talking point or "nonsense spewed in an attack ad"? I mean, is this a joke? Actual civil discourse? Do you have that little self-awareness?
It seems that you folks are entirely incapable of refuting the Tea party on ideas, instead having to resort to name-calling and deriding it as "mindless drivel" so beyond the pale that it doesn't merit serious discussion. The people who claim to be tolerant, open-minded, and sophisticated, can't dare let their worldview be challenged -- so instead they just discredit the challengers as racist/extremist/stupid.
The Tea Party movement is all about ideas, principles, and policies. That's all it's ever been, made plainly clear in every rally ever held. You'd know that if you were intellectually curious enough to listen. I'd be happy to discuss that with you.
Okay bro. Challenge accepted.
First of all, what is "all people like you"? And "you folks"? What people like me? How do you even know what kind of person I am? I ask a serious question and from that you've somehow inferred me to be part of whatever cabal you're railing against, it's pretty comical.
Secondly, I called it mindless drivel, because all of this:
Aww, poor guy. From "Hope and Change" that resulted in more-of-the-same-supercharged, to Damn These Idiot Voters Because I Disagree With Them.
Obama and the Democrat Congress have done more to wake this country up than anything.
So thanks, lefties, for over-exposing your ideology
no matter how hard you try to force it down their throats.
As for me, I eagerly anticipate voting today...with a Slurpee and a smile (inside joke).
And yes, as baffling it is for you to comprehend -- most Americans do not want to become more like you, and more like Europe. I know, crazy.
So ironic it should be satire: Poster agrees with how poor the dialogue has been; proceeds to smear the policy-driven people he opposes with sexual epithet name-calling and unsubstantiated charges of racism. Sanity, 2010.
Do you have that little self-awareness?
It seems that you folks are entirely incapable of refuting the Tea party on ideas
is just mindless drivel, and yes, just crap Tea Party candidates are repeating ad nauseum in attack ads. There's no ideas. No arguments. Just sniping at people and angry ad hominem attacks. You haven't contributed anything or refuted anything, you've just slung more mud around - it's like some elementary school playground fight: "you're stupid!' you: "no, YOU'RE stupid!". And then to top it off, you respond to the only person being civil and actually responding to you seriously instead of just ignoring you like everyone else with - guess what - even more baseless accusations and personal insults. I should listen to myself? Maybe you should listen to yourself, then you might realize why no one else is even talking to you - and no, it's not because you're in such a higher league of intellectual sophistication you've shattered everyone else's worldview to the point where they can no longer speak coherently.
On November 02 2010 22:05 ey215 wrote: 1. I love TL, just the economic debate in this thread made the whole thing worth reading.
2. Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie. It has been shown time and again when one party controls the executive and legislative that that party tends to overreach (either to the right or left) and causes a backlash. It was also inevitable that the Republicans would bounce back in the mid term due to the amount of moderate Democrats that got elected on the coattails of President Obama in traditionally conservative districts.
3. I'm thinking Republicans take back the house (but not to the extent of their last majority) and fall short two seats in the Senate. This sets up an interesting dynamic where the House can pass all sorts of legislation and then portray the Senate and White House as obstructionists. My concern is that they'll take a win of 40 of 50 seats as a "mandate" when it really isn't. At this point, the American public is tired of the lack of compromise they see in Washington while their lives get worse and worse. If the Republicans think they can just run out the clock to 2012 I think they will not like the consequences.
4. Either way, if you're a Republican (like me), Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian, Communist go out and take part in the political process. The only way it gets better is if citizens participate. Voting, volunteering for a campaign, writing/calling your representatives, writing an opinion piece, these are all how you can make the system better. Also remember, even if you didn't vote for the guy/gal that represents you in whatever political office they still work for you. You are still their constituent and it's important to make sure they know that.
Like Washington, I disagree with the adversarial political system. Politics are better balanced on a tripod than on two legs. The problem with having only two political partys is that you are placed in a lesser of two evils situation every election. The parties take opposing sides on a few key issues and this basically ignores the interests of most of the population. I support firearms rights and small goverment, but I hate the continuing educational budget cuts and orwellian legislature that republican congress tries to introduce, so I vote democrat. I would love for their to be a party that I actually agreed with more than 51% of what they said. This is impossible with a 2 party system.
Just what education budget cuts are you talking about? Total Education expenditures: Expenditures per pupil: Grants for disadvantaged children: Federal Spending Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Federal Grants to States for Special Education:
Contrary to popular belief, we actually spend a lot on education even compared to most european countries + Show Spoiler +
Annual Secondary Education Expenditures per Student
I read 2 good reason to vote Republican in your post, and I don't follow you at all on the 2 reasons not to.
And your end resulting decision was to vote democrat?
while it's certainly true the US spends more than any other country on education, I thought the general consensus for analysts and the population was that the US quality of education is not in line with the spending and is [Ironic]more badder than other countries.[/Ironic]
Yes, the problem is that the bureaucracies managing the education in the US are so bad and corrupt that a huge percentage of the billions that we spend on education is wasted. That's why there are stories out there about school districts where $30,000+ per year is spent per child on public education, yet the schools are still failing (See Washington DC). How many of the politicians there send their kids to public schools? Practically none of them do. They'd rather shell out $20,000 per year to send their kids to private school where they are better-educated. And people wonder why teacher's unions are so demonized.... could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that so many of them do an absolutely shitty job?
Waste in the education system is absolutely true, and probably worse than most of us realize. My ex's father did some investigative reporting on his cities' school district (Cleburne, TX) and found that upwards of 44% of funding was being wasted on stupid shit like "meetings in Hawaii" and "golfing at an exclusive resort," with upper management spending over $1000 at dinners. I'm not even kidding. This is just one school district an hour away from DFW, too.
On November 02 2010 22:05 ey215 wrote: Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie.
Haven't you noticed how polarized the country is and how shockingly bad the dialogue has been? US politics are fundamentally sensationalist and the result is that issues are never properly discussed and progress is rarely made.
Despite what the media likes to tell you, we've been a polarized country for decades if not centuries. Hence, adversarial. We're a huge country made up of people from all types of backgrounds that all have varying valid ideas of what "progress" is.
Republicans like to look back at the Reagan years and talk about how he was able to bring the country together, Democrats like to point towards Clinton, or even JFK. This is nostalgia. Things were highly polarized in those times as well. I would argue that this is part of the reason that we have a history of mid term elections going to the opposition party.
The media likes to point towards, well really themselves, and talk about how polarized the country is. Well, Jon Stewart was right at his rally. People from all political backgrounds work together, play together, celebrate and mourn together on a daily basis. We're not defined by being Republicans or Democrats we're defined by being people first. A large portion of this country tends to skew slightly left of center socially and slightly right of center fiscally. We believe in "live and let live" and helping our neighbors, but also want to work for what we get and spend our money as we see fit.
Our political system is not designed to allow sweeping change or "progress". It's designed to have the hot headed House offset by the more measured Senate with the Judicial and Executive branches thrown in to keep things honest. Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers helps us avoid tyranny by the majority and allows for measured adaptation as times change. Does it slow us down sometimes (Civil Rights comes to mind) yes, but it allows for the greater good.
The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted. For all of their faults, the founders sure got that thing right.
Ultimately, it comes down to this. We've been in worse places than we are now. We've been more polarized than we are now (Civil War anyone?), and we'll come through this at the end. There will be other challenges facing us in the future and we can overcome that as well. The polarization comes in how exactly to proceed and varying opinions is a good thing not bad.
Well I'm not really sure what you mean by what the media likes to tell me. The abysmal quality of political dialogue in the US certainly isn't the kind of thing that happens overnight, so you'll get no argument from me about that. The point I was trying to raise is that the sensationalist nature of the process isn't a good thing. People aren't really being informed so I don't think there is any helpful or legitimate sense in which this sort of stuff helps steer the country towards centrism. And if it was about having varying opinions then you wouldn't have a two party system in the first place.
On November 02 2010 22:05 ey215 wrote: 1. I love TL, just the economic debate in this thread made the whole thing worth reading.
2. Our country is based on an adversarial political system. This is a good thing. It helps drive us towards the center, where most American's political values lie. It has been shown time and again when one party controls the executive and legislative that that party tends to overreach (either to the right or left) and causes a backlash. It was also inevitable that the Republicans would bounce back in the mid term due to the amount of moderate Democrats that got elected on the coattails of President Obama in traditionally conservative districts.
3. I'm thinking Republicans take back the house (but not to the extent of their last majority) and fall short two seats in the Senate. This sets up an interesting dynamic where the House can pass all sorts of legislation and then portray the Senate and White House as obstructionists. My concern is that they'll take a win of 40 of 50 seats as a "mandate" when it really isn't. At this point, the American public is tired of the lack of compromise they see in Washington while their lives get worse and worse. If the Republicans think they can just run out the clock to 2012 I think they will not like the consequences.
4. Either way, if you're a Republican (like me), Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian, Communist go out and take part in the political process. The only way it gets better is if citizens participate. Voting, volunteering for a campaign, writing/calling your representatives, writing an opinion piece, these are all how you can make the system better. Also remember, even if you didn't vote for the guy/gal that represents you in whatever political office they still work for you. You are still their constituent and it's important to make sure they know that.
Like Washington, I disagree with the adversarial political system. Politics are better balanced on a tripod than on two legs. The problem with having only two political partys is that you are placed in a lesser of two evils situation every election. The parties take opposing sides on a few key issues and this basically ignores the interests of most of the population. I support firearms rights and small goverment, but I hate the continuing educational budget cuts and orwellian legislature that republican congress tries to introduce, so I vote democrat. I would love for their to be a party that I actually agreed with more than 51% of what they said. This is impossible with a 2 party system.
Just what education budget cuts are you talking about? Total Education expenditures: Expenditures per pupil: Grants for disadvantaged children: Federal Spending Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Federal Grants to States for Special Education:
Contrary to popular belief, we actually spend a lot on education even compared to most european countries + Show Spoiler +
Annual Secondary Education Expenditures per Student
I read 2 good reason to vote Republican in your post, and I don't follow you at all on the 2 reasons not to.
And your end resulting decision was to vote democrat?
while it's certainly true the US spends more than any other country on education, I thought the general consensus for analysts and the population was that the US quality of education is not in line with the spending and is [Ironic]more badder than other countries.[/Ironic]
Another reason our public education system is so bad compared to how much money we spend on it is the teachers unions making it hard for school administrations to fire or punish teachers who are not doing a good job. Putting teachers ahead of "teaching" is never a good idea.
This is one reason why you can get a better education with a private school even if the money you pay for its tuition is less than what the government gives public schools per child.
On November 03 2010 01:28 Losticus wrote: Since I work, and also need to vote, I'll just share part of a column that may help the confused understand why those crazy teabaggers Americans like me are voting conservative. In fact, it comprehensively sums it up perfectly. Warning, lots of big words and paragraphs ahead:
So why are people angry? I’ll end with a brief list of twenty-one months of examples in no particular order. Each incident in itself was perhaps explicable by Obama supporters given the exigencies of the time or perhaps could be contextualized by the liberal media and political establishment. But in the aggregate they confirm an overwhelmingly damning pattern of ideological extremism, polarization, and basic incompetence — to such a degree that dozens of politicians are not running on the very Obama agenda that they once voted for.
Here We Go…
A vast new healthcare monstrosity that will send private insurance rates through the ceiling. The Machiavellian way in which it was slammed through. Failed stimulus. Wasteful pork-barrel spending of hundreds of billions in borrowed money. Persistent near 10% unemployment. Three trillion dollars in new debt in just two years. Record levels of federal spending. The vast increase in the size of government and its share of GDP. Eight years of projected $1 trillion annual budget deficits. Record high foreclosures. Record high usage of food stamps. The Keynesian zeal of Romer/Summers/Orzag followed by their sudden resignations in the wake of failure. Constant talk of higher taxes on “them” — the promised new healthcare surcharge taxes, the promised return to the Clinton income tax rates, talk of a VAT, talk of lifting the caps on income subject to FICA taxes, new capital gains taxes, new inheritance taxes on the horizon.
The use of extra-cabinet czars to avoid confirmation and audit. The neglect of the law, from reversing the order of Chrysler creditors to announcing a BP $20 billion shakedown and punishments for health insurers who don’t toe the line. The ascendance of ACORN and SEIU. The months-long shutdown of Gulf drilling. The failure to encourage coal, nuclear, and oil and gas new production. The Black Panther voting intimidation mess. The bowing abroad. The apologies. The outreach to enemies, and the snubbing of allies. The unnecessary humiliation of Great Britain and Israel. The Iran serial “deadline” charade. The unnecessary announcement of Afghan troop withdrawal deadlines. “Overseas contingency operations” and “man-made disasters.” The proposed civilian trial of KSM. The Ground Zero mosque mess. The beer summit mess. NASA’s new main mission of Muslim outreach. Stopping the border fence. Suing Arizona and demonizing the state. The apologies to the Chinese over the Arizona law, which was trashed from the White House lawn by the president of Mexico, and sued by foreign governments to the apparent approval of the administration.
The constant “Bush did it” refrain. The gratuitous slurs against limb-lopping doctors. The thrashing of the “rich” going to the Super Bowl and Las Vegas. The artificial divide of them/us based on $250,000 of annual income. The racial divisiveness from a sad cast of characters that gave us “cowards,” “stupidly,” “wise Latina,” and whites polluting the ghetto. Unhinged appointees like Van Jones and Anita Dunn. The occasional unguarded admissions like “never waste a crisis” and “at some point I do think you’ve made enough money.” The wacky behavior from the whining of “like a dog” to the sudden junketing to Copenhagen to lobby for the Chicago Olympics. The Orwellian cheap damning of the Bush anti-terrorism protocols only to accept or expand tribunals, renditions, Guantanamo, Predators, Iraq, and intercepts and wiretaps. The golf obsession and Costa del Sol while trashing the indulgent rich.
I’ll stop there since we have another 27 months to go.
While I have no comment on a lot of the problems with the Obama Administration (there definitely are problems), Summers and Orzag are NOT Keynesian economists. Please don't repeat this BS. Keynesian economists (Krugman, DeLong, Stiglitz) advocated for a much much larger stimulus then what was passed. Romer LEFT because of the office's shift away from Keynesian policy.
Edit: With regards to the healthcare policy, poll ratings varied widely depending on what question was asked. Granted this is just personal anecdotes but most of the people I've talked to couldn't tell you what was actually in the healthcare bill (it's available online along with a synopsis). Many of the center-right ideas such as selling insurance across state lines, combined risk pools, a "mandate" that isn't a mandate were all part of both Romney's original plan and Gingwrich's plan, so don't pretend that what we actually enacted is in anyway a plan that aligns itself with the left.
On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote: The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts its purpose completely.
On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote: The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts it's purpose completely.
Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times.
Too many people expect that you can just fix the economy. As if, because he's been in power for 2 years, Obama should have brought the US back to a pre-Bush economic state. There really hasn't been a president that took office after a financial collapse and returned the country to pre-collapse state on their own. Even FDR couldn't (until the war of course, which wasn't him as much as circumstance that).
On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote: The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts its purpose completely.
Liberals in the USA refer see the Constitution as a "living, breathing document." Conservatives do not.
On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote: The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts its purpose completely.
Liberals in the USA refer see the Constitution as a "living, breathing document." Conservatives do not.
makes sense, when you consider yourself somehow "progressive" you don't really need any restrictions written about 200 years ago
On November 03 2010 03:03 Lobotomist wrote: Too many people expect that you can just fix the economy. As if, because he's been in power for 2 years, Obama should have brought the US back to a pre-Bush economic state. There really hasn't been a president that took office after a financial collapse and returned the country to pre-collapse state on their own. Even FDR couldn't (until the war of course, which wasn't him as much as circumstance that).
When President Reagan took office in January of 1981 he was faced with a recession, double digit inflation, weak economic growth, a Fed Funds rate of 19% (its highest level ever), and an unemployment rate of 11% (the highest since World War II). At the end of his Presidential term in January of 1989 the rate of inflation had fallen from 12% to 4%, he had succeeded in helping the economy begin to grow at a rate of 6% annually, and unemployment was down to 7%. --http://www.icmarc.org/xp/rc/marketview/chart/2004/20040610reaganslegacy.html
On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote: The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts it's purpose completely.
Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times.
mmh, I always thought that the purpose of a constitution is to set some principles in stone that should never be altered.
On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote: The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts it's purpose completely.
Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times.
mmh, I always thought that the purpose of a constitution is to set some principles in stone that should never be altered.
This is correct. Making a constitution able to be changed in meaning on mere political or judicial whims, destroys the purpose of a constitution.
On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote: The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts it's purpose completely.
Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times.
mmh, I always thought that the purpose of a constitution is to set some principles in stone that should never be altered.
On November 03 2010 03:03 Lobotomist wrote: Too many people expect that you can just fix the economy. As if, because he's been in power for 2 years, Obama should have brought the US back to a pre-Bush economic state. There really hasn't been a president that took office after a financial collapse and returned the country to pre-collapse state on their own. Even FDR couldn't (until the war of course, which wasn't him as much as circumstance that).
When President Reagan took office in January of 1981 he was faced with a recession, double digit inflation, weak economic growth, a Fed Funds rate of 19% (its highest level ever), and an unemployment rate of 11% (the highest since World War II). At the end of his Presidential term in January of 1989 the rate of inflation had fallen from 12% to 4%, he had succeeded in helping the economy begin to grow at a rate of 6% annually, and unemployment was down to 7%. --http://www.icmarc.org/xp/rc/marketview/chart/2004/20040610reaganslegacy.html
No..... The 80-81 recession was caused by the Fed on PURPOSE to head off inflation. Paul Volcker raised the fed interest rate drastically to kill the massive inflation (13.5%). This recession we are in now and the recession of 80-81 are completely different beasts.
On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote: The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts it's purpose completely.
Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times.
mmh, I always thought that the purpose of a constitution is to set some principles in stone that should never be altered.
No.
You always provide such deep analysis and really add to the thread.
On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote: The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts it's purpose completely.
Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times.
mmh, I always thought that the purpose of a constitution is to set some principles in stone that should never be altered.
No.
You always provide such deep analysis and really add to the thread.
On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote: The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts it's purpose completely.
Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times.
mmh, I always thought that the purpose of a constitution is to set some principles in stone that should never be altered.
No.
It should (and does) require a super-majority to amend the Constitution when it's required.
The problem is that we have members of the judicial branch effectively creating laws through the power of precedence, while the legislature just makes up whatever laws they feel like regardless of if the constitution granted them power over the item they're legislating. Meanwhile the executive branch (when either party is in power) is piling up an obscene amount of debt.
Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times.
I'm not an originalist, but this is by no means true, as the anti-Federalists would have never agreed to adopt it if they thought it was that vague.
Depends on who you ask
Personally I'm a big fan of the organic document theory, but it does need amendments from time to time. I like to think that it's the judicial branch's responsibility to agree/disagree on the interpretation, and if we aren't happy with the outcome (or want it further solidified), that's where amendments come in.
On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote: Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts
Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things.
Also Reagan RAISED taxes in every year other than 81, what planet are you on?
The only problem with elections nowadays,anywhere in the world including US is that the economy is now global. Any candidate saying that he'll fix it is either delusionnal or straight up lying.If the world is sick,you might have the best elected people at all offices,you'll still be sick,two years into a new administration or after two terms.
On November 03 2010 03:03 Lobotomist wrote: Too many people expect that you can just fix the economy. As if, because he's been in power for 2 years, Obama should have brought the US back to a pre-Bush economic state. There really hasn't been a president that took office after a financial collapse and returned the country to pre-collapse state on their own. Even FDR couldn't (until the war of course, which wasn't him as much as circumstance that).
When President Reagan took office in January of 1981 he was faced with a recession, double digit inflation, weak economic growth, a Fed Funds rate of 19% (its highest level ever), and an unemployment rate of 11% (the highest since World War II). At the end of his Presidential term in January of 1989 the rate of inflation had fallen from 12% to 4%, he had succeeded in helping the economy begin to grow at a rate of 6% annually, and unemployment was down to 7%. --http://www.icmarc.org/xp/rc/marketview/chart/2004/20040610reaganslegacy.html
No..... The 80-81 recession was caused by the Fed on PURPOSE to head off inflation. Paul Volcker raised the fed interest rate drastically to kill the massive inflation (13.5%). This recession we are in now and the recession of 80-81 are completely different beasts.
Actually Volcker raised the FFR to kill stagflation of the '70s, which is a must more dangerous beast than inflation alone.
edit: okay, it's really just the inflation aspect of stagflation. My derp.
edit2: Volcker did NOT cause the recession of 80-81 via FFR increase though, there was already a worldwide recession from the 70's. The FFR increase was to halt further stagflation. The 70's recession, as I understand it, was caused by inappropriate monetary responses to economic conditions, such as monetary stimulus.
edit3: Upon further research, he did cause the recession of 80-81, but it was to halt stagflation. Okay, got it now I think. It's been awhile since I studied this :D
"Living breathing" was a poor choice of words. Let me clarify, to me by amending the constitution an average of once every 13 years, including as recently as 1992 does make it a living document. I was referring to it as a document that can change as times progress.
Also, interpretation is not a black and white issue. Someone has to define what "cruel and unusual" means. Whether or not someone has to be a member of a "well regulated militia" in order to own a gun. In order for our system to work there does need to be some interpretation of the document.
On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote: Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
On November 03 2010 03:37 ey215 wrote: "Living breathing" was a poor choice of words. Let me clarify, to me by amending the constitution an average of once every 13 years, including as recently as 1992 does make it a living document. I was referring to it as a document that can change as times progress.
You should be aware that typically when someone calls the Constitution a "living and breathing" document, they are referring to their policy preference of interpreting it to allow modern policies, not the fact that it can be amended by a fairly strict process.
On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote: Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts
Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things.
I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had.
Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases"
Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion
Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down"
There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful.
Can we all just come together and be excited that we voted today? I love me some voting. Gives me the right to bitch and moan later when things go wrong! :D
On November 03 2010 03:37 ey215 wrote: "Living breathing" was a poor choice of words. Let me clarify, to me by amending the constitution an average of once every 13 years, including as recently as 1992 does make it a living document. I was referring to it as a document that can change as times progress.
You should be aware that typically when someone calls the Constitution a "living and breathing" document, they are referring to their policy preference of interpreting it to allow modern policies, not the fact that it can be amended by a fairly strict process.
On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote: Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts
Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things.
I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had.
Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases"
Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion
Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery.
There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful.
What I'm trying to point out is you can't use the same recovery for two different recessions which were caused by different things. We had a supply side cutback in 80-81, and lowering the rate back down in compliation with tax cuts was a GOOD idea in that situation, I'm not debating that point.
I'm saying that your comparison sucks because you're making a false comparison. Also the middle class wasn't in severe debt like they are now, what good do tax cuts do when people are already underwater?
Edit: I agree that Bush and Obama's response was semi-unsuccessful, but Obama also has the same de-regulation idiots in his economic department that were the protege's of the idiots who caused this in the 1st place.
On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote: Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts
Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things.
I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had.
Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases"
Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion
Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery.
There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful.
What I'm trying to point out is you can't use the same recovery for two different recessions which were caused by different things. We had a supply side cutback in 80-81, and lowering the rate back down in compliation with tax cuts was a GOOD idea in that situation, I'm not debating that point.
I'm saying that your comparison sucks because you're making a false comparison. Also the middle class wasn't in severe debt like they are now, what good do tax cuts do when people are already underwater?
The principle of cutting taxes so people have more money on hand to spend or save or whatever they like is well known. It doesn't really matter what the initial shock was to the economy that caused the recession. The point is that its better to give the people their money directly through tax cuts than to try to artificially create temporary jobs with "jobs bills" and bailouts.
Also, you admit that Reagan's actions were a good idea, but why do you think Bush's and Obama's are also good? I think Reagan's were good and Bush and Obama's were bad. So why do you think Obama's have been good and where is the evidence that they are working in any way?
On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote: Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts
Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things.
I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had.
Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases"
Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion
Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down"
There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful.
Your selective interpretation aside, you realize Bush began the current recession while having tax cuts, right? After inheriting a massive surplus.
Keep in mind Obama has kept tax cuts in place by Bush this far. So by your advocated tax cut mechanism, and minus Obama's stimulus and the collective bailouts, would we have had more or less jobs right now?
Regarding Obama's proposed tax cuts (yes, "cuts") which would only increasingly tax those with over 250k, which would obviously increase government revenue and decrease debt (which your side is keen to act as if it is on the side on despite that not taxing the wealthy would create almost another trillion in debt by itself), what leads you to believe that more jobs would be created by wealthy people if they were not taxed?
Meanwhile, Obama has been trying to create a tax cut for businesses, which the Republicans have blocked.
Obama has attempted, but was blocked by your party, a business tax cut for the purpose of creating jobs, a tax cut for those < 250k to allow them to spend and invest, and a tax on those above who are not going to invest any extra with the taxed income.
The principle of cutting taxes to ppl have more money on hand to spend or save or whatever they like is well known. It doesn't really matter what the initial shock was to the economy that caused the recession. The point is that its better to give the people their money directly through tax cuts than to try to artificially create temporary jobs with "jobs bills" and bailouts.
Also, you admit that Reagan's actions were a good idea, but why do you think Bush's and Obama's are also good? I think Reagan's were good and Bush and Obama's were bad. So why do you think Obama's have been good and where is the evidence that they are working in any way?
There is no multiplier in giving the RICH a massive tax decrease during a demand caused recession. Things like big ass boats, bigger ass houses, and biggest ass novelty items have no multiplier. The middle class having money to spend is what drives the demand portion of our economy. The rich are not constrained by cash on hand, they're constrained by their desires, that's why in THIS recession money is better spent in the hands of the poor/middle class because they HAVE to spend it (unemployment benefits). Tax cuts for the rich are not cost effective in a demand fueled recession and might actually make the economy worse due to the massive loss in revenue. It's not as if the private economy operates completely independent of any government RnD or services they provide. The cutbacks to pay for the taxcuts wouldn't make for a very dependable net gain. That's why I would advocate infrastructure spending in this case, to put more people back to work giving them money to spend.
I admit Reagan's actions were kind of good from a feel good perspective, not that they were necessarily good from a monetary perspective. (Reagan tripled the national debt in 8 years).
I don't think Bush's response was good at all. Blank check to the banks hello TARP. Obama's wasn't good but wasn't as terrible, the auto industry is at least profitable now and the execs were replaced.
I don't think Bush's response was good at all. Blank check to the banks hello TARP. Obama's wasn't good but wasn't as terrible, the auto industry is at least profitable now and the execs were replaced.
That is kind of an odd dichotomy considering the banks have repaid TARP and both Obama and Bush and their economic advisors believed it was necessary to bail them out (and it probably was).
I don't think Bush's response was good at all. Blank check to the banks hello TARP. Obama's wasn't good but wasn't as terrible, the auto industry is at least profitable now and the execs were replaced.
That is kind of an odd dichotomy considering the banks have repaid TARP and both Obama and Bush and their economic advisors believed it was necessary to bail them out (and it probably was).
Yeah that is probably a bad call on my part, inner partisan speaking out. My beef with Bush was more the lack of regulation in regards to the bailout, not the actual bailout itself. I agree things would of been catastrophic had it not been for the bailout. It sucks because you hate to have to bail them out for being dickwads, but so many more people would suffer without.
Obama and Bush have a majority of the same Chicago School advisors though. Summers and Orzag are shmucks =/.
On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote: Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts
Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things.
I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had.
Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases"
Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion
Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down"
There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful.
Your selective interpretation aside, you realize Bush began the current recession while having tax cuts, right? After inheriting a massive surplus.
I'm pretty sure the sub-prime mortgage bubble had something to do with the creation of the initial shock that caused the recession, not the tax cuts. I don't believe his cuts were done in response to a recession but before it making the application irrelevant since the topic of discussion is "Presidents' response to recession" NOT "causes of recessions".
Obama/Bush have spent trillions of dollars in bailouts and jobs bills since the recession started and if they had just done across the board (yes even the wealthy who pay most of our taxes for us anyway) tax cuts, it would have been better in my opinion. It would be a simple bill to pass to. You don't have to restructure the current tax schedule, just say "Everyone who is paying taxes, gets 10% off this year" or whatever it is. Leave the restructuring of the tax schedule (which will always be controversial) for years when we are not in crisis and we can take our time to really debate stuff long and hard. If Obama was serious about wanting his tax cuts to go through he would have done this. Instead he tried to pass a controversial restructuring of the tax schedule in the middle of a financial crisis.
On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote: Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts
Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things.
I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had.
Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases"
Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion
Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down"
There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful.
Your selective interpretation aside, you realize Bush began the current recession while having tax cuts, right? After inheriting a massive surplus.
I'm pretty sure the sub-prime mortgage bubble had something to do with the creation of the initial shock that caused the recession, not the tax cuts. I don't believe his cuts were done in response to a recession but before it making the application irrelevant since the topic of discussion is "Presidents' response to recession" NOT "causes of recessions".
Obama/Bush have spent trillions of dollars in bailouts and jobs bills since the recession started and if they had just done across the board (yes even the wealthy who pay most of our taxes for us anyway) tax cuts, it would have been better in my opinion. It would be a simple bill to pass to. You don't have to restructure the current tax schedule, just say "Everyone who is paying taxes, gets 10% off this year" or whatever it is. Leave the restructuring of the tax schedule (which will always be controversial) for years when we are not in crisis and we can take our time to really debate stuff long and hard. If Obama was serious about wanting his tax cuts to go through he would have done this. Instead he tried to pass a controversial restructuring of the tax schedule in the middle of a financial crisis.
The vast majority of it was caused by the MBS market and crediting agencies over-valuing bad mortgages. Due to stagnant inflation-adjusted income of the middle class (hello trickle down) people were using their house equity to buy more shit under the assumption that the value would always go up, and continued to build up debt. Sub-prime was part of the cause, but it wasn't the main player. Fanne and Freddie also got into the whole MBS scam and actually bought up quite a bit of the bad mortgages once their execs thought they could make lots of money off them.
Dude the SUPER rich pay less than the other 49.9 % due to the capital gains tax. The medium-rich do pay quite a bit in taxes, but the super rich are way below anyone else above even 120k. (which I'm not calling rich btw).
Honestly, you guys are focusing on the wrong thing. Temporary tax cuts and jobs bills are not going to save the economy if the central bank is not going to accommodate them, because ultimately, they control inflation and for some reason, are deathly afraid of it.
The Fed could easily allow the economy to recover if it was more aggressive in raising inflation expectations. And despite what Krugman thinks, no central bank has ever failed to raise inflation if it wanted to.
On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote: Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts
Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things.
I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had.
Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases"
Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion
Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down"
There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful.
Your selective interpretation aside, you realize Bush began the current recession while having tax cuts, right? After inheriting a massive surplus.
I'm pretty sure the sub-prime mortgage bubble had something to do with the creation of the initial shock that caused the recession, not the tax cuts. I don't believe his cuts were done in response to a recession but before it making the application irrelevant since the topic of discussion is "Presidents' response to recession" NOT "causes of recessions".
Before that bubble burst a surplus had turned to a deficit. A large portion of that recession was lack of regulation. A philosophy your party generally supports hand in hand with tax cuts.
While you criticize stimulus, I have not seen part of your post that addresses what type of worse recession we would have to solve if there had been zero.
You also did not address the point in my post, and in other peoples post, that Obama is attempting tax cuts for businesses and the middle class, where it obviously stimulates the economy, but not for areas where a tax cut is not stimulative (for the rich)-which would also increase debt if not done.
On November 03 2010 03:59 Savio wrote: The principle of cutting taxes to ppl have more money on hand to spend or save or whatever they like is well known. It doesn't really matter what the initial shock was to the economy that caused the recession. The point is that its better to give the people their money directly through tax cuts than to try to artificially create temporary jobs with "jobs bills" and bailouts.
Also, you admit that Reagan's actions were a good idea, but why do you think Bush's and Obama's are also good? I think Reagan's were good and Bush and Obama's were bad. So why do you think Obama's have been good and where is the evidence that they are working in any way?
There is no multiplier in giving the RICH a massive tax decrease during a demand caused recession. Things like big ass boats, bigger ass houses, and biggest ass novelty items have no multiplier.
Are you suggesting that houses and boats are spontaneously created from nothing and that workers don't get paid for building them and suppliers are not paid for the resources to create them? If not then why do you say these goods do not have a muliplier associated with them while cereal boxes do?
The middle class having money to spend is what drives the demand portion of our economy.
This is true because the middle class in America hold the majority of money. It does not mean that money from rich or poor people does nothing for the economy. Money is money, and it can be saved or spent, and both savings and spending are "good"
That's why I would advocate infrastructure spending in this case, to put more people back to work giving them money to spend.
It certainly hasn't worked so far.
I admit Reagan's actions were kind of good from a feel good perspective, not that they were necessarily good from a monetary perspective. (Reagan tripled the national debt in 8 years).
Don't make me get some graphs of Obama's forcasted deficits....
I don't think Bush's response was good at all. Blank check to the banks hello TARP. Obama's wasn't good but wasn't as terrible, the auto industry is at least profitable now and the execs were replaced.
meh, they were both bad. I think your desire to dislike Bush and to like Obama are clouding your view that their policies were very similar and had the same recovery effect: not much
I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people?
On November 03 2010 04:27 Savio wrote: Are you suggesting that houses and boats are spontaneously created from nothing and that workers don't get paid for building them and suppliers are not paid for the resources to create them? If not then why do you say these goods do not have a muliplier associated with them while cereal boxes do? .
No I'm saying one buying one big expensive thing has a much lower multiplier than many not so expensive things. Dollar for dollar wise the gov would get more kickback from middle class tax cuts than rich tax cuts.
This is true because the middle class in America hold the majority of money. It does not mean that money from rich or poor people does nothing for the economy. Money is money, and it can be saved or spent, and both savings and spending are "good"
When we're in a recession with money that could be spent by someone else, giving to people who would save it gains us nothing. Under normal circumstances I completely agree with you, one of the things that got us into this mess was too much spending. But everyone saving at the same time would also make the economy contract.
That's why I would advocate infrastructure spending in this case, to put more people back to work giving them money to spend.
It certainly hasn't worked so far.
There wasn't exactly a very large percentage of spending dedicated to infastructure spending. Most of our not big enough stimulus package went to state/local budgets and Repub's favorite TAX CUTs.
I admit Reagan's actions were kind of good from a feel good perspective, not that they were necessarily good from a monetary perspective. (Reagan tripled the national debt in 8 years).
Don't make me get some graphs of Obama's forcasted deficits....
The budget deficit before Obama even took office for 2009 was 1.2 trillion. Explain to me again how much of that was his fault?
I don't think Bush's response was good at all. Blank check to the banks hello TARP. Obama's wasn't good but wasn't as terrible, the auto industry is at least profitable now and the execs were replaced.
meh, they were both bad. I think your desire to dislike Bush and to like Obama are clouding your view that their policies were very similar and had the same recovery effect: not much
That is actually quite possible, but I think you're overstating my liking of Obama. A stimulus that wasn't big enough and an economic team filled with deregulators was Obama/Dem's downfall. Keynesian policy wasn't actually implemented. It was half ass-ed pretend crap.
Edit: I am going to work though for a few hours so If this thread persists, I'll be back in about 4 hours.
On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote: Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts
Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things.
I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had.
Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases"
Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion
Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down"
There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful.
Your selective interpretation aside, you realize Bush began the current recession while having tax cuts, right? After inheriting a massive surplus.
I'm pretty sure the sub-prime mortgage bubble had something to do with the creation of the initial shock that caused the recession, not the tax cuts. I don't believe his cuts were done in response to a recession but before it making the application irrelevant since the topic of discussion is "Presidents' response to recession" NOT "causes of recessions".
Obama/Bush have spent trillions of dollars in bailouts and jobs bills since the recession started and if they had just done across the board (yes even the wealthy who pay most of our taxes for us anyway) tax cuts, it would have been better in my opinion. It would be a simple bill to pass to. You don't have to restructure the current tax schedule, just say "Everyone who is paying taxes, gets 10% off this year" or whatever it is. Leave the restructuring of the tax schedule (which will always be controversial) for years when we are not in crisis and we can take our time to really debate stuff long and hard. If Obama was serious about wanting his tax cuts to go through he would have done this. Instead he tried to pass a controversial restructuring of the tax schedule in the middle of a financial crisis.
Dude the SUPER rich pay less than the other 49.9 % due to the capital gains tax. The medium-rich do pay quite a bit in taxes, but the super rich are way below anyone else above even 120k. (which I'm not calling rich btw).
Just voted; also NY like that guy above. Probably a bit less likely to have mistakes than the way I used to vote (we are using machines with bubble in sheets this year).
I chose not to choose a candidate for a few of the minor positions and the machine said 'undervote, return ballot or submit' and I was gonna choose submit. The employee who was 'assisting' me was like 'WAIT' and clicked the button himself to return the ballot. I'm like "I undervoted on purpose" and he's like '....oh'
My state (Georgia) had early voting, so I voted on Friday. I'm really hoping the Democrats do better than anticipated.... very much so. The current platform of the Republicans really destroyed the economy, and the Democrats have only just started to right the ship (see graph at the end of this post). It takes time to fix a broken system as large and complicated as the entire United States and giving the control back to the party that lead to this recession seems premature.
Besides the overall picture, if the republican candidate (Nathan Deal, one of the most corrupt members of Congress) wins the governor race here in Georgia, it will mean I shall leave this state within the next year or two. So tired of living in corrupt, short sighted red states (having grown up in South Carolina, and now being in Georgia).
Job loss/growth graph (Red for Bush's term, Blue for Obama)
On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote: I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people?
And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism.
I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree)
I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth.
On November 03 2010 04:40 [-Bluewolf-] wrote: My state (Georgia) had early voting, so I voted on Friday. I'm really hoping the Democrats do better than anticipated.... very much so. The current platform of the Republicans really destroyed the economy, and the Democrats have only just started to right the ship (see graph at the end of this post). It takes time to fix a broken system as large and complicated as the entire United States and giving the control back to the party that lead to this recession seems premature.
Besides the overall picture, if the republican candidate (Nathan Deal, one of the most corrupt members of Congress) wins the governor race here in Georgia, it will mean I shall leave this state within the next year or two. So tired of living in corrupt, short sighted red states (having grown up in South Carolina, and now being in Georgia).
Job loss/growth graph (Red for Bush's term, Blue for Obama)
On November 03 2010 04:27 Savio wrote: Are you suggesting that houses and boats are spontaneously created from nothing and that workers don't get paid for building them and suppliers are not paid for the resources to create them? If not then why do you say these goods do not have a muliplier associated with them while cereal boxes do? .
No I'm saying one buying one big expensive thing has a much lower multiplier than many not so expensive things. Dollar for dollar wise the gov would get more kickback from middle class tax cuts than rich tax cuts.
I see where you are coming from with this but I wonder if there is a evidence or a source you can link that backs it up. Despite having an Econ degree I have never heard this. Doesn't mean its wrong, but its new, so some back up would be appreciated.
When we're in a recession with money that could be spent by someone else, giving to people who would save it gains us nothing. Under normal circumstances I completely agree with you, one of the things that got us into this mess was too much spending. But everyone saving at the same time would also make the economy contract.
savings = investment. The US is plagued by a historically low savings rate but a thirst for investment which must be financed through foreign investments such as from China. Domestic savings in the US would be beneficial all around.
The budget deficit before Obama even took office for 2009 was 1.2 trillion. Explain to me again how much of that was his fault?
That is why I said Obama's "forcasted deficits" because the deficits we have now and the debt we have now are nothing compared to what the Obama future looks like.
Before that bubble burst a surplus had turned to a deficit.
The two are not related.
A large portion of that recession was lack of regulation. A philosophy your party generally supports hand in hand with tax cuts.
It wasn't a lack of regulation but rather, bad regulation, as both the housing and the financial industry were and are one of the most regulated industries. The Canadian banking system is less regulated than the American one, but the main reasons they did not suffer while the rest of the world did is:
1) Their capital requirements are higher. 2) They do not subsidize home buying.
What it comes down to is that the American system did not properly regulate leverage, and in fact encouraged it. The Canadian system has the opposite approach. The saddest part of all this is that the new financial regulations barely address the leverage problem.
On November 03 2010 04:40 [-Bluewolf-] wrote: My state (Georgia) had early voting, so I voted on Friday. I'm really hoping the Democrats do better than anticipated.... very much so. The current platform of the Republicans really destroyed the economy, and the Democrats have only just started to right the ship (see graph at the end of this post). It takes time to fix a broken system as large and complicated as the entire United States and giving the control back to the party that lead to this recession seems premature.
Besides the overall picture, if the republican candidate (Nathan Deal, one of the most corrupt members of Congress) wins the governor race here in Georgia, it will mean I shall leave this state within the next year or two. So tired of living in corrupt, short sighted red states (having grown up in South Carolina, and now being in Georgia).
Job loss/growth graph (Red for Bush's term, Blue for Obama)
Seems to me like your graph was upside down, so I helped you out!
One can make statistics say anything. Notice how in your graph it is by years, and that the line really spikes from 2008 to 2009. During this period, Bush was president and in control for the majority of the months (you cannot simply end his term at 01/08). In addition, my graph still has job losses after Obama attains the office for some time - just that those job losses are decreasing until the eventual trickle of growth currently. Lastly, the loss or creation of a job is more "instant" than the unemployment claim that can take some time to be processed.
In order to keep up with population growth, the US must add a ton of jobs per month that has not been reached. Simply stopping the bleeding does not yet reach the needed threshold to decrease unemployment. Expecting a president to stop the bleeding and then cause a period of economic boom in 2 years when dealing with the United States as a whole is a bit unrealistic considering it took 8 years to break the economy.
On November 03 2010 04:40 [-Bluewolf-] wrote: My state (Georgia) had early voting, so I voted on Friday. I'm really hoping the Democrats do better than anticipated.... very much so. The current platform of the Republicans really destroyed the economy, and the Democrats have only just started to right the ship (see graph at the end of this post). It takes time to fix a broken system as large and complicated as the entire United States and giving the control back to the party that lead to this recession seems premature.
Besides the overall picture, if the republican candidate (Nathan Deal, one of the most corrupt members of Congress) wins the governor race here in Georgia, it will mean I shall leave this state within the next year or two. So tired of living in corrupt, short sighted red states (having grown up in South Carolina, and now being in Georgia).
Job loss/growth graph (Red for Bush's term, Blue for Obama)
That's private sector-only my man. So many public sector jobs have been hemorrhaged every month that the unemployment rate, and more importantly, combined unemployment + underemployment rate, continue to rise. It's great that the private sector is hiring, but calling it a "job loss/growth graph" is very misleading.
On November 03 2010 04:40 [-Bluewolf-] wrote: My state (Georgia) had early voting, so I voted on Friday. I'm really hoping the Democrats do better than anticipated.... very much so. The current platform of the Republicans really destroyed the economy, and the Democrats have only just started to right the ship (see graph at the end of this post). It takes time to fix a broken system as large and complicated as the entire United States and giving the control back to the party that lead to this recession seems premature.
Besides the overall picture, if the republican candidate (Nathan Deal, one of the most corrupt members of Congress) wins the governor race here in Georgia, it will mean I shall leave this state within the next year or two. So tired of living in corrupt, short sighted red states (having grown up in South Carolina, and now being in Georgia).
Job loss/growth graph (Red for Bush's term, Blue for Obama)
That's private sector-only my man. So many public sector jobs have been hemorrhaged every month that the unemployment rate, and more importantly, combined unemployment + underemployment rate, continue to rise. It's great that the private sector is hiring, but calling it a "job loss/growth graph" is very misleading.
Good point, and accurate. I should have labeled it "private sector" growth. My apologies.
On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote: I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people?
And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism.
I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree)
I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth.
Excuse me for going abit OT but I'm just wondering, are americans still deathly afraid of communists and socialism? When I look at the cold war america it's all boo-boo communism which is understandable given the tense situation but is this also present today?
From an outside viewer it looks kinda comical ("Communist from outer SPACE!", "destroy our way of life!", etc) but is it really still viewed seriously in US?
Also-- out of interest why is there only two policital parties in the US? For example we have 7 major policital parties in sweden and a number of smaller parties, covering pretty much every political view possible. How can you manage with only two parties, and why is neither dominant?
On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote: Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts
Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things.
I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had.
Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases"
Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion
Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down"
There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful.
Your selective interpretation aside, you realize Bush began the current recession while having tax cuts, right? After inheriting a massive surplus.
I'm pretty sure the sub-prime mortgage bubble had something to do with the creation of the initial shock that caused the recession, not the tax cuts. I don't believe his cuts were done in response to a recession but before it making the application irrelevant since the topic of discussion is "Presidents' response to recession" NOT "causes of recessions".
Obama/Bush have spent trillions of dollars in bailouts and jobs bills since the recession started and if they had just done across the board (yes even the wealthy who pay most of our taxes for us anyway) tax cuts, it would have been better in my opinion. It would be a simple bill to pass to. You don't have to restructure the current tax schedule, just say "Everyone who is paying taxes, gets 10% off this year" or whatever it is. Leave the restructuring of the tax schedule (which will always be controversial) for years when we are not in crisis and we can take our time to really debate stuff long and hard. If Obama was serious about wanting his tax cuts to go through he would have done this. Instead he tried to pass a controversial restructuring of the tax schedule in the middle of a financial crisis.
Dude the SUPER rich pay less than the other 49.9 % due to the capital gains tax. The medium-rich do pay quite a bit in taxes, but the super rich are way below anyone else above even 120k. (which I'm not calling rich btw).
Excuse me for going abit OT but I'm just wondering, are americans still deathly afraid of communists and socialism? When I look at the cold war america it's all boo-boo communism which is understandable given the tense situation but is this also present today?
From an outside viewer it looks kinda comical ("Communist from outer SPACE!", "destroy our way of life!", etc) but is it really still viewed seriously in US?
Communism is quite destructive, but you're correct that there isn't much danger if it grabbing hold of people's ideologies. But you should realize it's mostly just rhetoric and people don't truly care about Communism.
Perhaps a European analogue is the perceived fear of Nazism.
Also-- out of interest why is there only two policital parties in the US? For example we have 7 major policital parties in sweden and a number of smaller parties, covering pretty much every political view possible. How can you manage with only two parties, and why is neither dominant?
We have a winner-take-all Presidential system, which inevitably leads to a two-party equilibrium.
On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote: Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts
Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things.
I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had.
Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases"
Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion
Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down"
There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful.
Your selective interpretation aside, you realize Bush began the current recession while having tax cuts, right? After inheriting a massive surplus.
I'm pretty sure the sub-prime mortgage bubble had something to do with the creation of the initial shock that caused the recession, not the tax cuts. I don't believe his cuts were done in response to a recession but before it making the application irrelevant since the topic of discussion is "Presidents' response to recession" NOT "causes of recessions".
Obama/Bush have spent trillions of dollars in bailouts and jobs bills since the recession started and if they had just done across the board (yes even the wealthy who pay most of our taxes for us anyway) tax cuts, it would have been better in my opinion. It would be a simple bill to pass to. You don't have to restructure the current tax schedule, just say "Everyone who is paying taxes, gets 10% off this year" or whatever it is. Leave the restructuring of the tax schedule (which will always be controversial) for years when we are not in crisis and we can take our time to really debate stuff long and hard. If Obama was serious about wanting his tax cuts to go through he would have done this. Instead he tried to pass a controversial restructuring of the tax schedule in the middle of a financial crisis.
Dude the SUPER rich pay less than the other 49.9 % due to the capital gains tax. The medium-rich do pay quite a bit in taxes, but the super rich are way below anyone else above even 120k. (which I'm not calling rich btw).
Tax burden:
Wealth distribution:
You can't really compare the two charts, especially because of the 8 year difference and the fact that one is income tax and the other is total wealth. The American tax system is fairly progressive, there's no doubt about that.
On November 03 2010 04:40 [-Bluewolf-] wrote: My state (Georgia) had early voting, so I voted on Friday. I'm really hoping the Democrats do better than anticipated.... very much so. The current platform of the Republicans really destroyed the economy, and the Democrats have only just started to right the ship (see graph at the end of this post). It takes time to fix a broken system as large and complicated as the entire United States and giving the control back to the party that lead to this recession seems premature.
Besides the overall picture, if the republican candidate (Nathan Deal, one of the most corrupt members of Congress) wins the governor race here in Georgia, it will mean I shall leave this state within the next year or two. So tired of living in corrupt, short sighted red states (having grown up in South Carolina, and now being in Georgia).
Job loss/growth graph (Red for Bush's term, Blue for Obama)
Seems to me like your graph was upside down, so I helped you out!
One can make statistics say anything. Notice how in your graph it is by years, and that the line really spikes from 2008 to 2009. During this period, Bush was president and in control for the majority of the months (you cannot simply end his term at 01/08). In addition, my graph still has job losses after Obama attains the office for some time - just that those job losses are decreasing until the eventual trickle of growth currently. Lastly, the loss or creation of a job is more "instant" than the unemployment claim that can take some time to be processed.
In order to keep up with population growth, the US must add a ton of jobs per month that has not been reached. Simply stopping the bleeding does not yet reach the needed threshold to decrease unemployment. Expecting a president to stop the bleeding and then cause a period of economic boom in 2 years when dealing with the United States as a whole is a bit unrealistic considering it took 8 years to break the economy.
On November 03 2010 04:58 KaiserJohan wrote: Excuse me for going abit OT but I'm just wondering, are americans still deathly afraid of communists and socialism? When I look at the cold war america it's all boo-boo communism which is understandable given the tense situation but is this also present today?
From an outside viewer it looks kinda comical ("Communist from outer SPACE!", "destroy our way of life!", etc) but is it really still viewed seriously in US?
Also-- out of interest why is there only two policital parties in the US? For example we have 7 major policital parties in sweden and a number of smaller parties, covering pretty much every political view possible. How can you manage with only two parties, and why is neither dominant?
I think a part of it is that American's tend to have hold to a sort of "live and let live" and "leave me alone to do my thing" attitude when it comes to government. Socialism and communism both generally involve the government taking a more active role in the day to day life of the citizen, so Americans generally distrust/dislike it (especially those of us who have worked in/with the government ).
The two party system works because most of the country falls in the moderate area between the two party platforms. As a result, when the two parties compete and espouse their political views, voters moderate them and everything falls sort of towards the middle of the road. Of course, our pundits and politicians create a pretty hostile and adversarial environment in politics, which makes a lot of people associate with one party or another, so depending on who is successful in office one party or another will 'dominate' for a normally short period of time.
It's also quite common for one party to dominate one area of government (such as a Democrat as President, Republicans in the Senate, and Democrats in the House of Representatives).
On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote: I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people?
And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism.
I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree)
I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth.
Excuse me for going abit OT but I'm just wondering, are americans still deathly afraid of communists and socialism? When I look at the cold war america it's all boo-boo communism which is understandable given the tense situation but is this also present today?
From an outside viewer it looks kinda comical ("Communist from outer SPACE!", "destroy our way of life!", etc) but is it really still viewed seriously in US?
Also-- out of interest why is there only two policital parties in the US? For example we have 7 major policital parties in sweden and a number of smaller parties, covering pretty much every political view possible. How can you manage with only two parties, and why is neither dominant?
Yes. Americans are literally deathly afraid of this amorphous thing called socialism\communism.
If you ask them what socialism is, you'll hear everything from Obama to Hitler, then you'll hear a few explanations about how socialism is taxes or making people do things they don't want to do.
America has the highest tolerance for stupidity and ignorance that I have ever seen.
While I despise the two party system, I'm going straight dem. I'd rather see a government in synergy doing things, good or bad, than stuck doing NOTHING. Mistakes can be fixed, good things can be kept, wasted time is irreplaceable.
That and the republican candidates for me are crummy this election. =\
On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote: I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people?
And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism.
I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree)
I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth.
Excuse me for going abit OT but I'm just wondering, are americans still deathly afraid of communists and socialism?
Yes. We don't particularly envy the success of Cuba, USSR, North Korea, and Mao China.
I voted a few weeks ago (early voting ftw) but all we had was a house seat and a few local measures like parks etc. The election I'm really interested in is Reid vs Angle. Angle is a really bad candidate (seriously awful, she's Odonnell level), but people in Nevada might hate Harry Reid so much that she could win. The plus side of her winning is that we might actually find out her views, given that she's refused to talk to the press or take public questions.
On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote: I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people?
And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism.
I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree)
I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth.
WOW just WOW do you think the french revolution is a bad thing?(when you put t in the same as communism i suppose you do). Do you realize it is the start,or to the very least the spark that ignited freedom and equality as we know it throughout the word......you might want to read again your history course mate.
On November 03 2010 05:34 Gahlo wrote: While I despise the two party system, I'm going straight dem. I'd rather see a government in synergy doing things, good or bad, than stuck doing NOTHING. Mistakes can be fixed, good things can be kept, wasted time is irreplaceable.
Divided gov't in the US is almost ALWAYS better than one-party rule. The GOP screwed up when they had all the power, and now the dems have screwed up.
With divided gov't it is harder to pass really dumb laws but if one party has total control, it can do whatever it wants and do it very fast and you can get the worst legislation ever.
Even as a staunch republican, I'd rather have democrats control part of the federal government so my party doesn't get corrupted (eg Bush years)
On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote: I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people?
And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism.
I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree)
I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth.
WOW just WOW do you think the french revolution is a bad thing?(when you put t in the same as communism i suppose you do). Do you realize it is the start,or to the very least the spark that ignited freedom and equality as we know it throughout the word......you might want to read again your history course mate.
I think you are confusing the French and the American revolutions.
On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote: I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people?
And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism.
I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree)
I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth.
Excuse me for going abit OT but I'm just wondering, are americans still deathly afraid of communists and socialism? When I look at the cold war america it's all boo-boo communism which is understandable given the tense situation but is this also present today?
From an outside viewer it looks kinda comical ("Communist from outer SPACE!", "destroy our way of life!", etc) but is it really still viewed seriously in US?
Also-- out of interest why is there only two policital parties in the US? For example we have 7 major policital parties in sweden and a number of smaller parties, covering pretty much every political view possible. How can you manage with only two parties, and why is neither dominant?
Yes. Americans are literally deathly afraid of this amorphous thing called socialism\communism.
If you ask them what socialism is, you'll hear everything from Obama to Hitler, then you'll hear a few explanations about how socialism is taxes or making people do things they don't want to do.
America has the highest tolerance for stupidity and ignorance that I have ever seen.
W_Ender_W gave a good response to this in the previous page. But hell, the more open "progressives" are about what they really believe, the better imo. Regarding what "socialism" actually is: just as with most political philosophies, there are several branches within. But ultimately socialism/marxism/communism/fascism all fall under the same umbrella of Collectivism and Statism -- something that yes, most Americans reject. Considering it's .000 rate of success and how fundamentally at odds it is with American principles of free market capitalism, right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc. -- it's understandable. But hey, if you think that's a winning argument, go for it.
Okay bro. Challenge accepted.
Cool. Have you bothered to read that quoted article yet? And as far as what I and others believe? The Tea Party movement is about fiscal sanity; of restoring a Constitutional republic, with limited federal powers. It's in opposition to the ridiculous spending, the deficit, incoming tax hikes, the assault on the free market and small business, TARP, the bailouts, government takeover of entire private sectors, and (as cited there) a whole slew of other examples of an ever-expanding role of the State in our lives. It's that simple.
On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote: I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people?
And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism.
I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree)
I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth.
What is wrong with his analysis? It is dead on. I have worked for a 'foreign investment' company in the past. Believe me when I say wealthy individuals are elitist scum. They won't even talk with your company unless you give them lavish dinners and lunches and transportation to prove your own worth, despite them having enough money as it is. The fact they ship their wealth overseas to reduce their own tax burden is further point of their selfishness.
On November 03 2010 05:43 Losticus wrote: Cool. Have you bothered to read that quoted article yet?
You mean the article that taught me nothing new and had nothing to do with my original question or any of the points I raised and isn't even a response to my later reply? Yeah man, I got a couple of good laughs out of it, particularly the end where it warns us the Obama administration might make us into something like "Belgium or Sweden", which is apparently tantamount to the apocalypse. I'm sure all of the Belgians and Swedes on this website will get a big kick out of that.
W_Ender_W gave a good response to this in the previous page. But hell, the more open "progressives" are about what they really believe, the better imo. Regarding what "socialism" actually is: just as with most political philosophies, there are several branches within. But ultimately socialism/marxism/communism/fascism all fall under the same umbrella of Collectivism and Statism -- something that yes, most Americans reject. Considering it's .000 rate of success and how fundamentally at odds it is with American principles of free market capitalism, right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc. -- it's understandable. But hey, if you think that's a winning argument, go for it.
Marxism and Socialism have a .000 rate of success...? Okay bro.
Yes. We don't particularly envy the success of Cuba, USSR, North Korea, and Mao China.
It sounds like you have a problem with centralized totalitarian governments, not socialism
Socialism is governmental production of the means. By necessity, it must be centralized and totalitarian.
I do admit what most people call "socialism" these days isn't socialism as envisioned by Marx and Engels. There is certainly nothing wrong with wealth transfers and even highly capitalist societies like Singapore and Denmark engage in it. But the original post about class envy being a dangerous viewpoint is true.
On November 03 2010 05:43 Losticus wrote: Cool. Have you bothered to read that quoted article yet?
You mean the article that taught me nothing new and had nothing to do with my original question or any of the points I raised and isn't even a response to my later reply? Yeah man, I got a couple of good laughs out of it, particularly the end where it warns us the Obama administration might make us into something like "Belgium or Sweden", which is apparently tantamount to the apocalypse. I'm sure all of the Belgians and Swedes on this website will get a big kick out of that.
W_Ender_W gave a good response to this in the previous page. But hell, the more open "progressives" are about what they really believe, the better imo. Regarding what "socialism" actually is: just as with most political philosophies, there are several branches within. But ultimately socialism/marxism/communism/fascism all fall under the same umbrella of Collectivism and Statism -- something that yes, most Americans reject. Considering it's .000 rate of success and how fundamentally at odds it is with American principles of free market capitalism, right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc. -- it's understandable. But hey, if you think that's a winning argument, go for it.
Marxism and Socialism have a .000 rate of success...? Okay bro.
You're defending Marxism and Socialism now? Awesome. I'd love you to cite the successes, and what you find endearing in those political philosophies.
And just, for the record, the USSR was not a Marxist or Communist state? That Marxism or Communism is separate from Statism, Collectivism, and Totalitarianism? If not, please defend those as well.
On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote: I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people?
And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism.
I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree)
I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth.
WOW just WOW do you think the french revolution is a bad thing?(when you put t in the same as communism i suppose you do). Do you realize it is the start,or to the very least the spark that ignited freedom and equality as we know it throughout the word......you might want to read again your history course mate.
I think you are confusing the French and the American revolutions.
Allright now i know you need to read those courses again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution Just so you dont have to go through the hassle of reading it: Woman's right,separation of church and state,writing of a constitution,writing of the Declaration of man and citizen(which is pretty much the rough draft of the modern Declaration),and so on.
"Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history, and the end of the early modern period, which started around 1500, is traditionally attributed to the onset of the French Revolution in 1789.The Revolution is, in fact, often seen as marking the "dawn of the modern era""
Yes. We don't particularly envy the success of Cuba, USSR, North Korea, and Mao China.
It sounds like you have a problem with centralized totalitarian governments, not socialism
The question was about "communists and socialism.
I responded mostly to the communist part. If I have time later, I will address the socialism.
It doesn't seem like you have articulated a problem with communism either, I should have added that.
I did. Merely mentioning the names of the countries that have attempted is enough to get the point across to any rational person.
Rational people would have realized totalitarian governments =\= a classeless and stateless society (communism) or collective ownership and management (socialism).
I understand the comparison to totalitarian governments and socialism has been pushed by the major propaganda agencies since the October Revolution, but now is the time to ~*Open your eyes*~
What is wrong with his analysis? It is dead on. I have worked for a 'foreign investment' company in the past. Believe me when I say wealthy individuals are elitist scum. They won't even talk with your company unless you give them lavish dinners and lunches and transportation to prove your own worth, despite them having enough money as it is. The fact they ship their wealth overseas to reduce their own tax burden is further point of their selfishness.
Several points: 1) You live in Canada, so it's very, very likely that you are a wealthy individual relative to the rest of the world. 2) At least in the US, the wealthiest individuals tend to be the most proactive in donating their money. 3) I've worked with plenty of very wealthy individuals interested in investing. They are not in general elitist toward the companies they are interested in.
man i havent been following any political news in probably a year. it would be insane if the democrats lost the house/senate. it always seems like one party blames the other for not doing shit and then they get in and do absolute shit, and then the cycle continues.
You're defending Marxism and Socialism now? Awesome. I'd love you to cite the successes, and what you find endearing in those political philosophies.
Cuba. Have you ever been? I have and it's incredible. I would say they have done fairly well as a communist/socialist society considering they were blockaded by the US for a *few* years.
Edit: Thank goodness Obama still has his veto power. I hope he uses it as frequently as Bush did to pass whatever needs to get past the horde of fat republican elephants.
Rational people would have realized totalitarian governments =\= a classeless and stateless society (communism) or collective ownership and management (socialism).
I understand the comparison to totalitarian governments and socialism has been pushed by the major propaganda agencies since the October Revolution, but now is the time to ~*Open your eyes*~
Unfortunately, Marx and Engels never explained to us how we're supposed to go from socialism to a communist paradise. Unfortunately, collective ownership and management cannot work without centralization and totalitarianism due to the human tendency to free-ride on collectivist efforts.
It doesn't take propaganda to realize every attempt at socialism has led to dramatic poverty and loss of life.
Yes. We don't particularly envy the success of Cuba, USSR, North Korea, and Mao China.
It sounds like you have a problem with centralized totalitarian governments, not socialism
Socialism is governmental production of the means.
No. Quit peddling nonsense.
Collective ownership is synonymous, which is how you described it. Explain how one is supposed to collectively own the businesses of a large country without some bureaucracy involved.
Would you care to explain how you came to this conclusion?
Collective ownership means centralized allocation of resources and labor, otherwise you end up with markets and private ownership. You cannot enforce centralized allocation of resources and labor without a large bureaucracy and a strong enforcement mechanism. Specifically, how do you ensure that worker Joe does the job you require him to, rather than the job he wants to do?
How will workers be compensated? If you introduce some form of commodity for common exchange (i.e. money), there will be those who prefer to hoard it, creating private wealth.
Finally, centralized allocation requires more information than humans are capable of measuring and is bound to be quite inefficient and could lead to disastrous results. What do you do with the people who want to leave?
You're defending Marxism and Socialism now? Awesome. I'd love you to cite the successes, and what you find endearing in those political philosophies.
Cuba. Have you ever been? I have and it's incredible. I would say they have done fairly well as a communist/socialist society considering they were blockaded by the US for a *few* years.
Edit: Thank goodness Obama still has his veto power. I hope he uses it as frequently as Bush did to pass whatever needs to get past the horde of fat republican elephants.
On November 03 2010 06:07 HadronCollid wrote: Edit: Thank goodness Obama still has his veto power. I hope he uses it as frequently as Bush did to pass whatever needs to get past the horde of fat republican elephants.
You can't pass anything with a veto. That's not how the veto works.
I think you may be conflating the power of veto with the practice of issuing executive orders and signing statements
Yes. We don't particularly envy the success of Cuba, USSR, North Korea, and Mao China.
It sounds like you have a problem with centralized totalitarian governments, not socialism
Socialism is governmental production of the means.
No. Quit peddling nonsense.
Collective ownership is synonymous, which is how you described it. Explain how one is supposed to collectively own the businesses of a large country without some bureaucracy involved.
Yes. We don't particularly envy the success of Cuba, USSR, North Korea, and Mao China.
It sounds like you have a problem with centralized totalitarian governments, not socialism
The question was about "communists and socialism.
I responded mostly to the communist part. If I have time later, I will address the socialism.
It doesn't seem like you have articulated a problem with communism either, I should have added that.
I did. Merely mentioning the names of the countries that have attempted is enough to get the point across to any rational person.
Rational people would have realized totalitarian governments =\= a classeless and stateless society (communism) or collective ownership and management (socialism).
I understand the comparison to totalitarian governments and socialism has been pushed by the major propaganda agencies since the October Revolution, but now is the time to ~*Open your eyes*~
Didn't I say "mentioning the names of the countries that have attempted is enough to get the point across to any rational person."
That communism's ideal is a "classeless and stateless society" is irrelevant if the effect of attempting communism is a totalitarian government state.
I'm talking reality, not some dreamy ideal that has never shown its face and never will.
The real danger is that it was people similar to you spouting its "ideals" that led to the tragedy of attempted communism in these countries.
On November 03 2010 06:07 HadronCollid wrote: Edit: Thank goodness Obama still has his veto power. I hope he uses it as frequently as Bush did to pass whatever needs to get past the horde of fat republican elephants.
You can't pass anything with a veto. That's not how the veto works.
I think you may be conflating the power of veto with the practice of issuing executive orders.
My understanding was that say: Obama wanted to pass something and could not get it through the house due to it being controlled by the Republicans, could he then not Veto their decision to deny his idea? Or is that incorrect?
Yes. We don't particularly envy the success of Cuba, USSR, North Korea, and Mao China.
It sounds like you have a problem with centralized totalitarian governments, not socialism
The question was about "communists and socialism.
I responded mostly to the communist part. If I have time later, I will address the socialism.
It doesn't seem like you have articulated a problem with communism either, I should have added that.
I did. Merely mentioning the names of the countries that have attempted is enough to get the point across to any rational person.
Rational people would have realized totalitarian governments =\= a classeless and stateless society (communism) or collective ownership and management (socialism).
I understand the comparison to totalitarian governments and socialism has been pushed by the major propaganda agencies since the October Revolution, but now is the time to ~*Open your eyes*~
Didn't I say "mentioning the names of the countries that have attempted is enough to get the point across to any rational person."
That communism's ideal is a "classeless and stateless society" is irrelevant if the effect of attempting communism is always a totalitarian government state.
I'm talking reality, not some dreamy ideal that has never shown its face and never will.
The real danger is that it was people similar to you spouting its "ideals" that led to the tragedy of attempted communism in these countries.
If by "attempting communism" you mean, "a totalitarian government Imposed upon people with no input from them" I would agree with you.
On November 03 2010 06:07 HadronCollid wrote: Edit: Thank goodness Obama still has his veto power. I hope he uses it as frequently as Bush did to pass whatever needs to get past the horde of fat republican elephants.
You can't pass anything with a veto. That's not how the veto works.
I think you may be conflating the power of veto with the practice of issuing executive orders.
My understanding was that say: Obama wanted to pass something and could not get it through the house due to it being controlled by the Republicans, could he then not Veto their decision to deny his idea? Or is that incorrect?
Yes, your thinking is incorrect. Obama merely says "yes" or "no" to ideas and bills that start in congress. he cannot propose legislation.
Cuba. Have you ever been? I have and it's incredible. I would say they have done fairly well as a communist/socialist society considering they were blockaded by the US for a *few* years.
I don't think I have anything to add to this -- thanks.
And Romantic, I'm not sure if you're actually defending the merits of communism and socialism, or just playing a semantic game based on the definitions you learned from your Marxist poli sci prof. Please elaborate.
Btw -- I love it when leftists drop the euphemisms and call themselves what they are. Most aren't brave enough to defend unabashedly, um, communism, but good on you. It's the way it should be.
It doesn't take propaganda to realize every attempt at socialism has led to dramatic poverty and loss of life.
This is historic fact. What sounds grand in a college book is horrifying in reality, as proven everytime it's tried. Now, since you disagree that Cuba, Venezuela, China, and USSR are not socialist or communist states, then I'm not sure what else we can say.
On November 03 2010 06:07 HadronCollid wrote: Edit: Thank goodness Obama still has his veto power. I hope he uses it as frequently as Bush did to pass whatever needs to get past the horde of fat republican elephants.
You can't pass anything with a veto. That's not how the veto works.
I think you may be conflating the power of veto with the practice of issuing executive orders.
My understanding was that say: Obama wanted to pass something and could not get it through the house due to it being controlled by the Republicans, could he then not Veto their decision to deny his idea? Or is that incorrect?
Presidents can only veto bills that the legislature passes. If he does, they need to override it with two-thirds vote (I think, it would be sad if I got this wrong).
If we're simply talking about ownership by a collection of people, you do realize every American corporation is "collectively-owned"? The difference is that it's completely voluntary. It becomes an issue when you claim to "collectively-own" every single business in the name of all workers.
On November 03 2010 06:03 Losticus wrote: You're defending Marxism and Socialism now? Awesome. I'd love you to cite the successes, and what you find endearing in those political philosophies.
And just, for the record, the USSR was not a Marxist or Communist state? That Marxism or Communism is separate from Statism, Collectivism, and Totalitarianism? If not, please defend those as well.
Where was I defending Marxism or Socialism...? I was merely implying that your statement was illogical. That being illogical because you state that one ideology that's just an interpretation of one man's analysis that has never been faithfully implemented, ever, has a rate of success, and the other because you state a complex theory and economic system that many countries, including the US, have implemented parts of, has a zero success percentage. I guess what you meant by that one was that a fully socialist state a la the USSR has never worked - but wait no, you're clearly talking about the umbrella philosophies as a whole, and if that's what you meant you would've specified that, not doing so would be kind of careless, and stupid, and someone as intelligent as you would never do that.
As well as what's endearing about Marxism or Socialism or Communism or whatever, I'm sure any of the plenty of European Socialists here can explain that to you, but I doubt they'd take the time to.
And as for this:
On November 03 2010 05:43 Losticus wrote: And as far as what I and others believe? The Tea Party movement is about fiscal sanity; of restoring a Constitutional republic, with limited federal powers. It's in opposition to the ridiculous spending, the deficit, incoming tax hikes, the assault on the free market and small business, TARP, the bailouts, government takeover of entire private sectors, and (as cited there) a whole slew of other examples of an ever-expanding role of the State in our lives. It's that simple.
That's cool bro. Really kind of a roundabout answer to my question, but whatever, I acknowledge your points and respect your opinions. I don't really see why you couldn't have just come out and said that from the beginning without first spewing forth random Tea Party one-liners and insulting people's intelligence. I guess maybe you can't make a salient point without also putting someone else down in the same post? But whatever man, I got the answer I wanted.
On November 03 2010 06:19 Mindcrime wrote: Communism has never been attempted. None of those states ever attempted to transition to a classless stateless society. None of them ever claimed to.
:|
The revolutions that led to the creation of these governments were led by people spouting communist ideals and promising communism. These revolutions are the part of the attempted communism. That they never succeeded in a getting to the point of having a stateless, classless society is merely evidence of the non-feasibility of communism.
Spouting its ideals has proven to be one of most dangerous and destructive things we have witnessed recently. My understanding is that more people died in the aftermath of these "communist revolutions" than died in WW2.
I would also note that no one really knows how many people died in China and it may be as high as 80 million rather than the 60 million estimated here.
On November 03 2010 06:19 Mindcrime wrote: Communism has never been attempted. None of those states ever attempted to transition to a classless stateless society. None of them ever claimed to.
:|
You need to go and actually read the Communist manifesto. Marx and Engels envision a central socialist government to pave the way toward Communism. So, yes, plenty of states have attempted the transition, except they completely failed. Because Marx and Engels simply do not provide any guidance as to how the Socialist government is to "wither away" into Communism.
Go read their literature and try to find it. You won't.
It becomes an issue when you claim to "collectively-own" every single business in the name of all workers.
This is a large problem and it should be eliminated at every turn!
We have found agreement
Let's talk practicalities. How would you implement "collective ownership"? You can't simply give all workers a share of the business, because that's just private ownership en masse, and workers will be inclined to trade their shares.
Presidents can only veto bills that the legislature passes. If he does, they need to override it with two-thirds vote (I think, it would be sad if I got this wrong).
Well I'm not certain myself so, fair enough I suppose I'll take your word for it.
I think all the people here bashing on socialism need to take a step back and re-evaluate some things.
On a side note: How awesome would it be if Palin was put into office, then you may just find the totalitarian government you've all been hating on. Also, I predict the first people she will order to have hung: Colbert then Stewart, not in that order.
It becomes an issue when you claim to "collectively-own" every single business in the name of all workers.
This is a large problem and it should be eliminated at every turn!
We have found agreement
Let's talk practicalities. How would you implement "collective ownership"? You can't simply give all workers a share of the business, because that's just private ownership en masse, and workers will be inclined to trade their shares.
Maybe he has the Venezuelan and Zimbabwean (whatever the adjective form of Zimbabwe is) models in mind. Those are working so well right now......
I think all the people here bashing on socialism need to take a step back and re-evaluate some things.
Let's be clear. The socialism that conservatives rail about is not Marx and Engels' "socialism," but rather, wealth redistribution, which all capitalist countries engage in.
The socialism I'm bashing is the socialism described by Marx and Engels in the Communist manifesto which our local Communists claim has never been implemented. Methinks they've never actually read it or they're unfamiliar with Russian history.
You're defending Marxism and Socialism now? Awesome. I'd love you to cite the successes, and what you find endearing in those political philosophies.
Cuba. Have you ever been? I have and it's incredible. I would say they have done fairly well as a communist/socialist society considering they were blockaded by the US for a *few* years.
Edit: Thank goodness Obama still has his veto power. I hope he uses it as frequently as Bush did to pass whatever needs to get past the horde of fat republican elephants.
Regarding Cuba, I have never been there but I see this comparison about Cuba:
"Grinding poverty where half the population survive on less than $1 a day." Good gardeners in Miami can make $20 an hour.
And don't forget the big success of "attempted" communism in North Korea either:
Pretty good comparison of attempted communism vs democracy.
On November 03 2010 06:19 Mindcrime wrote: Communism has never been attempted. None of those states ever attempted to transition to a classless stateless society. None of them ever claimed to.
:|
You need to go and actually read the Communist manifesto. Marx and Engels envision a central socialist government to pave the way toward Communism. So, yes, plenty of states have attempted the transition, except they completely failed. Because Marx and Engels simply do not provide any guidance as to how the Socialist government is to "wither away" into Communism.
Go read their literature and try to find it. You won't.
Marx envisioned socialism as the stage preceding communism, but establishing a totalitarian government is, in no way, an attempt at creating a classless, stateless society.
You're defending Marxism and Socialism now? Awesome. I'd love you to cite the successes, and what you find endearing in those political philosophies.
Cuba. Have you ever been? I have and it's incredible. I would say they have done fairly well as a communist/socialist society considering they were blockaded by the US for a *few* years.
Edit: Thank goodness Obama still has his veto power. I hope he uses it as frequently as Bush did to pass whatever needs to get past the horde of fat republican elephants.
Regarding Cuba, I have never been there but I see this comparison about Cuba:
"Grinding poverty where half the population survive on less than $1 a day." Good gardeners in Miami can make $20 an hour.
Wow. So money is everything?? O...k. Cuba has one of the highest literacy rates in the world, but i guess that's irrelevant because an illiterate innumerate gardener can make more money, and then spend that money on OVERPRICED services and OVERPRICED goods. Oh, and lets not forget that ALL cubans have health-care and subsidised education (university) as well, WUT?!
On November 03 2010 05:34 Gahlo wrote: While I despise the two party system, I'm going straight dem. I'd rather see a government in synergy doing things, good or bad, than stuck doing NOTHING. Mistakes can be fixed, good things can be kept, wasted time is irreplaceable.
That and the republican candidates for me are crummy this election. =\
I've never really understood this. Why vote completely for one party, as opposed to on principles? The whole bipartisan "lesser of two evils" thing is why we always get such crummy candidates.
Marx envisioned socialism as the stage preceding communism, but establishing a totalitarian government is, in no way, an attempt at creating a classless, stateless society.
"If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."
"1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc."
How do you get all this without a strong central government? How do you enforce the "obligation of all to work"? How do you confiscate property? How do you ensure "equable distribution" of the populace? What do you do with the bourgeois?
Cubans can read, but can they express themselves freely?
The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (also known as "El Paredón").[87] The Human Rights Watch alleges that the government "represses nearly all forms of political dissent" and that "Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law".[88] Cuba was the second biggest prison in the world for journalists in 2008, second only to the People's Republic of China, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an international NGO.[89] As a result of ownership bans, computer ownership rates are among the world's lowest.[90] The right to use the Internet is granted only to selected people and they are monitored.[90][91] Connecting to the Internet illegally can lead to a five-year prison sentence. Cuban dissidents face arrest and imprisonment. In the 1990s, Human Rights Watch reported that Cuba's extensive prison system, one of the largest in Latin America, consists of some 40 maximum-security prisons, 30 minimum-security prisons, and over 200 work camps.[92] According to Human Rights Watch, political prisoners, along with the rest of Cuba's prison population, are confined to jails with substandard and unhealthy conditions.[92] Citizens cannot leave or return to Cuba without first obtaining official permission.[88]
Let me know when the citizens of the United States are fleeing by boat to other countries to escape oppression.
The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (also known as "El Paredón").[87] The Human Rights Watch alleges that the government "represses nearly all forms of political dissent" and that "Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law".[88] Cuba was the second biggest prison in the world for journalists in 2008, second only to the People's Republic of China, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an international NGO.[89] As a result of ownership bans, computer ownership rates are among the world's lowest.[90] The right to use the Internet is granted only to selected people and they are monitored.[90][91] Connecting to the Internet illegally can lead to a five-year prison sentence. Cuban dissidents face arrest and imprisonment. In the 1990s, Human Rights Watch reported that Cuba's extensive prison system, one of the largest in Latin America, consists of some 40 maximum-security prisons, 30 minimum-security prisons, and over 200 work camps.[92] According to Human Rights Watch, political prisoners, along with the rest of Cuba's prison population, are confined to jails with substandard and unhealthy conditions.[92] Citizens cannot leave or return to Cuba without first obtaining official permission.[88]
Let me know when the citizens of the United States are fleeing by boat to other countries to escape oppression.
Acutally those Americans just drive to Canada. And it's been happening since the Vietnam war. I know several.
Wow. So money is everything?? O...k. Cuba has one of the highest literacy rates in the world, but i guess that's irrelevant because an illiterate innumerate gardener can make more money, and then spend that money on OVERPRICED services and OVERPRICED goods. Oh, and lets not forget that ALL cubans have health-care and subsidised education (university) as well, WUT?!
Cubans, especially outside of Havana, are poor. Many of them would leave Cuba if emigration weren't a capital crime. The government is totalitarian and does not tolerate dissenting opinion.
Cuba has a good education system and apparently a decent healthcare system. But you can get that pretty easily without the massive poverty and totalitarianism if you follow the European model.
If Cuba is the best example of Communism, Communism's poor reputation is well-deserved.
On November 03 2010 06:46 trainRiderJ wrote: Cubans can read, but can they express themselves freely?
The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (also known as "El Paredón").[87] The Human Rights Watch alleges that the government "represses nearly all forms of political dissent" and that "Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law".[88] Cuba was the second biggest prison in the world for journalists in 2008, second only to the People's Republic of China, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an international NGO.[89] As a result of ownership bans, computer ownership rates are among the world's lowest.[90] The right to use the Internet is granted only to selected people and they are monitored.[90][91] Connecting to the Internet illegally can lead to a five-year prison sentence. Cuban dissidents face arrest and imprisonment. In the 1990s, Human Rights Watch reported that Cuba's extensive prison system, one of the largest in Latin America, consists of some 40 maximum-security prisons, 30 minimum-security prisons, and over 200 work camps.[92] According to Human Rights Watch, political prisoners, along with the rest of Cuba's prison population, are confined to jails with substandard and unhealthy conditions.[92] Citizens cannot leave or return to Cuba without first obtaining official permission.[88]
Let me know when the citizens of the United States are fleeing by boat to other countries to escape oppression.
Acutally those Americans just drive to Canada. And it's been happening since the Vietnam war. I know several.
You missed the point. They drove there freely. It was their choice.
On November 03 2010 06:46 trainRiderJ wrote: Cubans can read, but can they express themselves freely?
The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (also known as "El Paredón").[87] The Human Rights Watch alleges that the government "represses nearly all forms of political dissent" and that "Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law".[88] Cuba was the second biggest prison in the world for journalists in 2008, second only to the People's Republic of China, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an international NGO.[89] As a result of ownership bans, computer ownership rates are among the world's lowest.[90] The right to use the Internet is granted only to selected people and they are monitored.[90][91] Connecting to the Internet illegally can lead to a five-year prison sentence. Cuban dissidents face arrest and imprisonment. In the 1990s, Human Rights Watch reported that Cuba's extensive prison system, one of the largest in Latin America, consists of some 40 maximum-security prisons, 30 minimum-security prisons, and over 200 work camps.[92] According to Human Rights Watch, political prisoners, along with the rest of Cuba's prison population, are confined to jails with substandard and unhealthy conditions.[92] Citizens cannot leave or return to Cuba without first obtaining official permission.[88]
Let me know when the citizens of the United States are fleeing by boat to other countries to escape oppression.
Acutally those Americans just drive to Canada. And it's been happening since the Vietnam war. I know several.
Good riddance to the hippies. Anyone who thinks that the US oppresses its citizens needs to put the Kool Aid down.
Communism is literally impossible for humans unless we are all telepathically linked and act as part of a singular organism. There is no other way to always make group decisions and always be looking out for the common good over self interest.
Marx envisioned socialism as the stage preceding communism, but establishing a totalitarian government is, in no way, an attempt at creating a classless, stateless society.
"If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."
"1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc."
How do you get all this without a strong central government? How do you enforce the "obligation of all to work"? How do you confiscate property? How do you ensure "equable distribution" of the populace? What do you do with the bourgeois?[
You may as well be arguing that the entire western world was attempting communism in the 1800s because industrial capitalism, like socialism, precedes communism in Marx's view.
You're defending Marxism and Socialism now? Awesome. I'd love you to cite the successes, and what you find endearing in those political philosophies.
Cuba. Have you ever been? I have and it's incredible. I would say they have done fairly well as a communist/socialist society considering they were blockaded by the US for a *few* years.
Edit: Thank goodness Obama still has his veto power. I hope he uses it as frequently as Bush did to pass whatever needs to get past the horde of fat republican elephants.
Regarding Cuba, I have never been there but I see this comparison about Cuba:
"Grinding poverty where half the population survive on less than $1 a day." Good gardeners in Miami can make $20 an hour.
Wow. So money is everything?? O...k. Cuba has one of the highest literacy rates in the world, but i guess that's irrelevant because an illiterate innumerate gardener can make more money, and then spend that money on OVERPRICED services and OVERPRICED goods. Oh, and lets not forget that ALL cubans have health-care and subsidised education (university) as well, WUT?!
If Cuba is the best example of Communism, Communism's poor reputation is well-deserved.
A lot of people are poor in the U.S. as well. And generally when you live in a communist country you don't have a lot of money, it kind-of goes with the territory, and to argue otherwise is asinine.
On November 03 2010 05:34 Gahlo wrote: While I despise the two party system, I'm going straight dem. I'd rather see a government in synergy doing things, good or bad, than stuck doing NOTHING. Mistakes can be fixed, good things can be kept, wasted time is irreplaceable.
That and the republican candidates for me are crummy this election. =\
I've never really understood this. Why vote completely for one party, as opposed to on principles? The whole bipartisan "lesser of two evils" thing is why we always get such crummy candidates.
The two parties have become very polarized and it is hard to find common ground on anything right now. The right is going further right and the left, I think they are staying where they have been but because the right is going further to the right it makes the left look like they are moving further to the left. I live in Florida, so let's take Marco Rubio for example. In the primary, he was extremely to the right with his ideas on immigration and taxes. Since he knocked Crist out in the primary he has gone more towards the middle. As a voter, which Rubio do I believe?
I'm a progressive and I can say without a doubt that I have not found one republican candidate that I have agreed with.
As for Socialism and Communism, in order for it to work it would have to be a selfless act on behalf of the state. Well, unless Jesus comes back to setup a communist state, it will never be done right because human beings are not wired that way. We are capitalist by nature. 'How can I cut this corner?' 'How can I make money off of this?'
You're defending Marxism and Socialism now? Awesome. I'd love you to cite the successes, and what you find endearing in those political philosophies.
Cuba. Have you ever been? I have and it's incredible. I would say they have done fairly well as a communist/socialist society considering they were blockaded by the US for a *few* years.
Edit: Thank goodness Obama still has his veto power. I hope he uses it as frequently as Bush did to pass whatever needs to get past the horde of fat republican elephants.
Regarding Cuba, I have never been there but I see this comparison about Cuba:
"Grinding poverty where half the population survive on less than $1 a day." Good gardeners in Miami can make $20 an hour.
Wow. So money is everything?? O...k. Cuba has one of the highest literacy rates in the world, but i guess that's irrelevant because an illiterate innumerate gardener can make more money, and then spend that money on OVERPRICED services and OVERPRICED goods. Oh, and lets not forget that ALL cubans have health-care and subsidised education (university) as well, WUT?!
On November 03 2010 06:46 trainRiderJ wrote: Cubans can read, but can they express themselves freely?
The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (also known as "El Paredón").[87] The Human Rights Watch alleges that the government "represses nearly all forms of political dissent" and that "Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law".[88] Cuba was the second biggest prison in the world for journalists in 2008, second only to the People's Republic of China, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an international NGO.[89] As a result of ownership bans, computer ownership rates are among the world's lowest.[90] The right to use the Internet is granted only to selected people and they are monitored.[90][91] Connecting to the Internet illegally can lead to a five-year prison sentence. Cuban dissidents face arrest and imprisonment. In the 1990s, Human Rights Watch reported that Cuba's extensive prison system, one of the largest in Latin America, consists of some 40 maximum-security prisons, 30 minimum-security prisons, and over 200 work camps.[92] According to Human Rights Watch, political prisoners, along with the rest of Cuba's prison population, are confined to jails with substandard and unhealthy conditions.[92] Citizens cannot leave or return to Cuba without first obtaining official permission.[88]
Let me know when the citizens of the United States are fleeing by boat to other countries to escape oppression.
Acutally those Americans just drive to Canada. And it's been happening since the Vietnam war. I know several.
You missed the point. They drove there freely. It was their choice.
I missed the point? If those Americans went back to the US they would be persecuted. The only difference is that the Cubans go by boat, and while I admit Cuba is not a nicer place to live than the states, I was simply defending Socialism/giving an example (cuba) of a semi-stable social-communist state in my Original Post. No system is perfect not even Democracy, but Socialism is not the worst thing in the free world, that would be Sarah Palin.
Marx envisioned socialism as the stage preceding communism, but establishing a totalitarian government is, in no way, an attempt at creating a classless, stateless society.
"If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."
"1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc."
How do you get all this without a strong central government? How do you enforce the "obligation of all to work"? How do you confiscate property? How do you ensure "equable distribution" of the populace? What do you do with the bourgeois?[
You may as well be arguing that the entire western world was attempting communism in the 1800s because industrial capitalism, like socialism, precedes communism in Marx's view.
...
Let me repeat my point. Marx/Engels envisioned a strong state in order to "sweep away" the bourgeois and all forms of class. They envisioned 10 policies that the Socialist state was to implement in order to get to Communism. Plenty of Communist Parties have tried to implement such policies, but with disastrous results. If that's not trying Marx's ideas, I don't know what is.
If Cuba is the best example of Communism, Communism's poor reputation is well-deserved.
A lot of people are poor in the U.S. as well. And generally when you live in a communist country you don't have a lot of money, it kind-of goes with the territory, and to argue otherwise is asinine.
The poverty level of the US is still higher than the GDP/capita of China, Russia, India and Brazil. I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about wealth. Cubans don't have it.
I mean, the largest counterpoint is the fact that so many Cubans want to leave Cuba for the US.
It becomes an issue when you claim to "collectively-own" every single business in the name of all workers.
This is a large problem and it should be eliminated at every turn!
We have found agreement
Let's talk practicalities. How would you implement "collective ownership"? You can't simply give all workers a share of the business, because that's just private ownership en masse, and workers will be inclined to trade their shares.
I believe we operate under consumer co-op laws with non-capital stock since Federal law on the subject is terrible.
Amount paid is democratically decided as opposed to market value of the stock.
You can own it indirectly with a trust too, if you want (WINCO is a regional business that does this through the worker's retirement fund).
I missed the point? If those Americans went back to the US they would be persecuted.
Maybe for dodging the draft (which is a terrible policy and doesn't exist anymore). Americans are not persecuted for trying to move to Canada. The Canadians might not like it, but America isn't going to do anything about it except cooperate when Canada attempts to deport them.
The only difference is that the Cubans go by boat,
And are jailed if they return. And are shot at when attempting to escape.
and while I admit Cuba is not a nicer place to live than the states, I was simply defending Socialism/giving an example (cuba) of a semi-stable social-communist state in my Original Post. No system is perfect not even Democracy, but Socialism is not the worst thing in the free world, that would be Sarah Palin.
Cuba is basically the best example of socialism, and it's still a shitty example. Socialism is definitely one of the worst things in the world today, and thank God most people realize this and only a handful have to suffer under such a ludicrous system.
Cuba is basically the best example of socialism, and it's still a shitty example. Socialism is definitely one of the worst things in the world today, and thank God most people realize this and only a handful have to suffer under such a ludicrous system.
Imma commy bastard and the worst thing that has ever happened to Communism were the Soviet Regimes. I don't mind capitalism as long as people remain free and are also well taken care off by the state.
The socialist welfare state of Sweden and other European countries have stomped all over our freedom. We live in misery and labour camps. Wish we were a bit more like the US.
On November 03 2010 07:10 MacWorld wrote: The socialist welfare state of Sweden and other European countries have stomped all over our freedom. We live in misery and labour camps. Wish we were a bit more like the US.
I <3! sweden. Been there myself @ malmö. Great Country, hard language though.
On November 03 2010 07:10 MacWorld wrote: The socialist welfare state of Sweden and other European countries have stomped all over our freedom. We live in misery and labour camps. Wish we were a bit more like the US.
And the United States is headed for the same path.
On November 03 2010 07:10 MacWorld wrote: The socialist welfare state of Sweden and other European countries have stomped all over our freedom. We live in misery and labour camps. Wish we were a bit more like the US.
Marx is rolling in his grave for calling Sweden, home of such bourgeois companies like Volvo and Sony Ericsson, socialist.
On November 03 2010 07:10 MacWorld wrote: The socialist welfare state of Sweden and other European countries have stomped all over our freedom. We live in misery and labour camps. Wish we were a bit more like the US.
And the United States is headed for the same path.
On November 03 2010 07:10 MacWorld wrote: The socialist welfare state of Sweden and other European countries have stomped all over our freedom. We live in misery and labour camps. Wish we were a bit more like the US.
Marx is rolling in his grave for calling Sweden, home of such bourgeois companies like Volvo and Sony Ericsson, socialist.
Volvo was just bought by the communists, and we have never owned Sony. I think that SonyEricsson is all bought out as well, but I'm not sure.
But since the word socialist not longer hold any meaning, it is pointless labelling Sweden as such.
I believe we operate under consumer co-op laws with non-capital stock since Federal law on the subject is terrible.
Amount paid is democratically decided as opposed to market value of the stock.
You can own it indirectly with a trust too, if you want (WINCO is a regional business that does this through the worker's retirement fund).
Like I said, if you give every worker a share of every company, that's still private ownership, especially if you let them trade shares for other shares.
Also, I'm sure your co-op has the co-op version of directors and executives, because it's impractical to have every decision be put to a shareholder vote. So, in your ideal socialist society, who makes such important decisions such as which industry gets which workers, and the output of such industries? Surely it's beyond the expertise of the workers.
On November 03 2010 07:10 MacWorld wrote: The socialist welfare state of Sweden and other European countries have stomped all over our freedom. We live in misery and labour camps. Wish we were a bit more like the US.
And the United States is headed for the same path.
On November 03 2010 07:10 MacWorld wrote: The socialist welfare state of Sweden and other European countries have stomped all over our freedom. We live in misery and labour camps. Wish we were a bit more like the US.
Marx is rolling in his grave for calling Sweden, home of such bourgeois companies like Volvo and Sony Ericsson, socialist.
Volvo was just bought by the communists, and we have never owned Sony. I think that SonyEricsson is all bought out as well, but I'm not sure.
But since the word socialist not longer hold any meaning, it is pointless labelling Sweden as such.
I missed the point? If those Americans went back to the US they would be persecuted.
Maybe for dodging the draft (which is a terrible policy and doesn't exist anymore). Americans are not persecuted for trying to move to Canada. The Canadians might not like it, but America isn't going to do anything about it except cooperate when Canada attempts to deport them.
The only difference is that the Cubans go by boat,
And are jailed if they return. And are shot at when attempting to escape.
There are other forms of persecution aside from legal. They may be ostracized by the community they live in, their friends, co-workers. The ones I know that have left have no plans of returning to their "home" to face such possibilities.
I never said the country was perfect. But remember that America has done some fucked up things as well to its own people. I don't think I need to list such things or I have a feeling I will be flamed by many more right wingers in here. And I just don't have time for that tonight.
In closing; Cuba may not be perfect, but it's not nearly as bad as you people are making it out to be. I have traveled there 9 times in the past 12 years. And while not everyone there I met agrees with the policies that are in place, many find it a wonderful place to live. Some do leave to follow the "American Dream" but in my opinion the ones that leave often end up worse off in America than they would have been if they stayed in Cuba. But hey, that's just an opinion, so don't read it as a factual statement.
I believe we operate under consumer co-op laws with non-capital stock since Federal law on the subject is terrible.
Amount paid is democratically decided as opposed to market value of the stock.
You can own it indirectly with a trust too, if you want (WINCO is a regional business that does this through the worker's retirement fund).
Like I said, if you give every worker a share of every company, that's still private ownership, especially if you let them trade shares for other shares.
Also, I'm sure your co-op has the co-op version of directors and executives, because it's impractical to have every decision be put to a shareholder vote. So, in your ideal socialist society, who makes such important decisions such as which industry gets which workers, and the output of such industries? Surely it's beyond the expertise of the workers.
I can answer this easily. In my country (it is not antigua/barbuda that was just a missclick, im an argentine), we have free universities/colleges and not everyone goes there. In a co-op you just hire qualified manager or (generally) a board of workers take the important decisions.
On November 03 2010 07:10 MacWorld wrote: The socialist welfare state of Sweden and other European countries have stomped all over our freedom. We live in misery and labour camps. Wish we were a bit more like the US.
And the United States is headed for the same path.
There are other forms of persecution aside from legal. They may be ostracized by the community they live in, their friends, co-workers. The ones I know that have left have no plans of returning to their "home" to face such possibilities.
... That's not comparable at all to being jailed for simply attempting to emigrate. And it's a risk anyone migrating from any country faces.
I never said the country was perfect. But remember that America has done some fucked up things as well to its own people. I don't think I need to list such things or I have a feeling I will be flamed by many more right wingers in here. And I just don't have time for that tonight.
Yes, America has done some fucked up things to its own people, but it's not at all comparable to Cuba. I advise you to go read a Human Rights report of the two nations if you somehow think it's at all similar.
In closing; Cuba may not be perfect, but it's not nearly as bad as you people are making it out to be. I have traveled there 9 times in the past 12 years. And while not everyone there I met agrees with the policies that are in place, many find it a wonderful place to live.
Cuba is not the shitty hell-hole like other Socialist countries tend to end up, so they deserve credit for that. I agree, there are many countries I would prefer Cuba over. But let me reiterate my point: Cuba is the best Socialism can hope for. Why prefer that when capitalism has shown much more success.
Some do leave to follow the "American Dream" but in my opinion the ones that leave often end up worse off in America than they would have been if they stayed in Cuba. But hey, that's just an opinion, so don't read it as factual.
Cuban-Americans are wealthier than Cubans, you need to update your opinion.
Although this socialism/communism debate is interesting, let's get this thread back on track and discuss the real matter at hand: the imminent teabagging of congressional liberals. Results will not roll in for a few more hours, but here is the AP's preliminary exit poll on what voters were concerned about at the polling booth:
Exit poll: Economic worries, criticism of Obama
The Associated Press
Voters' views of Tuesday's elections, according to an Associated Press analysis of preliminary exit poll results and pre-election polls.
___
THE ECONOMY OVERSHADOWS EVERYTHING
Over half of voters named the economy as the country's top problem, with no other issue coming close. Nearly all said the economy is in bad shape and expressed concern about its condition over the next year. Roughly 4 in 10 said their family's financial condition has worsened under President Barack Obama. About 6 in 10 say that overall, the country is heading on the wrong track.
___
THE PRESIDENT DRAWS FROWNS ...
Just over half disapprove of how Obama is handling his job, and similar numbers expect his policies to hurt the country. More than 1 in 3 voters considered their vote Tuesday to be an expression of opposition to Obama; fewer said their vote was meant to voice support for the president.
___
... AND CONGRESS DOES EVEN WORSE
Only 1 in 4 expressed approval of how Congress is doing its job, including about half voicing strong disapproval. Over half also voice negative views of the Democratic and Republican parties.
___
IT'S A TEA PARTY
Roughly 4 in 10 voters consider themselves supporters of the conservative tea party. About 1 in 4 voters consider their vote a message of support for the tea party and nearly as many said their vote was meant to signal opposition — but most said the tea party wasn't a factor. Tea party supporters were nearly all extremely negative about Obama and his policies.
___
TARGET: GOVERNMENT
About 3 in 4 voters expressed negative views about how the federal government is working, including about 1 in 4 saying they are just plain angry. Less than half want the government to do more to solve problems, while over half say the government should let businesses and individuals handle more things on their own.
___
THE ISSUES THAT AWAIT
Given three choices, about 4 in 10 want Congress to focus on reducing the federal deficit while nearly as many prefer spending to create jobs. Tax cuts finished last. Only about 4 in 10 want to continue all of the broad tax cuts that were approved under President George W. Bush, including reductions for people earning at least $250,000 annually. Most of those remaining want to let the cuts expire for the wealthiest earners, while a small number want to let them all expire. Close to half want to repeal the health care overhaul Obama enacted this year, while about the same number want to expand it even further or leave it in place.
___
The preliminary results are from a survey that Edison Research conducted for The Associated Press and television networks with 11,126 voters nationwide. This included interviews with 9,525 voters Tuesday in a random sample of 268 precincts nationally. In addition, landline and cellular telephone interviews were conducted Oct. 22 to 31 with 1,601 people who voted early or absentee. There is a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 1 percentage point for the entire sample, higher for subgroups.
I can answer this easily. In my country (it is not antigua/barbuda that was just a missclick, im an argentine), we have free universities/colleges and not everyone goes there. In a co-op you just hire qualified manager or (generally) a board of workers take the important decisions.
The question is supposed to be easy. But you're basically advocating the creation of a highly central bureaucracy if we tried to apply this to the management of an industrialized nation.
Moreover, how do you attract the most-qualified manager if you're forbidden from paying them a higher salary, or from paying them at all?
I can answer this easily. In my country (it is not antigua/barbuda that was just a missclick, im an argentine), we have free universities/colleges and not everyone goes there. In a co-op you just hire qualified manager or (generally) a board of workers take the important decisions.
The question is supposed to be easy. But you're basically advocating the creation of a highly central bureaucracy if we tried to apply this to the management of an industrialized nation.
Moreover, how do you attract the most-qualified manager if you're forbidden from paying them a higher salary, or from paying them at all?
All industrialized states are run by bureaucracy . It's necesary for any modern Democracy to work, which of course include the USA. Don't you have a DMV ? Well, those are burocrats. The FDA? Also burocrats. Burocrats, burocrats EVERYWHERE.
Cuban-Americans are wealthier than Cubans, you need to update your opinion.
Monetarily yes they have more money working as Gardeners. What they miss out on: Free university, Health-care, 100% organic food (cuba has the best crop-rotation system in the world).
So you're right in stating that they (Cuban Emigrants) have more money yes. But are they "Wealthier" I Disagree.
All industrialized states are run by bureaucracy . It's necesary any modern Democracy to work, which of course include the USA. Don't you have a DMV ? Well, those are burocrats. The FDA? Also burocrats. Burocrats, burocrats EVERYWHERE.
I think you missed the part where Romantic believed a Socialist country doesn't require a centralized government.
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
Refer to my sig
Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between.
Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
All industrialized states are run by bureaucracy . It's necesary any modern Democracy to work, which of course include the USA. Don't you have a DMV ? Well, those are burocrats. The FDA? Also burocrats. Burocrats, burocrats EVERYWHERE.
I think you missed the part where Romantic believed a Socialist country doesn't require a centralized government.
I believe we operate under consumer co-op laws with non-capital stock since Federal law on the subject is terrible.
Amount paid is democratically decided as opposed to market value of the stock.
You can own it indirectly with a trust too, if you want (WINCO is a regional business that does this through the worker's retirement fund).
Like I said, if you give every worker a share of every company, that's still private ownership, especially if you let them trade shares for other shares.
Also, I'm sure your co-op has the co-op version of directors and executives, because it's impractical to have every decision be put to a shareholder vote. So, in your ideal socialist society, who makes such important decisions such as which industry gets which workers, and the output of such industries? Surely it's beyond the expertise of the workers.
Talking to you is like pulling teeth. Yes, there must be shares for the legal requirements of operating in the United States.
While technically a shareholder's vote in the legal sense, we spend a good 30-60 minutes a day discussing various things. We have a rotating manager for practicality reasons and he\she can easily be overridden or voted out and is mostly a figurehead when people want to, "Talk to the manager". It is a dreaded position and for that reason we take turns with it.
Why would I be the one to decide which industry gets workers? You are still looking at this through authoritarian glasses like I somehow need to decide myself how many people work in the steel factory. Perhaps the steel company hires and fires people whenever they want to?
Edit: Your use of "socialist country" confirms you do not understand that nations do not need to exist nor have specific and uniform characteristics. I am not imposing anything on anybody.
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
Refer to my sig
Well, at least Churchill recognizes what's wrong. Being rich is OP. We should fix that, cause there is no balance team but us. (sorry for the sc thing XD i am getting bored.
On November 03 2010 07:42 Hans-Titan wrote: Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
He's toast; no one is predicting that he'll come close to winning.
Cuban-Americans are wealthier than Cubans, you need to update your opinion.
Monetarily yes they have more money working as Gardeners. What they miss out on: Free university, Health-care, 100% organic food (cuba has the best crop-rotation system in the world).
So you're right in stating that they (Cuban Emigrants) have more money yes. But are they "Wealthier" I Disagree.
Wealth can mean a lot of things.
Yes, adjusted for welfare benefits and PPP, Cuban-Americans are still wealthier. This is because most Cubans are pretty much dirt poor, and Cuban-Americans are richer than the average American.
Yes, adjusted for welfare benefits and PPP, Cuban-Americans are still wealthier. This is because most Cubans are pretty much dirt poor, and Cuban-Americans are richer than the average American.
I always laugh when people say "Cuban-Americans are richer than the Average American"
So are: Canadian Americans British Americans Japanese Americans Chinese Americans
Trend? Maybe its because Cubans are so KICK ASS coming from Cuba (because Cuba subsidised education they can have the equivalent of a college degree for free) which gives them a intellectual edge over their competitors looking for Gardening jobs. (who would you hire Buckwheat Bill from Arizona, or Jesus (Pronounced Heyzeus for the life noobs) who is a civil engineer who can cut a bush into a motherfucking Unicorn)
Cuban-Americans are wealthier than Cubans, you need to update your opinion.
Monetarily yes they have more money working as Gardeners. What they miss out on: Free university, Health-care, 100% organic food (cuba has the best crop-rotation system in the world).
So you're right in stating that they (Cuban Emigrants) have more money yes. But are they "Wealthier" I Disagree.
Wealth can mean a lot of things.
The fact that they came here and don't wanna go back is proof that to them at least, they prefer to be here than there.
Notwithstanding all the "organic food" (wooOOOOooOOoo) and "free" education in Cuba.
First I'd like to point out this poll doesn't really mean anything pertaining to your point. At this point I'm merely assuming your point is that the US is a good country to move to, perhaps because of social/political freedom or economic opportunity or something?
The article itself even alludes that there are many factors for the results of the poll - immigration policy, joining up with existing family in the States, the ease of getting into said countries, etc. It doesn't necessarily have to mean anything about the quality of life in the countries, especially since the US is in kind of a unique position, what with being the forefront of immigration, "give me your poor, your tired..." etc.
If other countries like Denmark or New Zealand had similar PR, immigration policies, and ease of access, I'm sure they would rank just as highly, if not higher, than the US and Canada.
On November 03 2010 07:20 domovoi wrote: Depends. It's better to be in the bottom 20% of Sweden than the bottom 20% of the US, but anything higher than that, it's better to be in the US.
Second thing I'd like to point out is that this graph doesn't mean anything pertaining to your point either, because you're basically stating that higher income is "better" or the only thing that matters or something or that income even directly relates to wealth... which anyone with a high-paying job but lots of gambling debts can attest to being as complete untruth.
When we define "better" by other factors like, I dunno, quality of living, standards of health or education, levels of wealth inequality or crime, life expectancy or infant mortality, or even reported levels of happiness or satisfaction with the government, you know, silly insignificant stuff like that, I could post a dozen other charts and graphs proving that the US is at the bottom of the totem pole.
I'm not here to refute your points or argue with you or anything, I agree with you actually on a number of things and think you provide some good arguments, I just think it's a cop-out and an unsatisfactory debate tactic to simply post links to graphs or polls that don't even really support the point you're trying to make.
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
Refer to my sig
Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between.
Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
Feingold is almost definitely out, unfortunately. He shall be remembered for his No vote on the Patriot Act.
So...apparently Nancy Pelosi is still claiming that the democrats are gonna hold onto the House.
Why make such pronoucements? Its not going to affect the outcome at this point. Might as well not make pronouncements that are never gonna happen and just make yourself look dumb.
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
Refer to my sig
Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between.
Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
Feingold is almost definitely out, unfortunately. He shall be remembered for his No vote on the Patriot Act.
Actually, he's being remembered for his "yes" votes on the stimulus bill and Obamacare, which is why he's being sent home.
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
Refer to my sig
Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between.
Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
Feingold is almost definitely out, unfortunately. He shall be remembered for his No vote on the Patriot Act.
Actually, he's being remembered for his "yes" votes on the stimulus bill and Obamacare, which is why he's being sent home.
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
Refer to my sig
Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between.
Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
Feingold is almost definitely out, unfortunately. He shall be remembered for his No vote on the Patriot Act.
Actually, he's being remembered for his "yes" votes on the stimulus bill and Obamacare, which is why he's being sent home.
Actually this was a pretty epic response after the Feingold love-fest we've been having.
His state is sending him home for a reason you know.
The closest thing to a successful socialist governed country is today's Brazil. Sure the base is capitalism,like every nation semi-developped nowadays,but Lula's presidencies proved the world taxes,heavy social focus,high state presence transformed a country from scratch to a thriving economy,created millions of jobs,reduced crime,gava Brazil massive infrastructures. Sure it is so far away from Engels thoughts that labelling it socialism is far fetched,but it still proves that furious capitalism,voracious free market and 10cents footballs is not the best way to go for developping countries.
First I'd like to point out this poll doesn't really mean anything pertaining to your point. At this point I'm merely assuming your point is that the US is a good country to move to, perhaps because of social/political freedom or economic opportunity or something?
It pertains to my point that people would rather live in the US than in Cuba, and by a very wide margin.
Second thing I'd like to point out is that this graph doesn't mean anything pertaining to your point either, because you're basically stating that higher income is "better" or the only thing that matters or something or that income even directly relates to wealth... which anyone with a high-paying job but lots of gambling debts can attest to being as complete untruth.
When we define "better" by other factors like, I dunno, quality of living, standards of health or education, levels of wealth inequality or crime, life expectancy or infant mortality, or even reported levels of happiness or satisfaction with the government, you know, silly insignificant stuff like that, I could post a dozen other charts and graphs proving that the US is at the bottom of the totem pole.
I'm not here to refute your points or argue with you or anything, I agree with you actually on a number of things and think you provide some good arguments, I just think it's a cop-out and an unsatisfactory debate tactic to simply post links to graphs or polls that don't even really support the point you're trying to make.
It was a pithy, generalized statement countering another pithy, generalized statement. Things like quality of living and standards of health are adjusted for, but yes, income does not mean wealth, though it's correlated. My point is that the American poor are not as bad off as many non-Americans seem to think.
I'm gonna quote this from time to time to get more people to weigh in since I am curious and want more votes and know that tonight, there won't be time for people to read the entire thread.
On November 03 2010 02:57 Savio wrote: Here is a poll I am interested in for TL'ers
We all know that Republicans will be gaining seats in both houses and that this will be a bad night for Democrats so:
Poll: Your feelings on the likely Republican gains:
Afraid to see Republicans win (41)
53%
Excited to see Republicans win (21)
27%
Excited to see Democrats lose (13)
17%
Sad to see the Democrats go (3)
4%
78 total votes
Your vote: Your feelings on the likely Republican gains:
(Vote): Excited to see Republicans win (Vote): Excited to see Democrats lose (Vote): Afraid to see Republicans win (Vote): Sad to see the Democrats go
First I'd like to point out this poll doesn't really mean anything pertaining to your point. At this point I'm merely assuming your point is that the US is a good country to move to, perhaps because of social/political freedom or economic opportunity or something?
It pertains to my point that people would rather live in the US than in Cuba, and by a very wide margin.
I don't want to get involved, but why are the comparisons drawn between the US and Cuba? Why not Cuba and capitalist Taiwan. Why not Cuba and capitalist Mexico or capitalist Haiti or capitalist Bangladesh or capitalist Peru? It seems really dumb to make any sort of comparisons between countries with huge differences in development and population.
On November 03 2010 08:12 domovoi wrote: It pertains to my point that people would rather live in the US than in Cuba, and by a very wide margin.
Except it doesn't support your point that much for the reasons I stated. If you want to make the point that more people want to live in the US than in Cuba, why don't you just go ahead and say that while providing actual reasons instead of some poll that could be interpreted to mean any number of things? This is a minor point, I just get annoyed with this tactic.
It was a pithy, generalized statement countering another pithy, generalized statement. Things like quality of living and standards of health are adjusted for, but yes, income does not mean wealth, though it's correlated. My point is that the American poor are not as bad off as many non-Americans seem to think.
I'm not disagreeing with you or trying to refute your point here or start an argument or anything, just asking a question - just how bad off do you think the American poor are? I'm curious.
First I'd like to point out this poll doesn't really mean anything pertaining to your point. At this point I'm merely assuming your point is that the US is a good country to move to, perhaps because of social/political freedom or economic opportunity or something?
It pertains to my point that people would rather live in the US than in Cuba, and by a very wide margin.
I don't want to get involved, but why are the comparisons drawn between the US and Cuba? Why not Cuba and capitalist Taiwan. Why not Cuba and capitalist Mexico or capitalist Haiti or capitalist Bangladesh or capitalist Peru? It seems really dumb to make any sort of comparisons between countries with huge differences in development and population.
Because it was stated earlier that of the countries that have attempted communism, Cuba turned out the best. So its being compared to..not necessarily the "best" but some of the "good" capitalist countries.
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
Refer to my sig
Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between.
Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
Feingold is almost definitely out, unfortunately. He shall be remembered for his No vote on the Patriot Act.
Actually, he's being remembered for his "yes" votes on the stimulus bill and Obamacare, which is why he's being sent home.
Stimulus bills and Obamacare, such evil has never been seen!
Republicans have never done such things, I'd imagine. They only signed into law the largest entitlement increase in decades along with budget killing tax cuts on purpose (it was indeed a stimulative attempt with a sunset clause, let us not forget):
Except it doesn't support your point that much for the reasons I stated. If you want to make the point that more people want to live in the US than in Cuba, why don't you just go ahead and say that while providing actual reasons instead of some poll that could be interpreted to mean any number of things? This is a minor point, I just get annoyed with this tactic.
Um, the poll clearly shows that lots of people desire to move to America, it's not completely open to interpretation. This counters the suggestion that people are trying to leave America at a level similar to those trying to leave Cuba (to enter America, for what it's worth).
I mean, to even suggest Cubans fleeing is somehow the same as Americans moving to Canada is pretty ridiculous. At least I'm providing some data to clarify the issue rather than making completely baseless comments.
I'm not disagreeing with you or trying to refute your point here or start an argument or anything, just asking a question - just how bad off do you think the American poor are? I'm curious.
The American poor are much better off than 90% of the world. Their level of income is slightly below that of the income of European poor. That being said, more redistribution would be a good thing, but I think progressives (at least the cosmopolitan ones) should be focusing more on global inequality rather than American inequality.
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
Refer to my sig
Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between.
Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
Feingold is almost definitely out, unfortunately. He shall be remembered for his No vote on the Patriot Act.
Actually, he's being remembered for his "yes" votes on the stimulus bill and Obamacare, which is why he's being sent home.
Stimulus bills and Obamacare, such evil has never been seen!
Republicans have never done such things, I'd imagine. They only signed into law the largest entitlement increase in decades along with budget killing tax cuts on purpose (it was indeed a stimulative attempt with a sunset clause, let us not forget):
Vote out Feingold, vote in "small government" Republicans!
Life is good comedy.
Republicans in the Bush era screwed up big time and they were also sent home by their constituents appropriately. Democrats didn't realize the reason that Republicans got slammed, and they acted very similarly and are now being sent home.
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
Refer to my sig
Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between.
Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
Feingold is almost definitely out, unfortunately. He shall be remembered for his No vote on the Patriot Act.
Actually, he's being remembered for his "yes" votes on the stimulus bill and Obamacare, which is why he's being sent home.
Stimulus bills and Obamacare, such evil has never been seen!
Republicans have never done such things, I'd imagine. They only signed into law the largest entitlement increase in decades along with budget killing tax cuts on purpose (it was indeed a stimulative attempt with a sunset clause, let us not forget):
Vote out Feingold, vote in "small government" Republicans!
Life is good comedy.
Bush might be a member of the republican party, but he sure as hell doesn't understand (much less represent) the concept of fiscal conservatism. His liberal expenses was why he was so universally detested among republicans and democrats alike.
Tea partiers don't really care about fiscal conservativism. The biggest causes of the deficit are overwhelmingly defense and medicare, neither of which tea partiers desire to reform.
On November 03 2010 08:43 domovoi wrote: Tea partiers don't really care about fiscal conservativism. The biggest expenditures are defense and medicare, neither of which tea partiers desire to reform.
Entitlements are by far the biggest thing gov't spends money on. Fiscal conservatives are against huge entitlements.
On November 03 2010 08:43 domovoi wrote: Tea partiers don't really care about fiscal conservativism. The biggest expenditures are defense and medicare, neither of which tea partiers desire to reform.
Entitlements are by far the biggest thing gov't spends money on. Fiscal conservatives are against huge entitlements.
If you're talking about social security, I don't think tea partiers want to reform that either, but regardless, it should be solvent for another decade or two. It will eventually need to be reformed, but it's effect on the deficit is not nearly as important as military and medicare expenditures.
And the thread has obviously degenerated into the lefty/righty debate, no one is going to change their mind by looking at your 10 paragraph "Mr. Spock" arguments (with charts) people... Why so serious?
On a brighter note, lets all get excited for the incoming tea party candidates and the vast amount of comedic material that they'll bring to all of us in the coming months, a party that hates washington comes to washington... I'm crossing my fingers for a Christine O' Donnell victory myself.
On November 03 2010 08:12 domovoi wrote:My point is that the American poor are not as bad off as many non-Americans seem to think.
Wait, are you kidding me? Compared to the poor basically anywhere in Europe, poor Americans live terrible fucking lives. I think YOU are the one that's out of touch with the American poor.
On November 03 2010 08:43 domovoi wrote: Tea partiers don't really care about fiscal conservativism. The biggest expenditures are defense and medicare, neither of which tea partiers desire to reform.
Entitlements are by far the biggest thing gov't spends money on. Fiscal conservatives are against huge entitlements.
Yeah but ask them what they want to cut and they wont answer the damn question!
On November 03 2010 08:50 Weird wrote: On a brighter note, lets all get excited for the incoming tea party candidates and the vast amount of comedic material that they'll bring to all of us in the coming months, a party that hates washington comes to washington... I'm crossing my fingers for a Christine O' Donnell victory myself.
They will quickly be assimilated into the Republican establishment. Hell, they are probably already there. They might try some funny shit, but I'm sure they will bow their heads and vote party line in about 8 seconds flat.
I am much more excited about watching the Republican party tear itself up trying to marginalize Palin so she doesn't win the presidential nomination and get crushed by Obama.
On November 03 2010 08:43 domovoi wrote: Tea partiers don't really care about fiscal conservativism. The biggest expenditures are defense and medicare, neither of which tea partiers desire to reform.
Entitlements are by far the biggest thing gov't spends money on. Fiscal conservatives are against huge entitlements.
Fiscal conservatives do not exist to any significant degree in the Republican Party. If this wasn't painfully obvious when they ended Clinton's surplus (minus SS robbery) or when McCain's best idea was "pork barrel" spending cuts, it will be obvious in the next few decades.
I scoff at the idea Republicans would stop subsidizing the elderly and the defense contractors; that is most of their electorate and a vast majority of US Federal spending
On November 03 2010 08:50 Weird wrote: And the thread has obviously degenerated into the lefty/righty debate, no one is going to change their mind by looking at your 10 paragraph "Mr. Spock" arguments (with charts) people... Why so serious?
On a brighter note, lets all get excited for the incoming tea party candidates and the vast amount of comedic material that they'll bring to all of us in the coming months, a party that hates washington comes to washington... I'm crossing my fingers for a Christine O' Donnell victory myself.
tyt just brought news that o donnell is out. no chance to see her in that kind of situation.
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
Refer to my sig
Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between.
Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
Feingold is almost definitely out, unfortunately. He shall be remembered for his No vote on the Patriot Act.
Actually, he's being remembered for his "yes" votes on the stimulus bill and Obamacare, which is why he's being sent home.
Stimulus bills and Obamacare, such evil has never been seen!
Republicans have never done such things, I'd imagine. They only signed into law the largest entitlement increase in decades along with budget killing tax cuts on purpose (it was indeed a stimulative attempt with a sunset clause, let us not forget):
Vote out Feingold, vote in "small government" Republicans!
Life is good comedy.
Bush might be a member of the republican party, but he sure as hell doesn't understand (much less represent) the concept of fiscal conservatism. His liberal expenses was why he was so universally detested among republicans and democrats alike.
QFT
I see a lot of people tossing around strange notions about what fiscal conservatism means. It does not mean deregulation to the point of anarcho-capitalism and it does not mean casually throwing around hundreds of billions of dollars just because you can.
Bill Clinton practiced fiscal conservatism. George Bush Jr. practiced idiocy. Judging all conservatives by the standards of Bush Jr. -- as so many people on this forum do -- is ludicrous.
Nothing particularly unexpected so far. Paul and Rubio, Coons and Bluementhal. All favorites. Manchin was a slight favorite, and outperformed his polls, but he's more conservative than the GOP nominee in Illinois. Go figure.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ Nate Silver has the Republican chances to take the Senate down at about nil, which was mostly what it was at the beginning of the night. Republican house candidates are performing slightly better than expected, but not by a whole lot. So the 60 seat pick-up looks accurate.
Hoping for Bennett in CO, even if Feingold is a lost cause in Wisco. (Sad.) It'll be a stunner if Dayton doesn't win the MN governorship. Will be interesting to see.
That way they can claim that Obama did nothing during his presidency.
I just adore the people who have been accusing Obama of not delivering on his promises when he cannot get his own laws passed and Republicans even back out of voting for their own formerly proposed legislation to avoid doing anything.
On November 03 2010 10:45 Servolisk wrote: I just adore the people who have been accusing Obama of not delivering on his promises when he cannot get his own laws pass and Republicans even back out of voting for their own formerly proposed legislation to doing anything.
Still, you have to admit this has been a pretty brilliant stratagem by the Republicans after their staggering losses in 2008.
On November 03 2010 10:45 Servolisk wrote: I just adore the people who have been accusing Obama of not delivering on his promises when he cannot get his own laws pass and Republicans even back out of voting for their own formerly proposed legislation to doing anything.
Still, you have to admit this has been a pretty brilliant stratagem by the Republicans after their staggering losses in 2008.
I am watching a 5 hour mid-term election program on the tv right now and they mentioned that you need to have 60 seats in the senate or there is the possibility of you being blocked. What the hell does that mean ?
On November 03 2010 11:09 Tufas wrote: Hello, unknowing austrian asking.
I am watching a 5 hour mid-term election program on the tv right now and they mentioned that you need to have 60 seats in the senate or there is the possibility of you being blocked. What the hell does that mean ?
Thanks !
ps: 3 am here.
There are procedural filibuster rules that prevent a vote on the bill itself.
On November 03 2010 11:09 Tufas wrote: Hello, unknowing austrian asking.
I am watching a 5 hour mid-term election program on the tv right now and they mentioned that you need to have 60 seats in the senate or there is the possibility of you being blocked. What the hell does that mean ?
Thanks !
ps: 3 am here.
There are procedural filibuster rules that prevent a vote on the bill itself.
On November 03 2010 10:58 LuckyFool wrote: It's gonna be a good night for Republican's that's for sure.
Ppl getting fed up with Dems lately I do believe. Funny how the scales just tilt back and forth over the years...
It's like clockwork really.
Republicans are leading; the government is completely retarded, so people hate the republicans. Democrats are leading; the government can't do anything because of filibusters and such. It looks like inaction and passivity in a country which really needs some serious work. This leads to people hating the democrats.
Democrats and republicans could even do a great job, and people will still end up "switching". There are good ideas in liberalism, socialism (which are opposing views btw), conservatism and libertarism, and we all stand for some values which make sense for a certain extent. I'm sure Christine O'Donnell actually believes in like, ONE thing that makes sense even though she won't admit that she's still got a pinch of sanity left in her.
You need a compromise of the good ideas of both parties. Sadly enough, right now, one of the parties doesn't have many good ideas and the other one is getting shut down
dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
All I have to say is thank God Pelosi is being ousted. She's done some terrible things and that psychotic laugh.. I think I'd be ok with just getting rid of all encombants, but the amount of payola some reps bring back to their state, and lack of viable "experienced" people to fill spots, that's not really an option.
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
well i hope you can say you are satisfied with the republicans you chose as you are straight up American as I can see you don't believe in universal health care, so see you in 2 years ill ask what is your opinion of what happend then... Good luck and dont bitch about any laws that are passed because of who you voted.
Fuck, we're getting owned in this election. Fucking republicans picked up at least 3 senate seats (out of 100 total, for the non-US teamliquiders) so far. The Democrats' pseudomajority has been completely broken now. The Republicans were impeding senate business before, now it will be even worse.
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
lol. People still think the stimulus ruined the country.
On November 03 2010 11:16 Tufas wrote: Thanks for the filibuster input, now I know.
To further clarify, no one actually goes up and reads out of a dictionary anymore. You can just file some paperwork and its effectively filibustered. Basically it makes it impossible to do anything unless you have 60 votes because all you have to do to block stuff is fill out the paperwork.
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
lol. People still think the stimulus ruined the country.
I wonder how people work that out in their heads.
People have extremely short memories when it comes to politics man. Imo a stimulus that was too small is analogous to Palin's "Bridge to Nowhere" in the electorate's eyes.
On November 03 2010 11:45 Zealotdriver wrote: Fuck, we're getting owned in this election. Fucking republicans picked up at least 3 senate seats (out of 100 total, for the non-US teamliquiders) so far. The Democrats' pseudomajority has been completely broken now. The Republicans were impeding senate business before, now it will be even worse.
Its kind of okay though. Depends on what the Dems do with it, in '94 Clinton lost both house and senate. Since they had the power he shifted responsibility onto the republicans and they obviously didn't do a good job. If in 2 years time people see the republicans as retards and Obama's trying to do what he can to make things work 2012 will be different. Also, the effects of legislation passed in 09-10 will start to actually have effects and (hopefully) people will realize that it was the dems that passed that legislation. If the Republicans really go forward with their goal of killing the healthcare reform bill, they're going to get hammered by stories of kids with retinoblastoma about to die and were saved by the no pre-existing conditions part and they'll end up looking pretty bad.
On November 03 2010 11:49 Tufas wrote: I thought the democrats had 59 seats anyway so whats all the fuzz about ?
They did have 60 for the first couple months, before Scott Brown won MA after Ted Kennedy died. For the HCR bill they got the two independents to vote for it, Sanders and Lieberman
On November 03 2010 11:54 ZeaL. wrote: If the Republicans really go forward with their goal of killing the healthcare reform bill, they're going to get hammered by stories of kids with retinoblastoma about to die and were saved by the no pre-existing conditions part and they'll end up looking pretty bad.
This has never mattered in the past, why do you think die-hard repubs will change their minds now?
On November 03 2010 11:54 ZeaL. wrote: If the Republicans really go forward with their goal of killing the healthcare reform bill, they're going to get hammered by stories of kids with retinoblastoma about to die and were saved by the no pre-existing conditions part and they'll end up looking pretty bad.
This has never mattered in the past, why do you think die-hard repubs will change their minds now?
They won't. They'll just say tough luck, shouldn't have been so poor and not had health insurance. The retards in the middle are easily swayed by those kinds of emotional advertisements and they HAVE had issues with the previous state of health care in the US, they just have no idea what they want done about it because they're scare of "socialism". Show them a kid who would die if HCR is repealed and they will change their mind.
On November 03 2010 11:54 ZeaL. wrote: Its kind of okay though. Depends on what the Dems do with it, in '94 Clinton lost both house and senate. Since they had the power he shifted responsibility onto the republicans and they obviously didn't do a good job. If in 2 years time people see the republicans as retards and Obama's trying to do what he can to make things work 2012 will be different. Also, the effects of legislation passed in 09-10 will start to actually have effects and (hopefully) people will realize that it was the dems that passed that legislation. If the Republicans really go forward with their goal of killing the healthcare reform bill, they're going to get hammered by stories of kids with retinoblastoma about to die and were saved by the no pre-existing conditions part and they'll end up looking pretty bad.
...Yes, or the Tea Par-uh, I mean the Republicans, continue to ride the "Obama is driving the country into the ground" train all the way to 2012, using Obama's complete lack of accomplishments in the next 2 years as further proof of his ineptitude and poor leadership, while they groom some kind of abominable Palin Mark II Tea Party Edition candidate to run against him, on the "I will magically conjure jobs out of thin air" platform, and in 2 years people will instead see this as that time when "Muslim Hitler almost turned America into the USSR with that dastardly socialist healthcare bill".
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
I think capital gains tax went up a few percentage points, however most Americans actually got a significant tax cut.
Under the stimulus bill, single workers got $400, and working couples got $800. The Internal Revenue Service issued new guidelines to reduce withholdings for income tax, so many workers saw a small increase in their checks in April 2009.
You don't need spoilers in this thread, it's for results! The California hold guarantees that Democrats hold the Senate, albeit with a slimmer majority.
@allyourbase: Yes, the Democratic House majority has fallen to Republicans. The major news networks have called that.
On November 03 2010 13:00 NovaTheFeared wrote: You don't need spoilers in this thread, it's for results! The California hold guarantees that Democrats hold the Senate, albeit with a slimmer majority.
@allyourbase: Yes, the Democratic House majority has fallen to Republicans. The major news networks have called that.
The spoiler alert is for a different reason, though... =P
On November 03 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote: Murray (D) vs Rossi (R) is very close in Washington (my state)
Currently 687,000 votes to 670,000. Hopefully it will go Murray because most of the votes are in from the conservative counties.
Murray vs Rossi is a nailbiter for sure, i'll be spamming F5 for a while. It'll suck if we don't have a clear winner because then it will be several days for the mail-in ballots to trickle in.
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
Refer to my sig
Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between.
Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
Feingold is almost definitely out, unfortunately. He shall be remembered for his No vote on the Patriot Act.
Actually, he's being remembered for his "yes" votes on the stimulus bill and Obamacare, which is why he's being sent home.
Stimulus bills and Obamacare, such evil has never been seen!
Republicans have never done such things, I'd imagine. They only signed into law the largest entitlement increase in decades along with budget killing tax cuts on purpose (it was indeed a stimulative attempt with a sunset clause, let us not forget):
Vote out Feingold, vote in "small government" Republicans!
Life is good comedy.
Bush might be a member of the republican party, but he sure as hell doesn't understand (much less represent) the concept of fiscal conservatism. His liberal expenses was why he was so universally detested among republicans and democrats alike.
QFT
I see a lot of people tossing around strange notions about what fiscal conservatism means. It does not mean deregulation to the point of anarcho-capitalism and it does not mean casually throwing around hundreds of billions of dollars just because you can.
Bill Clinton practiced fiscal conservatism. George Bush Jr. practiced idiocy. Judging all conservatives by the standards of Bush Jr. -- as so many people on this forum do -- is ludicrous.
I'll add this to your comment:
On November 03 2010 13:12 holdthephone wrote: so republicans are doing better than expected?
Depends on your citations... they could be picking up anywhere between 40-70 seats. They WILL take the house though and gain some ground in the senate.
On November 03 2010 13:12 holdthephone wrote: so republicans are doing better than expected?
They seem to be right on track for the pre-election estimates of ~55 in the House, 6-8 in the Senate. Still a few close races to call, but Republicans will definitely take the House and will definitely not take the Senate.
On November 03 2010 07:20 domovoi wrote: [quote] Depends. It's better to be in the bottom 20% of Sweden than the bottom 20% of the US, but anything higher than that, it's better to be in the US.
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
Refer to my sig
Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between.
Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
Feingold is almost definitely out, unfortunately. He shall be remembered for his No vote on the Patriot Act.
Actually, he's being remembered for his "yes" votes on the stimulus bill and Obamacare, which is why he's being sent home.
Stimulus bills and Obamacare, such evil has never been seen!
Republicans have never done such things, I'd imagine. They only signed into law the largest entitlement increase in decades along with budget killing tax cuts on purpose (it was indeed a stimulative attempt with a sunset clause, let us not forget):
Vote out Feingold, vote in "small government" Republicans!
Life is good comedy.
Bush might be a member of the republican party, but he sure as hell doesn't understand (much less represent) the concept of fiscal conservatism. His liberal expenses was why he was so universally detested among republicans and democrats alike.
QFT
I see a lot of people tossing around strange notions about what fiscal conservatism means. It does not mean deregulation to the point of anarcho-capitalism and it does not mean casually throwing around hundreds of billions of dollars just because you can.
Bill Clinton practiced fiscal conservatism. George Bush Jr. practiced idiocy. Judging all conservatives by the standards of Bush Jr. -- as so many people on this forum do -- is ludicrous.
On November 03 2010 13:12 holdthephone wrote: so republicans are doing better than expected?
Depends on your citations... they could be picking up anywhere between 40-70 seats. They WILL take the house though and gain some ground in the senate.
Nice video. Pretty much sums it up. Obama, herald of change, is unfortunately just more of the same old.
anyone know where i can see the results so far for lieutenant gov of california? it doesn't list it on cnn (that i can see) and http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/lieutenant-governor/ has its servers being raped by everyone f5ing
On November 03 2010 13:24 Nitrogen wrote: anyone know where i can see the results so far for lieutenant gov of california? it doesn't list it on cnn (that i can see) and http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/lieutenant-governor/ has its servers being raped by everyone f5ing
I got through on that site, 16% reporting.
Gavin Newsom (Dem) 959,637 46.8% Abel Maldonado (Rep) 887,000 43.3% Jim King (AI) 39,942 2.0% James "Jimi" Castillo (Grn) 24,332 1.1% Pamela J. Brown (Lib) 115,707 5.7% C.T. Weber (P&F) 24,017 1.1%
On November 03 2010 10:58 LuckyFool wrote: It's gonna be a good night for Republican's that's for sure.
Ppl getting fed up with Dems lately I do believe. Funny how the scales just tilt back and forth over the years...
They are getting "fed" up with the democrats, but only because they can't see past what's happening to themselves - if congressional legislature does not directly affect them, they feel like nothing has changed in the past 2 years => democrats' fault.
On November 03 2010 13:36 Zealotdriver wrote: I just looked at the national results and shit bricks. It looks like the GOP is gaining 6 out of 100 seats in the senate. Fuck.
They needed 10 seats to gain a majority. Even tying would made Biden the 51st vote. A few gains in the senate were inevitable.
On November 03 2010 13:36 Zealotdriver wrote: I just looked at the national results and shit bricks. It looks like the GOP is gaining 6 out of 100 seats in the senate. Fuck.
They needed 10 seats to gain a majority. Even tying would made Biden the 51st vote. A few gains in the senate were inevitable.
;_; poor Sharron
Every senate vote is crucial because we have right-leaning Democrats who pull all kinds of shit if they know the vote is close, like on clusterfuck of the healthcare reform bill.
On November 03 2010 13:36 Zealotdriver wrote: I just looked at the national results and shit bricks. It looks like the GOP is gaining 6 out of 100 seats in the senate. Fuck.
They needed 10 seats to gain a majority. Even tying would made Biden the 51st vote. A few gains in the senate were inevitable.
;_; poor Sharron
Every senate vote is crucial because we have right-leaning Democrats who pull all kinds of shit if they know the vote is close, like on clusterfuck of the healthcare reform bill.
Well, can't argue with that. It's a shame representatives have been reduced to breadwinners for the state instead of just voting for what they believe in.
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
After seeing a few interviews with Bachmann and Cantor it is becoming obvious that they really have no plans. 'Well the people have spoken and they want lower taxes.' Well yeah, but how do you pay for it? 'Well we will cut spending!' Okay but where will you cut it? 'Obama is teh sux!' /facepalm
Seriously, what are the Repub plans of getting us out of this recession? If they say tax cuts to the top 3% then they are out of touch with the way business is being conducted now. The money saved with those tax cuts will not go into the US economy, it will be invested into China, India and other emerging markets. Republicans don't really believe in improving infrastructure, so will not be able to get jobs from that. Alright! What about small businesses and getting them hiring again!? Sure, but how will they do that?
Tonight was a win for big business, not the people and I want to shoot my TV every time they say it is a win for the people.
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
AP is now projecting Carly Fiorina barely beating Barbara Boxer. 47.2% to 47.1% Edit: percentages just flipped, Barbara's back in the lead.
On November 03 2010 14:05 TheAldo wrote: After seeing a few interviews with Bachmann and Cantor it is becoming obvious that they really have no plans. 'Well the people have spoken and they want lower taxes.' Well yeah, but how do you pay for it? 'Well we will cut spending!' Okay but where will you cut it? 'Obama is teh sux!' /facepalm
Seriously, what are the Repub plans of getting us out of this recession? If they say tax cuts to the top 3% then they are out of touch with the way business is being conducted now. The money saved with those tax cuts will not go into the US economy, it will be invested into China, India and other emerging markets. Republicans don't really believe in improving infrastructure, so will not be able to get jobs from that. Alright! What about small businesses and getting them hiring again!? Sure, but how will they do that?
Tonight was a win for big business, not the people and I want to shoot my TV every time they say it is a win for the people.
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
The Reid holdout leaves a bitter aftertaste to an otherwise splendid night, that (hopefully) is the start of real change.
Side note: I don't get the cynical comments about D and R's being the same, hating the two-party system, etc. First of all, I agreed with you. I am an independent and I was just as angry at the Repubs as I was the Dems. But guess what? This election was a direct rebuke to that status quo.
The Tea Party movement is basically a libertarian conservative one that took back the GOP. If you lean in that direction at all, I'm not sure how you can remain critical. The GOP establishment are scared shitless, and for good reason. The TP proved, despite endless ridicule and smear, that you can in fact make a difference, and you can change the political dynamics in this country. Regardless of whether you agree with their ideals, this impact and exercise in democracy is laudable. I know the O'Donnell and Angle types get the most attention (of course), but that's not representative of the movement at all. Marco Rubio, Allen West, Ron Johnson, Paul Ryan (policy proposals linked in previous page by another poster) -- that is the Tea Party -- and you better believe they are determined to make a difference and NOT be more of the same. Because if they are, they'll be gone next.
The American people have finally spoken, and we want fiscal responsibility. Your move, Obama.
On November 03 2010 13:24 Nitrogen wrote: anyone know where i can see the results so far for lieutenant gov of california? it doesn't list it on cnn (that i can see) and http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/lieutenant-governor/ has its servers being raped by everyone f5ing
I got through on that site, 16% reporting.
Gavin Newsom (Dem) 959,637 46.8% Abel Maldonado (Rep) 887,000 43.3% Jim King (AI) 39,942 2.0% James "Jimi" Castillo (Grn) 24,332 1.1% Pamela J. Brown (Lib) 115,707 5.7% C.T. Weber (P&F) 24,017 1.1%
thanks, i've only been able to get through to that site like once t.t
On November 03 2010 15:03 Losticus wrote: I know the O'Donnell and Angle types get the most attention (of course), but that's not representative of the movement at all. Marco Rubio, Allen West, Ron Johnson, Paul Ryan (policy proposals linked in previous page by another poster) -- that is the Tea Party -- and you better believe they are determined to make a difference and NOT be more of the same.
On November 03 2010 15:03 Losticus wrote: I know the O'Donnell and Angle types get the most attention (of course), but that's not representative of the movement at all. Marco Rubio, Allen West, Ron Johnson, Paul Ryan (policy proposals linked in previous page by another poster) -- that is the Tea Party -- and you better believe they are determined to make a difference and NOT be more of the same.
Allen West should be in prison.
For keeping you safe? Pretty sure our enemies aren't giving us any mercy.
I think only 2 Senate races are left to call now, Washington and Colorado. Currently 47 Republican 51 Democrat. I'm surprised at how accurate the projections were. Republicans to gain 6-8 seats, exactly where we are now: 6 seats gained with 2 very close races remaining.
On November 03 2010 13:30 Iodem wrote: Preferential voting would be awesome. It's a shame it'll never happen, and for that reason, 3rd parties will be viable in the US.
or this, and just have everyone run as independents.
Adams was a bigger opponent of democratic parties, but your point stands I suppose. I don't recall an election in my lifetime where I was happy with the outcome. All it does is remind me how ridiculous this country is when it comes to politics... Although I shouldn't judge America so harshly. Politics are ridiculous everywhere.
On November 03 2010 13:30 Iodem wrote: Preferential voting would be awesome. It's a shame it'll never happen, and for that reason, 3rd parties will be viable in the US.
On November 03 2010 13:30 Iodem wrote: Preferential voting would be awesome. It's a shame it'll never happen, and for that reason, 3rd parties will be viable in the US.
or this, and just have everyone run as independents.
Adams was a bigger opponent of democratic parties, but your point stands I suppose.
If you mean Adams was an opponent of the Democratic-Republicans, then yeah. He certainly wasn't an opponent of his own party.
He was about as a very moderate Federalist. Lemme' find the quote... “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, it to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
Obviously he wasn't some naive idiot who knew the Republicans were getting ready to form against him, but he had spoken out against democratic measures a lot because of the divisions and strife it would cause.
Washington largely spoke out against political parties due to his own Federalist leanings (Hamilton's whispering from behind) and his absolute hatred (and hypocritical view) of the democratic-republican parties after the Whiskey Rebellion. Generally speaking, his largest argument against him was on his way out of his office... and the time for partisan talk is always at the start or end of one's presidency.
I suppose I could actually argue myself in circles around this subject. I don't think many deep thinkers are in favor of political parties, but all see them as a means to an end and while on the cusp of power, are always quick to embrace any edge that might be granted to them.
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
Pass laws that don't affect the budget deficit, Republicans are mad.
Pass laws that increase the deficit, Republicans mad.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
sight...
What was the question again? And what are you trying to say?
I am saying Democrats have done and will do more to reign in the deficit than Republicans ever have
How about, spend less than you tax.
I agree. Lets raise taxes so we're spending less than we tax.
I agree, but that isn't a viable option given the economy.
Plan B: Get the heck out of both wars and HEAVILY cut military funding to reign in the deficit.
I thought Obama would cut military funding and get us out of the wars, which would have cut the deficit down a lot. He didn't do that at all. He's spending money on the military like he's a Republican.
On November 03 2010 11:38 choboPEon wrote: [quote]
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
Pass laws that don't affect the budget deficit, Republicans are mad.
Pass laws that increase the deficit, Republicans mad.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
sight...
What was the question again? And what are you trying to say?
I am saying Democrats have done and will do more to reign in the deficit than Republicans ever have
How about, spend less than you tax.
I agree. Lets raise taxes so we're spending less than we tax.
I agree, but that isn't a viable option given the economy.
Plan B: Get the heck out of both wars and HEAVILY cut military funding to reign in the deficit.
I don't want higher taxes, but increasing taxes has been shown to be much more effective than cutting them to reign in spending, for obvious reasons.
I agree with your Plan B, but Republicans will never do it (lol they never will) and Democrats are afraid of their own shadow and would be worried about being called weak.
On November 03 2010 11:38 choboPEon wrote: [quote]
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
Pass laws that don't affect the budget deficit, Republicans are mad.
Pass laws that increase the deficit, Republicans mad.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
sight...
What was the question again? And what are you trying to say?
I am saying Democrats have done and will do more to reign in the deficit than Republicans ever have
How about, spend less than you tax.
I agree. Lets raise taxes so we're spending less than we tax.
I agree, but that isn't a viable option given the economy.
Plan B: Get the heck out of both wars and HEAVILY cut military funding to reign in the deficit.
I thought Obama would cut military funding and get us out of the wars, which would have cut the deficit down a lot. He didn't do that at all. He's spending money on the military like he's a Republican.
Problem is we already created the mess, we can't just up and leave it. That'll make things far worse in the long run.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
On November 03 2010 11:38 choboPEon wrote: [quote]
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
On November 03 2010 11:38 choboPEon wrote: [quote]
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
Pass laws that don't affect the budget deficit, Republicans are mad.
Pass laws that increase the deficit, Republicans mad.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
sight...
What was the question again? And what are you trying to say?
I am saying Democrats have done and will do more to reign in the deficit than Republicans ever have
How about, spend less than you tax.
I agree. Lets raise taxes so we're spending less than we tax.
I agree, but that isn't a viable option given the economy.
Plan B: Get the heck out of both wars and HEAVILY cut military funding to reign in the deficit.
I thought Obama would cut military funding and get us out of the wars, which would have cut the deficit down a lot. He didn't do that at all. He's spending money on the military like he's a Republican.
Even if Obama COMPLETELY ELIMINATED the military's budget and abandoned having any military at all, we'd still be close to 400 billion dollars in the hole. The military budget is only a mere 664 billion. Our deficit in the 2010 budget is pushing 1200 billion. The exact figure is still unknown at this time (due to the exact amount of tax returns not being released yet).
The government has to get used to the fact that tax returns aren't what they used to be and probably won't be any time in the near future. In 2009, the government received 600 billion dollars less than projected in tax returns.
A lot of people in what I would consider to be the "upper middle class" (high-tech laborers, often making low 6-figures) lost their jobs and many of them who got back into the business had to take jobs that don't pay as well. Additionally, new college graduates have a very slim chance of getting a job that will reflect their education. Underemployment is a growing problem, with some estimates indicating that underemployment is as high as 15%.
We need to find ways to cut back spending. But the budget continues to grow. That's my problem with Obama's spending: it's not that he already spent that money, it's that he does not seem to have a realistic plan for reducing the deficit, and that there is no indication that the money being spent is helping to relieve problems.
On November 03 2010 11:42 angelicfolly wrote: [quote]
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
I consider full employment to be NAIRU. I thought most people did, perhaps I am wrong
Sorry man but if you ever studied sociology you would know that there is no such thing as full employment that is a myth, a farse, a lie, because there always have to be a certain amount of unemployed people in every country so you can have a low minimum wage that makes the economy work. I didnt say it various sociologists said it and its true there will never be full employment in a capitalist free market economy.
On November 03 2010 11:42 angelicfolly wrote: [quote]
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
Pass laws that don't affect the budget deficit, Republicans are mad.
Pass laws that increase the deficit, Republicans mad.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
sight...
What was the question again? And what are you trying to say?
I am saying Democrats have done and will do more to reign in the deficit than Republicans ever have
How about, spend less than you tax.
I agree. Lets raise taxes so we're spending less than we tax.
I agree, but that isn't a viable option given the economy.
Plan B: Get the heck out of both wars and HEAVILY cut military funding to reign in the deficit.
I thought Obama would cut military funding and get us out of the wars, which would have cut the deficit down a lot. He didn't do that at all. He's spending money on the military like he's a Republican.
Problem is we already created the mess, we can't just up and leave it. That'll make things far worse in the long run.
I love this logic. The US invades a country, and whether through mismanagement, underestimating the opposition, incompetence, structural factors, or by design, the situation isn't improving and said country is close to a civil war. A war the USA is a direct cause of. And now, even if most people recognize the wars were a mistake and didn't go well, we still "can't" leave, because then we "abandon" the poor innocent women and children we set out to rescue in the first place *cough*. Really, what makes you think the military will handle the rest of the ongoing wars any more competently than they did originally? Second, a lot of the conflict comes from the fact that there still is an occupation, it's the US armies that provoke attacks by being in places they shouldn't be. Third, don't pretend that the military is just a security force. If you want to leave some troops behind to act as body guards for the politicians, then fine, but that's not what they're doing. Fourth, with this logic the military profits from "failure", the more incompetent, the more necessary they'll apparently be.
Anyone who says that Obama is increasing taxes in 60 days, obviously doesn't have their facts straight, its a tax break expiring that SHOULD EXPIRE because OBVIOUSLY the USA is strapped for money. My states Universities have been faced with such shortages that they needed to lay off teachers, and close buildings, all because people cant stand not being able to buy their stupid fucking coffee just 1 time a day instead of 3-4, or one less outfit A YEAR.
My own country makes me vomit with the anti tax stuff, all you people want your government services and are unwilling to pay for them, and and now are electing people THAT COST YOU YOUR JOBS IN THE FIRST PLACE back into office. You obviously deserved losing your job if you are so unwilling to educate yourself about your own country that you live in.
Politics have gotten so horrible in the last 6 years in this country, politicians, MOSTLY republicans and some democrats as well, are more focused on their own political careers and political parties that they have forgotten why they were elected, to help the damn people in their country. Republicans in the last 2 years complete strategy was say no to everything, because they KNEW that many americans can't see past their own nose, and that the economy couldn't be recovered fast enough to keep them satisfied, so that they could say OMG SO MANY PROBLEMS BLAH BLAH BLAH VOTE FOR US. I used to BE A REPUBLICAN when they were actually /gasp moderate, too bad the last few moderate republicans left HAD THEIR OWN PARTY turn on them.
LEARN TO THINK LONG TERM AMERICA
This is a rant, and i somewhat apologize, but I really had to say this.
We need to cut entitlements, I think, to more reasonable levels. I kind of think of the whole budgeting think like a diet. We need to cut calories (spending), to have any long term success. Exercising (taxing, bc it hurts, right? ) will help, but a balance of both would bring the most success.
On November 04 2010 00:19 Varth wrote: Anyone who says that Obama is increasing taxes in 60 days, obviously doesn't have their facts straight, its a tax break expiring that SHOULD EXPIRE because OBVIOUSLY the USA is strapped for money. My states Universities have been faced with such shortages that they needed to lay off teachers, and close buildings, all because people cant stand not being able to buy their stupid fucking coffee just 1 time a day instead of 3-4, or one less outfit A YEAR.
lol, I know this was aimed at me. Let me repeat
"well see how much taxes go up in 60 days"...
Take some time to think that over before calling someone out.
State Universities fall under the same problem as public schools. That has little to do with more taxes...
How can Boehner get away with calling the health care system that is famous for being the worst in the world 'the best in the world'? How the hell does he get to say that without anyone cringing or anyone calling him out on that stupidity?
Exact quote:"" [...] will kill jobs in America, ruin the best health care system in the world, and bankrupt our country,"
Yes, Obama failed to reduce the power of the insurance companies and give the customers a tool to have a strong negotiating positions vs the insurance companies so they can keep overcharging. Also, the system is still extremely bureaucratic. If a system is too bureaucratic it is going to cost jobs and that's good, btw. The more people doing useless jobs the more labor free to increase the wealth of a nation.
I thought people disapproved of Obama's HCR because it didn't go far enough and didn't fix the major problems. Only problem I think it fixed is lack of prevention of very serious and costly diseases that could have been prevented at very low expense. Like people that need a 1 dollar pill a day that get a heart attack and are on intensive care for months before they die.
But how the fuck can Boehmer call it 'best in the world' and still win an election. Does he mean 'best in the world for the insurance companies' or what?
On November 04 2010 02:23 Xtar wrote: How can Boehner get away with calling the health care system that is famous for being the worst in the world 'the best in the world'? How the hell does he get to say that without anyone cringing or anyone calling him out on that stupidity?
Exact quote:"" [...] will kill jobs in America, ruin the best health care system in the world, and bankrupt our country,"
Yes, Obama failed to reduce the power of the insurance companies and give the customers a tool to have a strong negotiating positions vs the insurance companies so they can keep overcharging. Also, the system is still extremely bureaucratic. If a system is too bureaucratic it is going to cost jobs and that's good, btw. The more people doing useless jobs the more labor free to increase the wealth of a nation.
I thought people disapproved of Obama's HCR because it didn't go far enough and didn't fix the major problems. Only problem I think it fixed is lack of prevention of very serious and costly diseases that could have been prevented at very low expense. Like people that need a 1 dollar pill a day that get a heart attack and are on intensive care for months before they die.
But how the fuck can Boehmer call it 'best in the world' and still win an election. Does he mean 'best in the world for the insurance companies' or what?
Sadly this is completely unsurprising. Often a boldfaced lie is a more effective tactic than a fact/reason-based argument.
This goes both ways although I think the tactic is somewhat more useful for conservatives at the moment, given what both parties want to accomplish.
On November 03 2010 12:24 tree.hugger wrote: [quote] How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
Pass laws that don't affect the budget deficit, Republicans are mad.
Pass laws that increase the deficit, Republicans mad.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
sight...
What was the question again? And what are you trying to say?
I am saying Democrats have done and will do more to reign in the deficit than Republicans ever have
How about, spend less than you tax.
I agree. Lets raise taxes so we're spending less than we tax.
I agree, but that isn't a viable option given the economy.
Plan B: Get the heck out of both wars and HEAVILY cut military funding to reign in the deficit.
I thought Obama would cut military funding and get us out of the wars, which would have cut the deficit down a lot. He didn't do that at all. He's spending money on the military like he's a Republican.
Problem is we already created the mess, we can't just up and leave it. That'll make things far worse in the long run.
I love this logic. The US invades a country, and whether through mismanagement, underestimating the opposition, incompetence, structural factors, or by design, the situation isn't improving and said country is close to a civil war. A war the USA is a direct cause of. And now, even if most people recognize the wars were a mistake and didn't go well, we still "can't" leave, because then we "abandon" the poor innocent women and children we set out to rescue in the first place *cough*. Really, what makes you think the military will handle the rest of the ongoing wars any more competently than they did originally? Second, a lot of the conflict comes from the fact that there still is an occupation, it's the US armies that provoke attacks by being in places they shouldn't be. Third, don't pretend that the military is just a security force. If you want to leave some troops behind to act as body guards for the politicians, then fine, but that's not what they're doing. Fourth, with this logic the military profits from "failure", the more incompetent, the more necessary they'll apparently be.
I think you and I have different ideas on what we're doing there, and why we haven't left yet, but I'll try to answer anyway.
I don't know if they will or not, I'm not a general. I doubt they will, but there's a chance they have an ace up their sleeve (however slim). I wasn't in favor of going into Iraq in the first place, but we're already there. I feel like we have some kind of moral obligation to try to prevent a post-occupation power vacuum like what happened with Vietnam. The best we can do right now is to train an Iraqi police force, set up some kind of government (democracy), and try to give all the tools to the people so that they can run their own country. It's worked before, and it's failed miserably before, but it requires cooperation on both sides. In the end, it's a gamble. Let me get this straight though, no one wants to be there. Our troops don't want to be there. The Iraqis don't want us there (for the most part). Our citizens (probably) don't want us there. Globally, everyone sits around pointing the finger at the US, but when asked for solutions, all you get are crickets.
On November 04 2010 02:23 Xtar wrote: How can Boehner get away with calling the health care system that is famous for being the worst in the world 'the best in the world'? How the hell does he get to say that without anyone cringing or anyone calling him out on that stupidity?
Exact quote:"" [...] will kill jobs in America, ruin the best health care system in the world, and bankrupt our country,"
Yes, Obama failed to reduce the power of the insurance companies and give the customers a tool to have a strong negotiating positions vs the insurance companies so they can keep overcharging. Also, the system is still extremely bureaucratic. If a system is too bureaucratic it is going to cost jobs and that's good, btw. The more people doing useless jobs the more labor free to increase the wealth of a nation.
I thought people disapproved of Obama's HCR because it didn't go far enough and didn't fix the major problems. Only problem I think it fixed is lack of prevention of very serious and costly diseases that could have been prevented at very low expense. Like people that need a 1 dollar pill a day that get a heart attack and are on intensive care for months before they die.
But how the fuck can Boehmer call it 'best in the world' and still win an election. Does he mean 'best in the world for the insurance companies' or what?
Worst in the world? what are you talking about? besides that being demonstrably false, I think you should look into how the US records infant fatalities opposed to how France, Britain, and the others with "better" health care systems do.
On November 03 2010 12:24 tree.hugger wrote: [quote] How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
Well in 60 days we will see how much taxes go up. That said, it still is a unknown how much healthcare would increase things. Anyways that wasn't the point...
I consider full employment to be NAIRU. I thought most people did, perhaps I am wrong
Sorry man but if you ever studied sociology you would know that there is no such thing as full employment that is a myth, a farse, a lie, because there always have to be a certain amount of unemployed people in every country so you can have a low minimum wage that makes the economy work. I didnt say it various sociologists said it and its true there will never be full employment in a capitalist free market economy.
You aren't getting it. Mainstream economists usually use full employment to denote the above 0% unemployment rate that is acceptable, usually NAIRU.
To quote Wiki, if that helps any, "It is defined by the majority of mainstream economists as being an acceptable level of natural unemployment above 0%, the discrepancy from 0% being due to non-cyclical types of unemployment. Unemployment above 0% is advocated as necessary to control inflation, which has brought about the concept of the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU); the majority of mainstream economists mean NAIRU when speaking of "full" employment."
Yes, I am perfectly aware 0% unemployment is neither possible nor desirable in a free market economy.
How can Boehner get away with calling the health care system that is famous for being the worst in the world 'the best in the world'? How the hell does he get to say that without anyone cringing or anyone calling him out on that stupidity?
In terms of health outcomes, the US is not even close to worst in the world. In terms of health outcomes when controlling for murder rates, it's pretty good actually. It's especially good if you control for ethnicity, for what it's worth.
The problem with the US healthcare system is it's so goddamn expensive.
On November 04 2010 03:06 maliceee wrote: Worst in the world? what are you talking about? besides that being demonstrably false, I think you should look into how the US records infant fatalities opposed to how France, Britain, and the others with "better" health care systems do.
US infant mortality is below Cuba. All those countries you mention are way higher and are all also examples of not so good health care systems. But even France and Britain have better results for half the costs.
Comparing the humongous expensive health care system of the US to third world countries isn't fair. I never said US has the worst health care in the world. It has some of the worst results in the western worlds and is at a third world level on some stats for minorities. But imagine if a piss poor country had the same system and thus the same value for money. What country has a system that's worse?
On November 04 2010 02:23 Xtar wrote: How can Boehner get away with calling the health care system that is famous for being the worst in the world 'the best in the world'? How the hell does he get to say that without anyone cringing or anyone calling him out on that stupidity?
Exact quote:"" [...] will kill jobs in America, ruin the best health care system in the world, and bankrupt our country,"
Yes, Obama failed to reduce the power of the insurance companies and give the customers a tool to have a strong negotiating positions vs the insurance companies so they can keep overcharging. Also, the system is still extremely bureaucratic. If a system is too bureaucratic it is going to cost jobs and that's good, btw. The more people doing useless jobs the more labor free to increase the wealth of a nation.
I thought people disapproved of Obama's HCR because it didn't go far enough and didn't fix the major problems. Only problem I think it fixed is lack of prevention of very serious and costly diseases that could have been prevented at very low expense. Like people that need a 1 dollar pill a day that get a heart attack and are on intensive care for months before they die.
But how the fuck can Boehmer call it 'best in the world' and still win an election. Does he mean 'best in the world for the insurance companies' or what?
Worst in the world? what are you talking about? besides that being demonstrably false, I think you should look into how the US records infant fatalities opposed to how France, Britain, and the others with "better" health care systems do.
"Worst" was hopefully a hyperbole. If not it is certainly inaccurate; at the very least, the US system outperforms those of developing nations.
The CDC determined that reporting differences alone cannot account for the disparities in infant mortality rates.
Currently the World Health Organization ranks the US system 49th in the world. Even in areas we think our system should do well, such as quality of service, it is rather mediocre. That we pay 2-3x as much for services that are no better, arguably even a little sub-par, is outrageous.
On November 04 2010 03:06 maliceee wrote: Worst in the world? what are you talking about? besides that being demonstrably false, I think you should look into how the US records infant fatalities opposed to how France, Britain, and the others with "better" health care systems do.
US infant mortality is below Cuba. All those countries you mention are way higher and are all also examples of not so good health care systems. But even France and Britain have better results for half the costs.
Comparing the humongous expensive health care system of the US to third world countries isn't fair. I never said US has the worst health care in the world. It has some of the worst results in the western worlds and is at a third world level on some stats for minorities. But imagine if a piss poor country had the same system and thus the same value for money. What country has a system that's worse?
Of course its below Cuba, thats because they use different standards that omit infant mortality that the US keeps. keep in mind that Fidel Castro wants you to believe Cuba is great, just like Kim Jon Il wants you to believe North Korea is best korea. just because you see a statistic doesn't mean you should believe it. Use you head and realize what Cuba does. You can't use Cuba as an argument against the US healthcare system. they aren't even comparable.
On November 04 2010 03:06 maliceee wrote: Worst in the world? what are you talking about? besides that being demonstrably false, I think you should look into how the US records infant fatalities opposed to how France, Britain, and the others with "better" health care systems do.
US infant mortality is below Cuba. All those countries you mention are way higher and are all also examples of not so good health care systems. But even France and Britain have better results for half the costs.
Comparing the humongous expensive health care system of the US to third world countries isn't fair. I never said US has the worst health care in the world. It has some of the worst results in the western worlds and is at a third world level on some stats for minorities. But imagine if a piss poor country had the same system and thus the same value for money. What country has a system that's worse?
uh...thats because they use the different system accounting for mortality rates in infants. As in, there is a system the WHO wants countries to abide by. This is that any sign of life (heart-beat, breathing, motion) qualifies the baby as being alive and it shouldn't be counted as a death. The US abides by this rule. Guess what countries don't? Cuba, Belgium, Canada, France, Slovakia, Switzerland..etc. They go by statistics such as size or taking a breath outside of the womb before the baby can count as a fatality. If the US followed the system that Canada does, or France, they would actually have lower infant mortality rates than those two countries, and that is with the much higher teen pregnancy rate in the US.
Basically, the US counts abortions more than 12 weeks.
Those countries do not.
That is a shit ton of deaths added.
You specifically said it is famous for being the worst health system in the world....
As for the guy above me who said I got "g-ged" or whatever...lol whos talking out of their ass? maybe you could contribute something instead of having an incorrect one liner. Is it like some running joke where anyone who doesn't agree with a liberal view point watches fox news? I don't even have cable lol. I read Drudge, Huffpost, Breitbart, Dailykos, and BBC. so yea, youre way off there buddy.
I never said infant mortality rate have any special significance. But the fact is that the statistics are what they are and US scores lower than France, UK and even Cuba.
And no, Cuba's number isn't cooked up by Castro. Cuba is shitpoor. Partly because of 60 years of economic warfare with the US, which is hard to survive. And partly because their centralized style of government, where everything had to go Castro himself, is very inefficient. But still Cuba has impressive health care. Cuban doctors work all over Latin America. The number is real, though there are always reasons who it is low that may not give a good picture of how the health care system performs.
On November 04 2010 03:57 Xtar wrote: I never said infant mortality rate have any special significance. But the fact is that the statistics are what they are and US scores lower than France, UK and even Cuba.
And no, Cuba's number isn't cooked up by Castro. Cuba is shitpoor. Partly because of 60 years of economic warfare with the US, which is hard to survive. And partly because their centralized style of government, where everything had to go Castro himself, is very inefficient. But still Cuba has impressive health care. Cuban doctors work all over Latin America. The number is real, though there are always reasons who it is low that may not give a good picture of how the health care system performs.
did you watch sicko and believe everything you heard? it sounds like it.
The fact that you didn't say that is what is significant. It has a huge effect on the WHO rankings. That should be obvious.
You brought up infant mortality. Not me. You were wrong. Not me. Why blame it on me?
I never even said you can compare those stats fairly. They just are what they are. You also claim Cuba's number is fake. If so, why didn't they have extremely low infant mortality ever since Casto has been in power? Or even before that? It's not like the US supported dictatorship were any better, though they probably didn't at all care if they looked like politicians that completely go against the interest of their people. Cuba's infant mortality used to be very high. It got progressively lower to what it is today.
If you claim it is fake, better give some evidence. You don't trust Castro. Fine. I don't either. But why trust any other government?
I'll be the first to say our system is far from perfect, but you can't accuse one person of lying when they call it the best in the world when you yourself just called it "famous for being the worst in the world."
Seriously? You talk about the WHO and their ranking of health care systems. Have you looked at the criteria they used to determine that list? It was basically a bunch of "how socialized is this aspect of it" where systems with higher socialization ranked higher than systems with low socialization (e.g. the USA).
Yeah, there's a lot fucked up with the US health care system and how it's basically run by insurance companies, but if you think that a health care system on the scale of the US that's as socialized as, say one in Northern Europe is going to somehow be more effective or more efficient then you've been listening to the wrong people.
So yes the statistics are what they are, Xtar, but the statistics you're referring to basically tell us what we already know (that healthcare in the US is less socialized than that in parts of Europe) and have relatively little to do with patient mortality/morbidity/whatever else actually matters.
Would you go to Cuba to get your brain tumor removed? No, you'd do it here for several times the cost because we have much better equipment, training, and experience.
On November 04 2010 04:03 Xtar wrote: You brought up infant mortality. Not me. You were wrong. Not me. Why blame it on me?
I never even said you can compare those stats fairly. They just are what they are.
No, you just ignored the entire point of what I was saying. Your original post was flat out wrong, or "hyperbole" as you put it when you got called on the bullshit.
I brought up the point that you should look up the infant mortality rates and how they are tallied. This was to show an example that the WHO's rankings are not trustworthy because not all countries follow their guidelines but the WHO ranks them as if they do.
You responded to this with a WHO ranking of infant mortality rates. It's a self-defeating argument.
I never brought up Cuba, infant mortality or the WHO. I never said heath care in the US is poor. They have some of the best hospitals there.
I only said the US has the worst system. Cuba's system is clearly better because it costs almost nothing as they have no money and has decent results. What country has a worse system? And don't come with some country that doesn't even have one, line Somalia or something.
maliceee, you said I should look at infant mortality. Apparently you thought US scored better than France and UK. I never looked at any stats because I know from memory that on all the different infant mortality scores US scores lower than those countries and even Cuba. I never said anything more about that. I never denied there isn't a reason why these numbers aren't representative. You were just wrong. Sorry.
So we have the worst system in the world but some of the best health care there is? How does that work again?
Ours costs more because we do all the medical research that Cuba doesn't. We have better, more up-to-date equipment, training, and procedures than Cuba does.
On November 04 2010 04:10 Xtar wrote: I never brought up Cuba, infant mortality or the WHO. I never said heath care in the US is poor. They have some of the best hospitals there.
I only said the US has the worst system. Cuba's system is clearly better because it costs almost nothing as they have no money and has decent results. What country has a worse system? And don't come with some country that doesn't even have one, line Somalia or something.
maliceee, you said I should look at infant mortality. Apparently you thought US scored better than France and UK. I never looked at any stats because I know from memory that on all the different infant mortality scores US scores lower than those countries and even Cuba. I never said anything more about that. I never denied there isn't a reason why these numbers aren't representative.You were just wrong. Sorry.
Correct me if I'm not understanding you right here. You admit that those numbers mean almost nothing in the context they're being used, but still use them as such to tell Maliceee he's wrong?
On November 04 2010 04:10 Xtar wrote: I never brought up Cuba, infant mortality or the WHO. I never said heath care in the US is poor. They have some of the best hospitals there.
I only said the US has the worst system. Cuba's system is clearly better because it costs almost nothing as they have no money and has decent results. What country has a worse system? And don't come with some country that doesn't even have one, line Somalia or something.
You never brought up Cuba? I'm confused, what is this then?
On November 04 2010 03:20 Xtar wrote:
US infant mortality is below Cuba. All those countries you mention are way higher and are all also examples of not so good health care systems. But even France and Britain have better results for half the costs.
Comparing the humongous expensive health care system of the US to third world countries isn't fair. I never said US has the worst health care in the world. It has some of the worst results in the western worlds and is at a third world level on some stats for minorities. But imagine if a piss poor country had the same system and thus the same value for money. What country has a system that's worse?
Oh, thats you bringing up Cuba using the very stats that you used to say the US has the worst system in the world. Which country is worse than Cuba is irrelevent, your original post was false and then you ignored the entire point about the WHO rankings. Like you still are.
Your edit explains a lot. You took my first post and misunderstood in completely, as did that ocean guy. I said to look at the way the US counts infant mortalities compared to those other countries, not the WHO ranking. I mean, the whole point was that the US was lower than those countries because of the way the US system counts infants deaths.
youre confusing me with your abolute misunderstanding of my inital post.
Maybe you should read and comprehend it fully before answering.
On November 04 2010 04:17 Igakusei wrote: Correct me if I'm not understanding you right here. You admit that those numbers mean almost nothing in the context they're being used, but still use them as such to tell Maliceee he's wrong?
Yes, because he thought he could prove US health care is better because US has lower infant death than France and UK.
Just because the US has some of the best hospitals in the world doesn't mean the average US hospital ranks really really high in the world. I suggest you people read into some of the stuff first. It's not such a simple matter.
And US health care isn't super expensive because of research. Why would you even think they would charge US people who need heath care so they can research new technologies to be used in the rest of the world? Even if that's right, how is that 'the best in the world' for anyone American? Makes no sense.
And it's sad to see US people here let their politicians get away with a blatant lie while they harass some guy on the internet to death about a debatable point.
If you want to call what N Korea has actual health care and an actual health care system then maybe N Korea has a worse system. They still have to invent anesthesia. And while you can blame the US in part for N Korea's absolute isolation from the rest of the world, you can also blame N Korea itself, of course.
So there you have it. N Korea has the worst health care in the world. Now what about that Boehner guy?
On November 04 2010 04:17 Igakusei wrote: Correct me if I'm not understanding you right here. You admit that those numbers mean almost nothing in the context they're being used, but still use them as such to tell Maliceee he's wrong?
Yes, because he thought he could prove US health care is better because US has lower infant death than France and UK.
Just because the US has some of the best hospitals in the world doesn't mean the average US hospital ranks really really high in the world. I suggest you people read into some of the stuff first. It's not such a simple matter.
And US health care isn't super expensive because of research. Why would you even think they would charge US people who need heath care so they can research new technologies to be used in the rest of the world? Even if that's right, how is that 'the best in the world' for anyone American? Makes no sense.
And it's sad to see US people here let their politicians get away with a blatant lie while they harass some guy on the internet to death about a debatable point.
If you want to call what N Korea has actual health care and an actual health care system then maybe N Korea has a worse system. They still have to invent anesthesia. And while you can blame the US in part for N Korea's absolute isolation from the rest of the world, you can also blame N Korea itself, of course.
So there you have it. N Korea has the worst health care in the world.
I never said I could prove that first of all, and I didn't think I could. Don't know where you got that from.
You lied just in just as straightforward a way as boehner did, then used a flawed system and the wrong statistics that you admittedly did not even look up first. But hey, maybe Boehner was just using hyperbole.
On November 04 2010 04:17 Igakusei wrote: Correct me if I'm not understanding you right here. You admit that those numbers mean almost nothing in the context they're being used, but still use them as such to tell Maliceee he's wrong?
Yes, because he thought he could prove US health care is better because US has lower infant death than France and UK.
Just because the US has some of the best hospitals in the world doesn't mean the average US hospital ranks really really high in the world. I suggest you people read into some of the stuff first. It's not such a simple matter.
And US health care isn't super expensive because of research. Why would you even think they would charge US people who need heath care so they can research new technologies to be used in the rest of the world? Even if that's right, how is that 'the best in the world' for anyone American? Makes no sense.
And it's sad to see US people here let their politicians get away with a blatant lie while they harass some guy on the internet to death about a debatable point.
If you want to call what N Korea has actual health care and an actual health care system then maybe N Korea has a worse system. They still have to invent anesthesia. And while you can blame the US in part for N Korea's absolute isolation from the rest of the world, you can also blame N Korea itself, of course.
So there you have it. N Korea has the worst health care in the world.
I actually didn't realize you had completely misunderstood malicee's post either. I hadn't mentioned it because I thought it was already covered and old news, but apparently you still don't get it. Go read malicee's last post again.
Countries like Cuba don't need to do research because we publish everything we find, and all they have to do is read and implement. We're spending the money on ourselves, and the fact that other countries benefit is just a side effect. Research isn't the only reason our health care is more expensive, but it's a pretty big one. Does that make more sense?
Don't call me a liar. It's a lie. He knows what he said isn't true. I believe that what I said is true and I even argued it to the point there was no counterargument. Also, if you didn't think infant mortality would prove a point, what was your point?
Then enjoy keeping to have to pay way too much then. Don't tell me I didn't warn you.
Xtar, US healthcare is badly in need of reform, but you were being hyperbolic by calling the US healthcare system "worst in the world." The ironic thing is it's closer to being best in the world than worst in the world, which is what started this whole sub-discussion in the first place.
I'll happily pay more than Cuba so we can continue to share the best technology in the world. If you want to cut costs to the point that your primary providers are all under-educated DNPs and little if any new research is done, be my guest but please don't do it in my country.
On November 04 2010 04:33 Xtar wrote: Don't call me a liar. It's a lie. He knows what he said isn't true. I believe that what I said is true and I even argued it to the point there was no counterargument. Also, if you didn't think infant mortality would prove a point, what was your point?
Then enjoy keeping to have to pay way too much then. Don't tell me I didn't warn you.
What? if i didn't think infant mort.....im.....so....confused.have you read anything I wrote?
The US healthcare system has problems, yes. It has many hospitals that provide some of the best care in the world, but it also has many under-served inner-city areas that still have significant problems. Yes, reform is needed (almost nobody argues this).
The problem is that people seem to think that opposing the health care bill means that you are against health-care-reform period and desire to maintain the status quo (this is not true).
And I'm not just harassing some poor guy on the internet to death. I found both your argument and your logic to be offensive, and felt the need to reply to them.
Very few people disagree that we can greatly improve our health care system with regard to how we treat certain (often minority) populations... the disagreement is in the best way to do it. And a lot of that is more a social problem than a medical problem. It seems to boil down to how much of a welfare state we want to have, and ends up having very little to do with the efficacy of our medical knowledge, policies, and techniques.
Putting Cuba's health care above America's is like putting CSU Northridge above Harvard. Sure it's cheaper, but that isn't the criteria you should use for "better".
FUN FACT: Americans pay twice as much per person for healthcare than Canadians.
And every single person gets it, for free? And we pay less for medication? Damn, its almost like we're not siphoning off billions into our overclass' pockets...
Slightly off-topic to the healthcare debate thing, but does anyone have a handy link to a site tallying up the total victories? I remember there was like an interactive map or something that someone linked that showed who won in each state in each election, but unfortunately I'm on a work computer right now so I don't have any of the previously given links available.
On November 04 2010 05:02 Wysp wrote: FUN FACT: Americans pay twice as much per person for healthcare than Canadians.
And every single person gets it, for free? And we pay less for medication? Damn, its almost like we're not siphoning off billions into our overclass' pockets...
Distorted political rhetoric? You guys pay TWICE AS MUCH PER PERSON FOR HEALTH CARE. Even in government spending you pay more per capita and you don't treat everyone! The not treating everyone is why your folks die so young, as compared to countries with similar racial demographics and eating habits.
On November 04 2010 05:02 Wysp wrote: FUN FACT: Americans pay twice as much per person for healthcare than Canadians.
And every single person gets it, for free? And we pay less for medication? Damn, its almost like we're not siphoning off billions into our overclass' pockets...
On November 04 2010 05:14 Wysp wrote: Distorted political rhetoric? You guys pay TWICE AS MUCH PER PERSON FOR HEALTH CARE. Even in government spending you pay more per capita and you don't treat everyone! The not treating everyone is why your folks die so young, as compared to countries with similar racial demographics and eating habits.
Where is the political rhetoric?
Canada's racial demographics and eating habits are not similar to the US's at all. Also, your health care is cheaper because you control supply and prices, which is pretty much a political non-starter in the US. The AMA would never go for it.
Yes Canadians need to spend more money on healthcare. Do we need to spend 3000 more per capita meet our new challenges? Nope, well less and we'll still treat everyone.
Thanks for firing some political rhetoric at me, though.
And about 2 - 5 weeks. If you break your leg you get it fixed ASAP. No unnecessary waiting. There are walk in clinics everywhere if you want to have an issue seen today and even if you phone your family doctor and say its pretty urgent for personal reasons they will let you in that day or the next...
having lived in 5 different provinces I can say this is not isolated.
On November 04 2010 05:14 Wysp wrote: Distorted political rhetoric? You guys pay TWICE AS MUCH PER PERSON FOR HEALTH CARE. Even in government spending you pay more per capita and you don't treat everyone! The not treating everyone is why your folks die so young, as compared to countries with similar racial demographics and eating habits.
Where is the political rhetoric?
Also, your health care is cheaper because you control supply and prices
This is a huge point that albeit is often overlooked in healthcare debates.
On November 04 2010 05:14 Wysp wrote: Distorted political rhetoric? You guys pay TWICE AS MUCH PER PERSON FOR HEALTH CARE. Even in government spending you pay more per capita and you don't treat everyone! The not treating everyone is why your folks die so young, as compared to countries with similar racial demographics and eating habits.
Where is the political rhetoric?
Canada's racial demographics and eating habits are not similar to the US's at all. Also, your health care is cheaper because you control supply and prices, which is pretty much a political non-starter in the US. The AMA would never go for it.
they totally are, you guys do eat a bit worst but this big Canadian - American culture divide is a myth. You have a few more black people but overall we are the same.
We minimize what glaxokleinsmith and pfizer can gouge for their drugs, its true, but they don't leave our markets. They make a fortune in Canada.
The biggest thing is all the bloat you guys feel from profit. The insurance companies you run are inefficient and siphon off as much cash to their shareholders/owners as possible. Do you really need to make the mega wealthy more wealthy in everything you do?
I guess you believe so, and in my experience people with minds as owned as yours have no hope. But I'll probably respond a few more times anyway...
edit: I will add our doctors make less too, but they still make a killing. I guess not having kickbacks for prescribing as many meds as possible is a bad thing...
On November 04 2010 05:22 Wysp wrote: Yes Canadians need to spend more money on healthcare. Do we need to spend 3000 more per capita meet our new challenges? Nope, well less and we'll still treat everyone.
Thanks for firing some political rhetoric at me, though.
And about 2 - 5 weeks. If you break your leg you get it fixed ASAP. No unnecessary waiting. There are walk in clinics everywhere if you want to have an issue seen today and even if you phone your family doctor and say its pretty urgent for personal reasons they will let you in that day or the next...
having lived in 5 different provinces I can say this is not isolated.
The the difference is that even though you have it, your government is paying more per capita for it and you pay thousands (often tens of thousands) for it also.
they totally are, you guys do eat a bit worst but this big Canadian - American culture divide is a myth.
Hey, I'd be the first person to argue Canada is basically America, Jr., but we definitely eat a lot worse. According to FAO, we consume about 10% more calories and fat grams.
You have a few more black people but overall we are the same.
We also have quite a few more Latino people and the socioeconomic distribution is quite a bit different (we have far more people on the lower end).
We minimize what glaxokleinsmith and pfizer can gouge for their drugs, its true, but they don't leave our markets. They make a fortune in Canada.
Marginal cost of drugs is negligible.
I guess you believe so, and in my experience people with minds as owned as yours have no hope. But I'll probably respond a few more times anyway...
Ironic, it looks like your mind is already made up. Maybe next time you should do a better job at gauging my opinions before judging me? Like, I don't know, reading some of the posts I've made in this very thread? Check the previous pages.
Or you can go on trolling with your silly "derp" meme. It's up to you if you want people to take you seriously or not.
The the difference is that even though you have it, your government is paying more per capita for it and you pay thousands (often tens of thousands) for it also.
derp
Yeah skip the actual details and go attack something. Oh don't forget that you didn't even deal with the one about "imploding" or did not you not read it?
On November 04 2010 05:02 Wysp wrote: FUN FACT: Americans pay twice as much per person for healthcare than Canadians.
And every single person gets it, for free? And we pay less for medication? Damn, its almost like we're not siphoning off billions into our overclass' pockets...
You get what you pay for. Free government healthcare is a joke. You get seen at overloaded clinics with doctors that don't provide the same type of care if you had insurance you paid for since government healthcare reduces the payment made to doctors for the visit. It doesn't get cheaper because the doctors can just reject those patients leaving things just how they are right now. Reform my ass.
Its funny though, since you pay so much more through your government and your own pocket.
- if there is an opinion there is a semi-credible news source funded by some political party or another who supports it. The only statisics and news I have been talking about are
-Life expectancy, as provided by the CIA -Government spending on healthcare, as provided by the Canadian and American government bureaucracies.
Don't have time to deal with every brilliantly constructed think tank news machine.
And yes my mind is absolutely made up. I see more power in my hands in Canada, and more money in my pocket as related to healthcare. How the fuck do you expect to convince me I should pay more for healthcare only at the cost of more people suffering illness?
On November 04 2010 05:46 Wysp wrote: Its funny though, since you pay so much more through your government and your own pocket.
- if there is an opinion there is a semi-credible news source funded by some political party or another who supports it. The only statisics and news I have been talking about are
-Life expectancy, as provided by the CIA -Government spending on healthcare, as provided by the Canadian and American government bureaucracies.
Don't have time to deal with every brilliantly constructed think tank news machine.
(derp)
Singapore doesn't have a nationalized healthcare system like Canada, but they have better health outcomes than Canada, and lower per capita spending. Same with the Netherlands.
On November 04 2010 05:48 Wysp wrote: And yes my mind is absolutely made up. I see more power in my hands in Canada, and more money in my pocket as related to healthcare. How the fuck do you expect to convince me I should pay more for healthcare only at the cost of more people suffering illness?
big ol' DERP
Cause the US isn't communist and not everyone is as altruistic as yourself.
On November 04 2010 05:48 Wysp wrote: And yes my mind is absolutely made up. I see more power in my hands in Canada, and more money in my pocket as related to healthcare. How the fuck do you expect to convince me I should pay more for healthcare only at the cost of more people suffering illness?
big ol' DERP
I pay much less in taxes than you do and my healthcare premiums are very low thanks to government tax breaks. And no waiting periods for me either.
Wait wait wait? What's altruistic about paying less?
Healthcare in the Netherlands is financed by a dual system that came into effect January 2006. Long-term treatments, especially those that involve semi-permanent hospitalization, and also disability costs such as wheelchairs, are covered by a state-controlled mandatory insurance.
(hopefully this dutch website will cock slap you with the truth in a second...)
Singapore has a universal healthcare system where government ensures affordability
On November 04 2010 05:46 Wysp wrote: Its funny though, since you pay so much more through your government and your own pocket.
- if there is an opinion there is a semi-credible news source funded by some political party or another who supports it. The only statisics and news I have been talking about are
-Life expectancy, as provided by the CIA -Government spending on healthcare, as provided by the Canadian and American government bureaucracies.
Don't have time to deal with every brilliantly constructed think tank news machine.
(derp)
Wait you don't have time? I think you mean something else...
Yeah classic you don't want to acknowledge that they may have points so you try to discredit them.
Oh read this
SASKATOON–The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says Canada's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
Healthcare in the Netherlands is financed by a dual system that came into effect January 2006. Long-term treatments, especially those that involve semi-permanent hospitalization, and also disability costs such as wheelchairs, are covered by a state-controlled mandatory insurance.
(hopefully this dutch website will cock slap you with the truth in a second...)
Singapore has a universal healthcare system where government ensures affordability
edit; oh i forgot
HEEEEERRR HEREEEERRRRR DEEEEERP
I think too much French language education has hurt your ability to read English. Those are not nationalized health care systems, they are government subsidized private systems. Like, oh, what the US has.
I totally agree, our government needs to budget more money to healthcare. The costs needed will still leave us thousands per capita behind your underclass ass
On November 04 2010 05:53 Wysp wrote: Wait wait wait? What's altruistic about paying less?
Healthcare in the Netherlands is financed by a dual system that came into effect January 2006. Long-term treatments, especially those that involve semi-permanent hospitalization, and also disability costs such as wheelchairs, are covered by a state-controlled mandatory insurance.
(hopefully this dutch website will cock slap you with the truth in a second...)
Singapore has a universal healthcare system where government ensures affordability
edit; oh i forgot
HEEEEERRR HEREEEERRRRR DEEEEERP
I think too much French language education has hurt your ability to read English. Those are not nationalized health care systems, they are government subsidized private systems. Like, oh, what the US has.
except the american system is fucked and governments control the cost... exactly what you are against
edit" fucked as in profits are drawn from it on mass and uncontrolled up until Obama
On November 04 2010 05:55 Wysp wrote: I totally agree, our government needs to budget more money to healthcare. The costs needed will still leave us thousands per capita behind your underclass ass
I have a lot of Canadian friends and family members. They are pretty poor compared to me. The median Canadian income adjusted for PPP and government benefits would be considered poor by American standards.
Read into the Clinton era attempt at healthcare reform. Millions and millions spent on lobbying to crush it and the American senators and lobbyists who were the man agents were given awesome paying jobs in insurance companies after it was quashed.
On November 04 2010 05:55 Wysp wrote: I totally agree, our government needs to budget more money to healthcare. The costs needed will still leave us thousands per capita behind your underclass ass
I have a lot of Canadian friends and family members. They are pretty poor compared to me. The median Canadian income adjusted for PPP and government benefits would be considered poor by American standards.
I lied i will say on more thing
hdi
that is all
also your economic reasoning is not actually reflecting reality. i see you know what a big mac index is but canadians are rich as fuck
except the american system is fucked and governments control the cost... exactly what you are against
edit" fucked as in profits are drawn from it on mass and uncontrolled up until Obama
ohh ohhh deeeerp
Maybe it's that misshapen brain tumor that you're unable to get fixed that's hampering your ability to comprehend English.
I've already said the American system is fucked, and I happen to agree cost controls might be better than the status quo, but as I explained, the Canadian system would never happen in the US. So thanks for your useless input.
On November 04 2010 05:59 Wysp wrote: MY LAST POST I AM NOT READING ANYTHING ELSE.
Read into the Clinton era attempt at healthcare reform. Millions and millions spent on lobbying to crush it and the American senators and lobbyists who were the man agents were given awesome paying jobs in insurance companies after it was quashed.
have fun I got shit to do
derp
I guess you didn't hear about ACA? Your igloos don't have TV?
On November 04 2010 05:55 Wysp wrote: I totally agree, our government needs to budget more money to healthcare. The costs needed will still leave us thousands per capita behind your underclass ass
I have a lot of Canadian friends and family members. They are pretty poor compared to me. The median Canadian income adjusted for PPP and government benefits would be considered poor by American standards.
I lied i will say on more thing
hdi
that is all
also your economic reasoning is not actually reflecting reality. i see you know what a big mac index is but canadians are rich as fuck
HDI is a stupid, made-up stat, but even then, Canada and the US are within the margin of error that it's basically tied. Canadians are rich as fuck compared to Africans, but they're poorer than Americans. Hope you enjoy your underclass polar bear riding nation.
On November 04 2010 05:48 Wysp wrote: And yes my mind is absolutely made up. I see more power in my hands in Canada, and more money in my pocket as related to healthcare. How the fuck do you expect to convince me I should pay more for healthcare only at the cost of more people suffering illness?
On November 04 2010 06:10 Wysp wrote: Its actually a significant gap between Canadians and Americans on HDI. Also our public is wealthy than your due to disparity of wealth.
Now I'm actually gone, but I couldn't stand that I left without saying
I thought you left?
HDI is silly for arbitrarily weighing life expectancy equally with income when the latter is far more important when it comes to development. But anyway, no, the gap is not statistically significant.
Also, your public is not more wealthy. The top 2/3 of Americans are richer than their Canadian counterparts. This despite having far more poor immigrants.
When you control for ethnicity/nationality, the difference is even starker.
It's hard to talk to someone who fakes having Down Syndrome at the end of every post just to remind you that they're talking down to you and aren't actually listening to anything you have to say. It's too bad this forum doesn't seem to have an ignore feature.
Ever since people have been polling the US population around 65% of Americans have been in favor of government run health care. How come both of the political parties have been against this all these years when health care is also one of the major issues voters care about? Even now the democrats didn't reform correctly. Isn't the US a democracy? How is it possible that politicians don't listen en voters vote against their own interest?
As for those people that still like the US health care system or somehow still want to defend it; get real. People won't even believe you are serious, even if you are. So stop it already. People won't believe that they care more about your wallet then you do. In the end you are paying and not some Canadian, Australian or Swiss.
The US system is the only private system in the industrialized world. And exactly for that reason it is the most expensive. In all other western countries the government uses it's purchasing power to negotiate a lower prize. In the US this is illegal by law, yet the government does it for everything else it needs.
The system is basically deliberately not fixed to benefit the insurance and pharmacy corporations. In the US you buy an election through marketing. You don't have real elections in the US. So private industry basically buys the politicians and they just don't reform because they don't have the support to do so.
On November 04 2010 07:53 Xtar wrote: Ever since people have been polling the US population around 65% of Americans have been in favor of government run health care. How come both of the political parties have been against this all these years when health care is also one of the major issues voters care about? Even now the democrats didn't reform correctly. Isn't the US a democracy? How is it possible that politicians don't listen en voters vote against their own interest?
As for those people that still like the US health care system or somehow still want to defend it; get real. People won't even believe you are serious, even if you are. So stop it already.
Lobbies. Also, I didn't know any of us were defending the current health care system in all its aspects.
I was somewhat disappointed by the results of the election. Shame to see Mark Schauer (Michigan 7th district) go, he's a great guy and his ideology I find sane for a change. I really feel like it doesn't matter who we elect into office, its the corporations and interest groups behind them that will be controlling the policy. We need some campaign finance reform before we can truly have some democratic elections.
On November 04 2010 08:17 Xtar wrote: Someone just told you you were wrong. You should fix your definition.
Hi back to the Netherlands and Singapore from the Netherlands.
He was wrong. In fact, many countries use private health care systems with government subsidies/requirements. I think it's more common than the Canadian and British systems, where doctors are effectively government employees.
Unless you meant something else by "private system"?
Also, the Dutch system got worse by the change they did make. They privatized a part of the health care system which introduced a lot of bureaucracy and market ideology doesn't work when it comes to health care. This was both predicted by many economic studies done, like at Duke, and this is the in practice result. Dutch health care system is not a good one and not one to copy.
On November 04 2010 08:27 Xtar wrote: Yes, people mean something else than you do.
Also, the Dutch system got worse by the change they did make. They privatized a part of the health care system which introduced a lot of bureaucracy and market ideology doesn't work when it comes to health care. This was both predicted by many economic studies done, like at Duke, and this is the in practice result. Dutch health care system is not a good one and not one to copy.
Well, explain what you meant then when you said the US is the only "private system" in the industrialized world?
Even before the 2006 reforms, the Dutch system was a private system with public and private funding (kind of like the US!). The Duke article predicts the changes might not do well in reducing costs, but it didn't say anything about health outcomes, IIRC. As of 2009, Dutch expenditure of healthcare is 9.3% of GDP, lower than Canada and France.
Anyway, why aren't we all advocating that we copy Singapore? It spends 3.3% of its GDP on health expenditures, but its health outcomes are extremely good. It basically requires catastrophic insurance and provides some subsidies, that's about it.
On November 04 2010 07:53 Xtar wrote: Isn't the US a democracy? How is it possible that politicians don't listen en voters vote against their own interest?
On November 04 2010 07:53 Xtar wrote: Ever since people have been polling the US population around 65% of Americans have been in favor of government run health care. How come both of the political parties have been against this all these years when health care is also one of the major issues voters care about? Even now the democrats didn't reform correctly. Isn't the US a democracy? How is it possible that politicians don't listen en voters vote against their own interest?
As for those people that still like the US health care system or somehow still want to defend it; get real. People won't even believe you are serious, even if you are. So stop it already. People won't believe that they care more about your wallet then you do. In the end you are paying and not some Canadian, Australian or Swiss.
The US system is the only private system in the industrialized world. And exactly for that reason it is the most expensive. In all other western countries the government uses it's purchasing power to negotiate a lower prize. In the US this is illegal by law, yet the government does it for everything else it needs.
The system is basically deliberately not fixed to benefit the insurance and pharmacy corporations. In the US you buy an election through marketing. You don't have real elections in the US. So private industry basically buys the politicians and they just don't reform because they don't have the support to do so.
On November 04 2010 07:53 Xtar wrote: Ever since people have been polling the US population around 65% of Americans have been in favor of government run health care. How come both of the political parties have been against this all these years when health care is also one of the major issues voters care about? Even now the democrats didn't reform correctly. Isn't the US a democracy? How is it possible that politicians don't listen en voters vote against their own interest?
As for those people that still like the US health care system or somehow still want to defend it; get real. People won't even believe you are serious, even if you are. So stop it already. People won't believe that they care more about your wallet then you do. In the end you are paying and not some Canadian, Australian or Swiss.
The US system is the only private system in the industrialized world. And exactly for that reason it is the most expensive. In all other western countries the government uses it's purchasing power to negotiate a lower prize. In the US this is illegal by law, yet the government does it for everything else it needs.
The system is basically deliberately not fixed to benefit the insurance and pharmacy corporations. In the US you buy an election through marketing. You don't have real elections in the US. So private industry basically buys the politicians and they just don't reform because they don't have the support to do so.
Noam Chomsky's is a hilarious linguist. He doesn't know another language.
Am I a shitty veterinarian if I specialize in dogs? Am I a hilarious engineer if I specialize in bridges?
No. No I am not. If linguist meant, "Know many languages" such a criticism might make sense.
As for Chomsky on buying elections, I remain unconvinced.
Does money flow to a winning candidate, or does a candidate win because money flowed to him\her? It seems chicken-and-the-egg and lacking a clear answer to me. Perhaps the evidence exists and I just haven't been confronted with it.
maliceee, don't be a liar. I never said anything about what a republic is. Just because the US has a president rather than a king doesn't mean it isn't a democracy. Apparently you think that monarchies are democracies and republics are tyrannies?
Also, you are wrong on Chomsky.
As for the elections costing money, that's because they are marketed and marketing costs money. It's no secret that huge donations come from all kinds of corporations. It's also no secret politicians act contrary to their electorate. But the most expensive marketing is not always the best one.
On November 04 2010 15:52 Xtar wrote: maliceee, don't be a liar. I never said anything about what a republic is. Just because the US has a president rather than a king doesn't mean it isn't a democracy. Apparently you think that monarchies are democracies and republics are tyrannies?
Also, you are wrong on Chomsky.
As for the elections costing money, that's because they are marketed and marketing costs money. It's no secret that huge donations come from all kinds of corporations. It's also no secret politicians act contrary to their electorate. But the most expensive marketing is not always the best one.
I pledge allegiance, to the republic...
i kid i kid, i could care less what you guys want to call it... i pretty much think that these loose definitions of political structure are just that.. generalizations, each country has a vastly different political structure.. instead of trying to fit it into a group, just call it "America"
I tend to think that the United States has got some stuff right, I like checks and balances, and the 3 branches of government.. I think that is a good start..., but sometimes I dislike checks and balances(when my personal agenda gets opposed :p.. im greedy like that).. but I'm pretty upset with the 2 party system which I really don't think is working well for us, and just politics and politicians in general..
On November 04 2010 15:52 Xtar wrote: maliceee, don't be a liar. I never said anything about what a republic is. Just because the US has a president rather than a king doesn't mean it isn't a democracy. Apparently you think that monarchies are democracies and republics are tyrannies?
Also, you are wrong on Chomsky.
As for the elections costing money, that's because they are marketed and marketing costs money. It's no secret that huge donations come from all kinds of corporations. It's also no secret politicians act contrary to their electorate. But the most expensive marketing is not always the best one.
how am i lying? the hostility from you is scary dude.
How is referencing the US then putting "democracy" in quotations not giving the idea that the US says its a democracy but in reality it's not?
The sentence, "Just because the US has a president rather than a king doesn't mean it isn't a democracy" doesn't make sense. Since when did having a king signal a democracy?
How am I wrong about Chomsky. First of all if you couldn't tell that wasn't in the least bit serious gain a few sarcastic points. Second of all, he doesn't know another language and that is all I said about him.
On November 04 2010 07:53 Xtar wrote: Ever since people have been polling the US population around 65% of Americans have been in favor of government run health care. How come both of the political parties have been against this all these years when health care is also one of the major issues voters care about? Even now the democrats didn't reform correctly. Isn't the US a democracy? How is it possible that politicians don't listen en voters vote against their own interest?
As for those people that still like the US health care system or somehow still want to defend it; get real. People won't even believe you are serious, even if you are. So stop it already. People won't believe that they care more about your wallet then you do. In the end you are paying and not some Canadian, Australian or Swiss.
The US system is the only private system in the industrialized world. And exactly for that reason it is the most expensive. In all other western countries the government uses it's purchasing power to negotiate a lower prize. In the US this is illegal by law, yet the government does it for everything else it needs.
The system is basically deliberately not fixed to benefit the insurance and pharmacy corporations. In the US you buy an election through marketing. You don't have real elections in the US. So private industry basically buys the politicians and they just don't reform because they don't have the support to do so.
Noam Chomsky's is a hilarious linguist. He doesn't know another language.
Am I a shitty veterinarian if I specialize in dogs? Am I a hilarious engineer if I specialize in bridges?
No. No I am not. If linguist meant, "Know many languages" such a criticism might make sense.
As for Chomsky on buying elections, I remain unconvinced.
Does money flow to a winning candidate, or does a candidate win because money flowed to him\her? It seems chicken-and-the-egg and lacking a clear answer to me. Perhaps the evidence exists and I just haven't been confronted with it.
youre a shitty veterinarian if you ONLY know how to treat dogs.
On November 04 2010 16:34 maliceee wrote: how am i lying? the hostility from you is scary dude.
By deliberately telling something that you know is not true. I have this habit to tell people they are liars when I believe they are. If you can't handle that I suggest you manner up and avoid it in the future.
How is referencing the US then putting "democracy" in quotations not giving the idea that the US says its a democracy but in reality it's not?
I don't even understand what your mean because of the grammar. But just because a country is a republic that doesn't mean it's not a democracy. You are deliberately equivocating the meaning of the word. Let me tell you a little secret. Plato is dead. He died a long time ago and a lot of things happened since then.
The sentence, "Just because the US has a president rather than a king doesn't mean it isn't a democracy" doesn't make sense. Since when did having a king signal a democracy?
You tell me. If you ask me a republic is more democratic than a constitutional monarchy. It's just that those two forms are most common for western countries.
How am I wrong about Chomsky.
Because he speaks several languages.
First of all if you couldn't tell that wasn't in the least bit serious gain a few sarcastic points. Second of all, he doesn't know another language and that is all I said about him.
How am I supposed to tell considering everything you have told so far. 'Sarcastic points'? You have to build up a certain reputation first before you can successfully engage in sarcasm. Don't blame me for that. I mean, you still believe he doesn't speak any other languages. If I would have identified this as satire I would either have IDed both statements are satire or both as genuine. People just can't recognize when you are for real and when you are joking. So don't joke. It doesn't work.
On November 04 2010 07:53 Xtar wrote: Ever since people have been polling the US population around 65% of Americans have been in favor of government run health care. How come both of the political parties have been against this all these years when health care is also one of the major issues voters care about? Even now the democrats didn't reform correctly. Isn't the US a democracy? How is it possible that politicians don't listen en voters vote against their own interest?
As for those people that still like the US health care system or somehow still want to defend it; get real. People won't even believe you are serious, even if you are. So stop it already. People won't believe that they care more about your wallet then you do. In the end you are paying and not some Canadian, Australian or Swiss.
The US system is the only private system in the industrialized world. And exactly for that reason it is the most expensive. In all other western countries the government uses it's purchasing power to negotiate a lower prize. In the US this is illegal by law, yet the government does it for everything else it needs.
The system is basically deliberately not fixed to benefit the insurance and pharmacy corporations. In the US you buy an election through marketing. You don't have real elections in the US. So private industry basically buys the politicians and they just don't reform because they don't have the support to do so.
Noam Chomsky's is a hilarious linguist. He doesn't know another language.
Am I a shitty veterinarian if I specialize in dogs? Am I a hilarious engineer if I specialize in bridges?
No. No I am not. If linguist meant, "Know many languages" such a criticism might make sense.
As for Chomsky on buying elections, I remain unconvinced.
Does money flow to a winning candidate, or does a candidate win because money flowed to him\her? It seems chicken-and-the-egg and lacking a clear answer to me. Perhaps the evidence exists and I just haven't been confronted with it.
youre a shitty veterinarian if you ONLY know how to treat dogs.
Treat =\= specialize, but perhaps it was a bad example. Linguistics is a science and sciences are heavily specified as far as average jobs go. It doesn't change the fact linguists do not need to know different languages.
On November 04 2010 15:52 Xtar wrote: maliceee, don't be a liar. I never said anything about what a republic is. Just because the US has a president rather than a king doesn't mean it isn't a democracy. Apparently you think that monarchies are democracies and republics are tyrannies?
Also, you are wrong on Chomsky.
As for the elections costing money, that's because they are marketed and marketing costs money. It's no secret that huge donations come from all kinds of corporations. It's also no secret politicians act contrary to their electorate. But the most expensive marketing is not always the best one.
how am i lying? Second of all, he doesn't know another language and that is all I said about him.
you also said he's a hilarious linguist. one can take this as either a comedian that is also a linguist, or a linguist of laughable stature. And I haven't seen him doing any acts at comedy clubs!
though I just noticed the irony you've brought to us. A semantic ambiguity
nevertheless Chomsky is incredibly intelligent. my favourite debate of his is with Buckley way way back. And if you study linguistics, you'll learn even more about him.
On November 04 2010 16:34 maliceee wrote: how am i lying? the hostility from you is scary dude.
By deliberately telling something that you know is not true. I have this habit to tell people they are liars when I believe they are. If you can't handle that I suggest you manner up and avoid it in the future.
How is referencing the US then putting "democracy" in quotations not giving the idea that the US says its a democracy but in reality it's not?
I don't even understand what your mean because of the grammar. But just because a country is a republic that doesn't mean it's not a democracy. You are deliberately equivocating the meaning of the word. Let me tell you a little secret. Plato is dead. He died a long time ago and a lot of things happened since then.
The sentence, "Just because the US has a president rather than a king doesn't mean it isn't a democracy" doesn't make sense. Since when did having a king signal a democracy?
You tell me. If you ask me a republic is more democratic than a constitutional monarchy. It's just that those two forms are most common for western countries.
First of all if you couldn't tell that wasn't in the least bit serious gain a few sarcastic points. Second of all, he doesn't know another language and that is all I said about him.
How am I supposed to tell considering everything you have told so far. 'Sarcastic points'? You have to build up a certain reputation first before you can successfully engage in sarcasm. Don't blame me for that. I mean, you still believe he doesn't speak any other languages. If I would have identified this as satire I would either have IDed both statements are satire or both as genuine. People just can't recognize when you are for real and when you are joking. So don't joke. It doesn't work.
Hm perhaps I should handle this a different way. What specifically did I lie about?
You can't be a democracy and a republic man. Maybe you should study what the US is instead of just being an asinine person who thinks he's always right. The electoral college kind of negates your point, sorry.
in that interview he states he would love to be ABLE to speak another language, and the closest evidence anyone has to him speaking another language is he studied Hebrew, So i guess youre a liar, or ignorant. Maybe you could post a source to back it up, but I doubt you will.
and about the American public be more wealthy than the Canadian, ha. So many more expenses and the rich are so top heavy that it skews the GDP per capita into looking like people have more. Also HDI is about the universal healthcare Canadians and other developed nations have combined with the massive amounts of cash we save. 20 year olds without parental support do not have their lives pulled apart by a broken leg.
The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds.
its almost like I was presenting uncontested facts and arguing with blathering idiots... hmm
and about the American public be more wealthy than the Canadian, ha. So many more expenses and the rich are so top heavy that it skews the GDP per capita into looking like people have more. Also HDI is about the universal healthcare Canadians and other developed nations have combined with the massive amounts of cash we save. 20 year olds without parental support do not have their lives pulled apart by a broken leg.
The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds.
its almost like I was presenting uncontested facts and arguing with blathering idiots... hmm
Is there a reason to add that in there? they're not uncontested facts, theyre statistics that are debatable.
You are blatantly ignoring the differences in wealth in the US except when it fits your perception.
The US has different income levels and the majority of those can be measured by location. A teacher in New York makes twice as much as a teacher in Mississippi, a banker in Maine makes more than a banker in Maryland, a trashman in New York City makes more than a trashman in Albany. The poverty line in the US is hard to gauge because of this. A person in GA could live comfortably off 20k a year living alone while a person in Los Angeles would struggle to find a place to live with running water. Taxes can not be decided upon as simply as you and others seem to think. "We need more money for healthcare" is hardly ever the answer. It almost certainly comes down to how the money is currently being spent, and I think the US education system is proof of this. The funding has increased by huge amounts over time yet the schools get worse and heavier in debt each year. A lot of that has to do with teacher unions, but that is another topic altogether.
Statistics can be used to fit any point of view. There has to be some concrete reasoning with statistics for them to be used properly. While it is easy for smaller countries to tout their tax system and healthcare, they always leave out the fact that the US is the only country in the world with such a large amount of urban and rural areas. The tax system is different under each state and for good reason. A heavy tax or subsidy on corn in one state may have a drastic negative or positive affect, while in another it could be the exact opposite. This is true on a smaller scale in smaller and more densely populated countries (like the UK for example), but the effect is exponentially greater in the US.
If anything, it's annoying when other countries tell us how stupid we are and make fun of our politicians when they have leaders like sarkozy and his affair with a man eater, or tony blair, or Berlusconi, or ahmadinejad, or chavez, or castro, morales.
Merkel, on the other hand, is awesome, so germany can say whatever they want. I would move there if i could that country rocks.
Chomsky said that he would love to be bilingual or multilingual. He doesn't even technically say he isn't. But your interpretation that he thinks he isn't bilingual is correct. But that doesn't mean he doesn't speak any languages other than English.
If you hear me speak in English, rather than write, you'll instantly hear I am not bilingual. Now if you want to proof me he knows Hebrew that's hard to do because I would have to have him cite sources that are Hebrew and that were never translated. I know he does that. But I don't know Hebrew at all and I have no clue how to conclusively proof to you that there isn't a secret private translation somewhere in a MIT drawer somewhere. I don't know exactly how good his French and Yiddish are, but certainly he has some ability in those as well.
Anyway, I see you just refuse to accept you are wrong in one of the most simple and obvious cases one can conceive of; the US health care system. So what point is there still in debating you. You are too far out to be reasoned with.
On November 05 2010 03:10 Xtar wrote: Chomsky said that he would love to be bilingual or multilingual. He doesn't even technically say he isn't. But your interpretation that he thinks he isn't bilingual is correct. But that doesn't mean he doesn't speak any languages other than English.
If you hear me speak in English, rather than write, you'll instantly hear I am not bilingual. Now if you want to proof me he knows Hebrew that's hard to do because I would have to have him cite sources that are Hebrew and that were never translated. I know he does that. But I don't know Hebrew at all and I have no clue how to conclusively proof to you that there isn't a secret private translation somewhere in a MIT drawer somewhere. I don't know exactly how good his French and Yiddish are, but certainly he has some ability in those as well.
Anyway, I see you just refuse to accept you are wrong in one of the most simple and obvious cases one can conceive of; the US health care system. So what point is there still in debating you. You are too far out to be reasoned with.
What a great rebuttal. If anyone here is close-minded and has their mind made up its you.
There is nothing worse than a person who feigns superiority when they have nothing to back it up.
Actually, calling someone a liar when you yourself don't know what you're talking about is worse. Congratulations.
On November 05 2010 03:29 maliceee wrote: What a great rebuttal.
Like I said, I don't care anymore. You are beyond reason.
There's actual hard evidence I could give you, but I just like to see you rage. For example, there's a certain very famous debate that should come up for everyone. Well, at least those that aren't ignorant. That's pretty conclusive evidence.
On November 05 2010 03:29 maliceee wrote: What a great rebuttal.
Like I said, I don't care anymore. You are beyond reason.
There's actual hard evidence I could give you, but I just like to see you rage. For example, there's a certain very famous debate that should come up for everyone. Well, at least those that aren't ignorant. That's pretty conclusive evidence.
You cared before? because those posts were pretty bad also. You called me a liar when you were demonstrably wrong, If anyone's rage quitting its you.
If anyone with actual knowledge on this subject wants to show me more than personal anecdotes and WHO rankings that would be great. Xtar's tapping out, not that he was ever really in it.
You think you won an internet debate against someone you think is an idiot by lying. Well done.
Enjoy your country under Obama and Boehner and enjoy paying those health care bills. When you do at least you can remember how won this debate against me and not feel as bad as you would feel otherwise.
On November 05 2010 04:31 Xtar wrote: Of course I am tapping out. I don't care.
You think you won an internet debate against someone you think is an idiot by lying. Well done.
Enjoy your country under Obama and Boehner and enjoy paying those health care bills. When you do at least you can remember how won this debate against me and not feel as bad as you would feel otherwise.
ok then, bye? I don't mind when someone as blinded as you doesn't want to debate and actually understand what's going on. It's like a sign of "I realized I have no idea what I'm talking about so I resort to ad homs and blanket statements."
I appreciate other point of views when theyre rational and explain their reasoning. You do neither.
On November 04 2010 07:53 Xtar wrote: Ever since people have been polling the US population around 65% of Americans have been in favor of government run health care. How come both of the political parties have been against this all these years when health care is also one of the major issues voters care about? Even now the democrats didn't reform correctly. Isn't the US a democracy? How is it possible that politicians don't listen en voters vote against their own interest?
As for those people that still like the US health care system or somehow still want to defend it; get real. People won't even believe you are serious, even if you are. So stop it already. People won't believe that they care more about your wallet then you do. In the end you are paying and not some Canadian, Australian or Swiss.
The US system is the only private system in the industrialized world. And exactly for that reason it is the most expensive. In all other western countries the government uses it's purchasing power to negotiate a lower prize. In the US this is illegal by law, yet the government does it for everything else it needs.
The system is basically deliberately not fixed to benefit the insurance and pharmacy corporations. In the US you buy an election through marketing. You don't have real elections in the US. So private industry basically buys the politicians and they just don't reform because they don't have the support to do so.
Noam Chomsky's is a hilarious linguist. He doesn't know another language.
Chomsky, whatever else you might say about him, is a very accomplished linguist. The fact that you don't know anything about formal language theory speaks more about your ignorance than his.
On November 05 2010 03:29 maliceee wrote: What a great rebuttal.
Like I said, I don't care anymore. You are beyond reason.
There's actual hard evidence I could give you, but I just like to see you rage. For example, there's a certain very famous debate that should come up for everyone. Well, at least those that aren't ignorant. That's pretty conclusive evidence.
You cared before? because those posts were pretty bad also. You called me a liar when you were demonstrably wrong, If anyone's rage quitting its you.
If anyone with actual knowledge on this subject wants to show me more than personal anecdotes and WHO rankings that would be great. Xtar's tapping out, not that he was ever really in it.
Malicee, Noam Chomsky uses the maximal definition of biligual: being as fluent in another language as you are in your native language.
I am bilingual by the maximal definition, because I speak polish and english equally well. But I can get by in german, chinese and (well, i would if anyone spoke it anymore) latin.
On November 05 2010 03:29 maliceee wrote: What a great rebuttal.
Like I said, I don't care anymore. You are beyond reason.
There's actual hard evidence I could give you, but I just like to see you rage. For example, there's a certain very famous debate that should come up for everyone. Well, at least those that aren't ignorant. That's pretty conclusive evidence.
You cared before? because those posts were pretty bad also. You called me a liar when you were demonstrably wrong, If anyone's rage quitting its you.
If anyone with actual knowledge on this subject wants to show me more than personal anecdotes and WHO rankings that would be great. Xtar's tapping out, not that he was ever really in it.
Malicee, Noam Chomsky uses the maximal definition of biligual: being as fluent in another language as you are in your native language.
I am bilingual by the maximal definition, because I speak polish and english equally well. But I can get by in german, chinese and (well, i would if anyone spoke it anymore) latin.
Besides this being completely off topic, maybe you could provide me with a source of that? Unlike Xtar I searched for any information as to if he is bilingual and there was nothing. The most information I found was his studying hebrew and being Jewish.
That is what bilingual is should be, being equally comfortable in two languages. I am bilingual in French and English, but if I went with just getting by I guess I am multi lingual in Japanese, Spanish, and Latin also?
I can't help you with that. I just remember that little tidbit from a lecture I once went to. I don't know if he is fluent in other languages.
The thing is, among linguists, there are two different definitions of multilingual: the maximal, where you have to be as fluent in your second/third/etc as you are in your native and the minimal, where your fluency has to be sufficient to get by.
So by the maximal definition, you are bilingual and by the minimal definition you are pentalingual.
You needed have "tapped out" Xtar, the guy your arguing with insinuated a completely unjustified claim, that in order to be proficient in linguistics you must speak another language.
If you want to beat him in an internet argument then deductively highlight the ignorance of his starting point
On November 06 2010 18:47 XeliN wrote: You needed have "tapped out" Xtar, the guy your arguing with insinuated a completely unjustified claim, that in order to be proficient in linguistics you must speak another language.
If you want to beat him in an internet argument then deductively highlight the ignorance of his starting point
There was another site that was like, "Obama's Promise Counter" or something that had a complete list of all the official promises he made before he was elected and it showed the status of each of them, like "Completed", "In Progress", or "Not Fulfilled" or something like that.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.urbandigs.com/great-depression-gdp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/images/avgimages/graph1930-1939.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.economicshelp.org/uploaded_images/Gdp-us-20-40-767020.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mR-m2iPsjKs/SZlLjR9kSiI/AAAAAAAAH0g/dptC2LIodek/s400/2009-02-16-USUnemployment_1930_1950d.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i53.tinypic.com/2lw2k1z.jpg)
go out and take part in the political process. The only way it gets better is if citizens participate. Voting, volunteering for a campaign, writing/calling your representatives, writing an opinion piece, these are all how you can make the system better. Also remember, even if you didn't vote for the guy/gal that represents you in whatever political office they still work for you. You are still their constituent and it's important to make sure they know that. ![[image loading]](http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/expend.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/pupil.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/title1.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/investment.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/speced.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/oecd.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.icmarc.org/ImageCache/rc/content/marketview/chart/2004/20040610reaganslegacy_2ectt/v2/image_5b_40id_3d_22chart_22_5d/1/chart20040610.gif)
![[image loading]](http://uspoliticsguide.com/images/Presidents-history/1984-electoral-map.gif)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2YvXTEZIY7Q/THGIu_sC2PI/AAAAAAAAA98/SeHq7L_6eoQ/s1600/1+-+Bush+Obama+Jobs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2YvXTEZIY7Q/THGJFA3p-xI/AAAAAAAAA-E/QgC5twSnKc4/s1600/1+-+Reagan+Jobs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/J2bJBl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/privatejobs_aug10.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/LNS14000000_110095_1288727026566.gif)
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/SxXXFx28TZI/AAAAAAAAFBc/mwZYaYFvjJ0/s640/bush_deficit_vs_obama_deficit_in_pictures_2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif)
).
.![[image loading]](http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.pauliddon.net/img/n%2520korea%2520satellite.jpg&sa=X&ei=C4TQTJ3HKIyksQO8q_j7AQ&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFn724mvXfL7pgsnk0VRnkElIY1Iw)
![[image loading]](http://i51.tinypic.com/28qzs04.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://randomoverload.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/9118a56c30arties.jpg.jpg)
or this, and just have everyone run as independents.
