On November 04 2010 09:08 Chanted wrote: Im praying for the democrats to win the next 100 elections or so. Basically Bush took everything Clinton built up, and turned into rubble, and let the next democrat try to build it up. Now Americans are whining because Obama doesnt have a magic fix for all the crappy shit that Bush stirred up. Thats only internal politics.
I`d love to see the socalled weapons of mass destruction Iraq apparently were producing. Watching Colin Powell present jokelike materiale (pictures of some trailers) and thats is enough to justify USA to invade a country, and it turns out, wooops, no weapons there, but oh wait, we found some oil.. go figure.
Your health system is a joke. Its the most dividing system ever. If you dont have insurance, your screwed. You could look towards Europe for some ideas. given our systems arent perfect, but atleast here you can get help eventhough your not rich.
Sarah Palin is a joke, just like George (I am not so smart) Bush, how on earth did you actually vote him in as a president, that is beyond me. I wouldnt be surprised if Palin gets president one day, jumping after Bush should be easy pickings
You do know that the President has no legislative power, right? Under Clinton, the Democrats controlled congress from 1992-1994, then the Republicans controlled it from 1995-2000. Which of those periods do you think was better?
It's insane how much attention the US media and the rest of the world pays to the President when the real power lies in Congress.
Also, large number of Americans like capitalism and see economic freedom as the source of our prosperity. The Democrats are the party of the anti-capitalists and the unions. .
I was skeptical before, but I had to completely stop reading here.
Democrats? Anti-business?
Lesson: Democrats and Republicans are bought out by different business interests. Example: Banks, manufacturing for Democrats. Oil, coal, defense for Republicans.
We have a business party divided into two wings with some minor variations away from the corporate center. Voting Republican to promote capitalism is pretty funny, I have to say.
Also, large number of Americans like capitalism and see economic freedom as the source of our prosperity. The Democrats are the party of the anti-capitalists and the unions. .
I was skeptical before, but I had to completely stop reading here.
Democrats? Anti-business?
Lesson: Democrats and Republicans are bought out by different business interests. Example: Banks, manufacturing for Democrats. Oil, coal, defense for Republicans.
We have a business party divided into two wings with some minor variations away from the corporate center. Voting Republican to promote capitalism is pretty funny, I have to say.
They are not completely anti-capitalist, but they have the anti-capitalists in their coalition and pander to them. The Democrats would rather place a higher tax on businesses to provide more government programs because they think government programs do more good. On the other hand, the Republicans would be in favor of cutting more government programs and taxing business less. The Democrats are currently pushing for a permanent increase in the portion of the economy that belongs to the public sector.
The differences are marginal. The Democrats would like to see the federal government consume about 30% of the economy and the Republicans are pushing for something more like 20%. But that's what we get to vote on.
Republicans also tend to favor free trade. The free trade agreement with South Korea has been held up with the Democratic congress and now it might have a chance of passing
The source of the Tea Party are disgruntled workers who thought Obama was going to heal the economy with some fantasy magic wand. They don't understand that the bailout was not a "get out of jail free" card but to save the credit market that was heading to the gutter to lead the economy into a deeper recession than what we're facing today. They don't understand that Obama was handed 1 trillion in debt and a shitty economy that was contributed by the deregulated nature of free-market economy in addition to policies like tax cuts which were backed by unsound economic principles. They are people who think that complicated political talk is bad political talk so they would rather have soccer moms and people who don't know the First Amendment to dictate complex policy decisions of our nation. They don't even try to understand health care reform, they prefer to call Obama a socialist.
The Tea Party is not an intellectual movement that has any real substance, it's just a bunch of idiots who know something is wrong via the economy but have no idea where the culprit lies. They point to the dems for convenience and are living the lie that replacing them will fix all their problems.
On November 04 2010 15:25 lvatural wrote: The source of the Tea Party are disgruntled workers who thought Obama was going to heal the economy with some fantasy magic wand. They don't understand that the bailout was not a "get out of jail free" card but to save the credit market that was heading to the gutter to lead the economy into a deeper recession than what we're facing today. They don't understand that Obama was handed 1 trillion in debt and a shitty economy that was contributed by the deregulated nature of free-market economy in addition to policies like tax cuts which were backed by unsound economic principles. They are people who think that complicated political talk is bad political talk so they would rather have soccer moms and people who don't know the First Amendment to dictate complex policy decisions of our nation. They don't even try to understand health care reform, they prefer to call Obama a socialist.
The Tea Party is not an intellectual movement that has any real substance, it's just a bunch of idiots who know something is wrong via the economy but have no idea where the culprit lies. They point to the dems for convenience and are living the lie that replacing them will fix all their problems.
For others on this thread, please note that Americans with obvious left-wing biases are going to have a hard time honestly characterizing the Tea Party. I am a right-winger and I have been involved with elements of the Tea Party and I find this unfair.
On November 04 2010 14:54 skurj wrote: In America, many of us are quite amazed at the extent of the left-wing in Europe. We see that the French government raised the retirement age by 2 years because they had to, otherwise the country would go bankrupt, and French citizens riot in the street and demand their handouts! Demanding handouts is very unAmerican. We believe that a person should take responsibility for himself and only seek help if he falls on hard times. Many people on the right-wing believe that socialism corrupts the morality and spirit of a people, it makes them soft and dependent, infantilized. We see the riots in France and this confirms our negative views of socialism.
The problem with saying that everyone should just ''take responsibility'' for themselves is that people are not born equal in terms of their capacity to provide from themselves. Some people are born into rich families while some people are born into poor ones. Then there's the simple fact that people are not equally gifted in areas that matter when it comes to making money, not everyone is Einstein-smart or Usain Bolt-athletic.
So, a system based on the idea that everyone has the same possibilites for wealth is in my opinion not a very fair system at all.
Also, large number of Americans like capitalism and see economic freedom as the source of our prosperity. The Democrats are the party of the anti-capitalists and the unions. .
I was skeptical before, but I had to completely stop reading here.
Democrats? Anti-business?
Lesson: Democrats and Republicans are bought out by different business interests. Example: Banks, manufacturing for Democrats. Oil, coal, defense for Republicans.
We have a business party divided into two wings with some minor variations away from the corporate center. Voting Republican to promote capitalism is pretty funny, I have to say.
They are not completely anti-capitalist, but they have the anti-capitalists in their coalition and pander to them. The Democrats would rather place a higher tax on businesses to provide more government programs because they think government programs do more good. And maybe they do for the Democratic constituents who are the poor that get welfare and the rich that get student aid. On the other hand, the Republicans would be in favor of cutting more government programs and taxing business less. Republicans believe that this does more good.
Republicans also tend to favor free trade. The free trade agreement with South Korea has been held up with the Democratic congress and now it might have a chance of passing
I disagree. Free trade agreements are hardly ever free trade. It is more like managed trade with balance of power skewed heavily protectionist to property\IP owners and against the wills of a majority of the people. If you took such an agreement to be the definition of free trade, well, in that case you are right.
As for the public sector, both Democrats and Republicans are quite willing and have in the past expanded it. They generally expand it along the lines of the business interests that support them and it is fairly predictable that Republicans will ramp up military\defence\intelligence spending and subsidies for their favorite buddies (Oil, Defense, Agriculture). It is also obvious that Democrats will deregulate and support their banking, high-tech, and manufacturing buddies.
Looking at spending over the years it should be plainly obvious that both sides have increased the scope and control of the government in their own respective arenas. I would even go so far as to argue Democrats have been more successful in reigning in spending with PAYGO & higher taxes.
To point out the issue simply; A Democrat could now run for office claiming they reduced the size of the government by ending oil subsidies, cutting military spending, instituting PAYGO and a deficit commission, and granting social freedoms. They chose not to run campaigns that way, but they could certainly do it and be correct.
On November 04 2010 14:54 skurj wrote: In America, many of us are quite amazed at the extent of the left-wing in Europe. We see that the French government raised the retirement age by 2 years because they had to, otherwise the country would go bankrupt, and French citizens riot in the street and demand their handouts! Demanding handouts is very unAmerican. We believe that a person should take responsibility for himself and only seek help if he falls on hard times. Many people on the right-wing believe that socialism corrupts the morality and spirit of a people, it makes them soft and dependent, infantilized. We see the riots in France and this confirms our negative views of socialism.
The problem with saying that everyone should just ''take responsibility'' for themselves is that people are not born equal in terms of their capacity to provide from themselves. Some people are born into rich families while some people are born into poor ones. Then there's the simple fact that people are not equally gifted in areas that matter when it comes to making money, not everyone is Einstein-smart or Usain Bolt-athletic.
So, a system based on the idea that everyone has the same possibilites for wealth is in my opinion not a very fair system at all.
This discussion is on too simple a level. I support some programs for the poor but I think programs that provide benefits for everyone are dangerous and a bad idea. This country isn't going bankrupt because of programs for the poor, it is going bankrupt because of our large entitlement programs that cover everyone and military spending. I am fine with food stamps and college subsidies for poor students but I would like to see parts of Social Security and Medicare rolled back. In particular, I would like to see them means-tested so that only poor people could draw benefits.
I can't speak for the entire right wing but I am sure many agree with me.
Hell, even the left wing would agree that safety net programs should be means tested. GL trying to convince most republicans to do that since a meaningful means test would deny medicare/social security to most of the republican support base :|
Thats the thing I find most amusing/sad about the election. The republicans won't do anything about the deficit, since they won't touch social security, medicare and they don't believe that tax cuts need to be offset.
On November 04 2010 14:54 skurj wrote: In America, many of us are quite amazed at the extent of the left-wing in Europe. We see that the French government raised the retirement age by 2 years because they had to, otherwise the country would go bankrupt, and French citizens riot in the street and demand their handouts! Demanding handouts is very unAmerican. We believe that a person should take responsibility for himself and only seek help if he falls on hard times. Many people on the right-wing believe that socialism corrupts the morality and spirit of a people, it makes them soft and dependent, infantilized. We see the riots in France and this confirms our negative views of socialism.
The problem with saying that everyone should just ''take responsibility'' for themselves is that people are not born equal in terms of their capacity to provide from themselves. Some people are born into rich families while some people are born into poor ones. Then there's the simple fact that people are not equally gifted in areas that matter when it comes to making money, not everyone is Einstein-smart or Usain Bolt-athletic.
So, a system based on the idea that everyone has the same possibilites for wealth is in my opinion not a very fair system at all.
In the US, you don't have to be an intellectual genius or a pro athlete to be successful. Most people are able to do very well, some do exceptionally well. Some people aren't able to get by, and there are many safety nets for those people. If the US embraced equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity, the successful would have to be penalized for being successful. The drive to succeed would be diminished, killing off innovation and improvement. Ford probably wouldn't have worked so hard to invent automobiles if he knew that most/all of the profit he would make because of it would have to go to other people.
I don't understand why so many people think that being successful and wealthy is bad for everyone else and that rich people hoard all their money. Rich people buy and all kinds things that other people are producing and selling. I wouldn't be surprised if rich people buying yachts, cars, and huge houses created more jobs than Obama's $800 billion. It takes a lot of people to build a yacht, and those people aren't as rich as the people buying it, and I guarantee they're making money doing it.
Life in general isn't fair. I would rather have the possibility of gettin a super hot gf than have the government issue me a marginal one. Same w/ life.
Sorry if I sound like Limbaugh, but that makes sense to me.
Politically: Democrats are viewed upon as ultra-conservative. Republicans are viewed upon as outright insane.
Few norwegians spend their lives talking down the US, as we'd rather have them being the world police, than Russia or China. Your foreign politics are considered aggressive, but nowhere near the oppressive level of Israel's (whom we are very outspoken against).
I've noticed the phrase "batshit insane" used quite a bit in this thread and it reflects my opinion totally. Whenever I try to understand what's happening over there the whole convoluted system, bizarre policies and the combination of over the top patriotism with religious zeal put me off.
On November 04 2010 07:02 Almin wrote: American's are dumb.
All the Europeans here can agree.
Yesterday, there was a big vote and there were a lot of open seats in the house/senate. Guess what, Republicans take the house with ease, and almost take the Senate.
For some reason Republicans have the cash to spend millions on ads, (Which we see constantly on television) and 97% of their campaign donations are from millionaires and billionaires. Tell me, who do the Republicans represent? Not the middle class. I can't believe how idiotic Americans are, 2 years after the worst 8 years of a downward sloap, they elect the same people that got into that mess. The Republicans themselves said their agenda wouldn't change from the Bush administration.
I find it funny how hypocritical Republicans are, they say they want to cut down on government size and spending, but that same government invades 2 countries in 8 years. When the oil spill happened, they went to the government to fix it.
REPUBLICANS WERE AGAINST PUTTING BP UNDER OATH IN COURT- I MEAN COME ON, WHO DO THEY REPRESENT? The rich people. They're constantly hammering how the top 2% of Americas richest need a tax cut? LOL, they don't even spend their money so the economy wouldn't get better if the rich got one.
TL;DR= Dumb ass Americans vote in the rich white politicians again hoping that things will get better with them in the house/senate.
This is the sad truth. You should buy some glasses if you don't know this is the actualy truth. And to the ones who still think obama and all those bush like people will change anything they should try to dig further in what is actually going on.
I wouldn't have said it like that, but i tend to agree that Americans tend to vote in people representing factions that aren't their own. I think part of this has to do with he two party system, part of it has to do with the sheer monetary flow that Republicans are able to put into attack ads on TV (which is annoying as all hell, btw) and i blame the rest on just pure ignorance; people are pissed off about the countries financial situation and they are knee-jerking their way back to the people who put them in the red in the first place.
I just don't understand the reasoning... it is like having one financial planner who screws up your portfolio really badly to the point in which you switch planners because the other guys plan sucked. You finally start climbing out of the red and back in the black (or, in this case, employment is rising, economy starting to normalize again) and you say "Damn, this new guy isn't working out, lets switch back the the old guy." It seems like faulty logic at every step of the way, personally.
I almost use american politics as comic relief, i find it ridiculous that despite the US having secularism in their roots, religion still plagues the government all around. And in general, i believe that the Parliamentry system is better because it is less confusing. When i vote in a federal election, i vote for one guy and that is it; Americans have to vote for a president, a senator, and a congressman for the house of representatives. I understand that they are staggered, but there is still so many more issues to get covered, and so many more variations and platforms you need to familiarize yourself with if you want to be an informed voter at all levels. In addition to that, i feel like the average american is much more right wing than any other western country. For example, the Conservative party that is in power right now is in my opinion more liberal than the supposedly moderate/leftwing democrats.
I'm not sure I agree with the premise that Americans love to commentate on the politics of other countries, or that Americans rarely hear about how other countries view U.S. politics.
People in general are far too ignorant of their own political system to even be begin to pretend they have a grasp on another country's political system. I think a question like this is perhaps just a bit absurd. I think its just bound for ignorant arguments and frustration among both sides.
Maybe your intentions weren't for a serious discussion, but instead just for a non-serious survey to gauge the opinion of TL. Then I suppose I shouldn't be criticizing your question.
Those Taiwan videos are awesome, though. I had forgotten how the Tea Party started out referring to themselves as "tea baggers" too. So silly.
US politics reflects aspects of US culture. It caters to the the very wealthy and is focused around greed and wealth. I dont understand how the richest country in the world treats its poor so poorly. I find it wierd and wrong that you have to be a millionaire in order to be in the higher echelons of politics. The retorik of US politicians often seems stupid and based on religion or the word freedom. Much of US foreignpolitics seems again stupid and not based in pragmatism, the retorik used to gain justifacation was even more idiotic and downright false (Make afghan and iraq democracies as goal = lols). The worst thing is that the US is so infuencial worldwide that your making the political narative of EU worse by the year.
In the US, you don't have to be an intellectual genius or a pro athlete to be successful. Most people are able to do very well, some do exceptionally well. Some people aren't able to get by, and there are many safety nets for those people. If the US embraced equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity, the successful would have to be penalized for being successful. The drive to succeed would be diminished, killing off innovation and improvement. Ford probably wouldn't have worked so hard to invent automobiles if he knew that most/all of the profit he would make because of it would have to go to other people.
I don't understand why so many people think that being successful and wealthy is bad for everyone else and that rich people hoard all their money. Rich people buy and all kinds things that other people are producing and selling. I wouldn't be surprised if rich people buying yachts, cars, and huge houses created more jobs than Obama's $800 billion. It takes a lot of people to build a yacht, and those people aren't as rich as the people buying it, and I guarantee they're making money doing it.
Life in general isn't fair. I would rather have the possibility of gettin a super hot gf than have the government issue me a marginal one. Same w/ life.
Sorry if I sound like Limbaugh, but that makes sense to me.
It isn't that being wealthy is bad for everyone else, more that the distribution of wealth isn't good. In America, the average standard of living is about on par with everywhere else, however the richer people are significantly better off, and the poorer people are significantly worse. What is bad about it is that some are just naturally given wealth and it leads to some splits in population. Also, on average the more financially successful you are the higher your propensity to save is, and therefore your inverse propensity to consume is much lower... so infact the rich tend to get richer while the poor get poorer.
A good example of this is the fact that almost 20% of the US's GDP is made up of people who haven't actually given a service, but rather have just made money of the exchange of currency between two third parties. So because initially there was an equality of opportunity, some obviously failed, and then some obviously were successful. However, this means that those who had family that was previously successful have the funds and the clientele to try out opportunities that those who are born into a struggling family don't.
I mean sure, almost everyone can make a living for themselves, and sure it isn't your problem per say to ensure everyone is able to live properly, but i would argue that the point of the government is to ensure a living, or atleast a chance at living, to everyone of the nation.In this case, it is to give out an equal opportunity or everyone. But how on earth are you to provide the same opportunity for everyone when people are not born with the same capabilities (ie, having opportunities naturally taken away) or funds to get opportunities with, let alone cash in on them? In my opinion, the whole idea of an equality of opportunity is flawed... I mean, unless you want to tax the shit out of everyone to give everyone the same financial base when starting their life, but that gets back to punishing people for being successful in the first place.
Not to mention, you don't even have to be completely "socialist" either. It isn't necessary to have a 60 or 70% tax, in Canada we get away with about 35% depending on the province you live in and we have way more social programs, way better healthcare support, and we havn't "bankrupted" ourselves in debt because of fiscal policy.
I also have to say, the idea that the USA is just now "bankrupting" itself is ridiculous, you gusy have been in debt since the dawn of time.
On November 04 2010 06:00 l0st_romantic wrote: The US loves to commentate on the politics of countries elsewhere, but we rarely hear how other people think about US politics. This is not to say, of course, that other countries don't talk about or think about US politics--in fact, in China, they created full-fledged animated movies about US politics.
Please see below, courtesy of Next Media:
How does your country view US politics? Is there much discussion at all? Americans, what do you want to explain about your political system to the rest of the world?
A- Thats from a hong kong media group B- Their practices are so bad that no one think of them as legit. C- The world hates George Bush and Africans likes Obama.
On November 04 2010 07:02 Almin wrote: American's are dumb.
All the Europeans here can agree.
Yesterday, there was a big vote and there were a lot of open seats in the house/senate. Guess what, Republicans take the house with ease, and almost take the Senate.
For some reason Republicans have the cash to spend millions on ads, (Which we see constantly on television) and 97% of their campaign donations are from millionaires and billionaires. Tell me, who do the Republicans represent? Not the middle class. I can't believe how idiotic Americans are, 2 years after the worst 8 years of a downward sloap, they elect the same people that got into that mess. The Republicans themselves said their agenda wouldn't change from the Bush administration.
I find it funny how hypocritical Republicans are, they say they want to cut down on government size and spending, but that same government invades 2 countries in 8 years. When the oil spill happened, they went to the government to fix it.
REPUBLICANS WERE AGAINST PUTTING BP UNDER OATH IN COURT- I MEAN COME ON, WHO DO THEY REPRESENT? The rich people. They're constantly hammering how the top 2% of Americas richest need a tax cut? LOL, they don't even spend their money so the economy wouldn't get better if the rich got one.
TL;DR= Dumb ass Americans vote in the rich white politicians again hoping that things will get better with them in the house/senate.
This is the sad truth. You should buy some glasses if you don't know this is the actualy truth. And to the ones who still think obama and all those bush like people will change anything they should try to dig further in what is actually going on.
I wouldn't have said it like that, but i tend to agree that Americans tend to vote in people representing factions that aren't their own. I think part of this has to do with he two party system, part of it has to do with the sheer monetary flow that Republicans are able to put into attack ads on TV (which is annoying as all hell, btw) and i blame the rest on just pure ignorance; people are pissed off about the countries financial situation and they are knee-jerking their way back to the people who put them in the red in the first place.
I just don't understand the reasoning... it is like having one financial planner who screws up your portfolio really badly to the point in which you switch planners because the other guys plan sucked. You finally start climbing out of the red and back in the black (or, in this case, employment is rising, economy starting to normalize again) and you say "Damn, this new guy isn't working out, lets switch back the the old guy." It seems like faulty logic at every step of the way, personally.
I almost use american politics as comic relief, i find it ridiculous that despite the US having secularism in their roots, religion still plagues the government all around. And in general, i believe that the Parliamentry system is better because it is less confusing. When i vote in a federal election, i vote for one guy and that is it; Americans have to vote for a president, a senator, and a congressman for the house of representatives. I understand that they are staggered, but there is still so many more issues to get covered, and so many more variations and platforms you need to familiarize yourself with if you want to be an informed voter at all levels. In addition to that, i feel like the average american is much more right wing than any other western country. For example, the Conservative party that is in power right now is in my opinion more liberal than the supposedly moderate/leftwing democrats.
Just a point of fact - you speak about the money the Republicans used for attack ads, but the Democrats had the advertising money advantage in this election cycle. This is a common misconception among people that get their news from left-leaning outlets.
I am sure all the Democratic advertisements were factual, fair, and positive.
EPT
(Make afghan and iraq democracies as goal = lols).
