|
On January 05 2012 05:50 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:49 xDaunt wrote:On January 05 2012 05:48 1Eris1 wrote:On January 05 2012 05:42 xDaunt wrote:On January 05 2012 05:39 1Eris1 wrote:
I'm also curious as to say how someone like Santorum would be better than Obama? I can understand Romney/Paul/even Gingrich. But Santorum? There's probably a solid 40% of the country or so that would prefer a head of lettuce over Obama (myself included). It doesn't really matter who the Republican nominee is, that chunk of America will vote for him. I'm just confused why you would vote for someone who thinks more wars=good and wants to make the bible the leading jurisdiction in our country. -.- ....because that's not what he advocates? Have you actually watched any of the debates he's been in? Or read any of his statements?
Yep, all of them. Your statements are off the mark. In fact, they're fairly inane over-simplifications.
|
Here are some of Santorums voting records which will come back on him down the road :
Spending Record:
• No Child Left Behind in 2001
This expanded the federal government’s role in education.
• Massive new Medicare drug entitlement in 2003
Costing taxpayers over $60 billion a year while having $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
• 2005 highway bill including the Bridge to Nowhere.
In a separate vote, Santorum voted to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina
• Sponsored a bill to extend milk subsidies in 2005 to save dairy farmers
• While his earlier record in the 90's was better, his 2003-2004 session in Congress, shows that he sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending
• In 2003-04 Santorum failed to sponsor or co-sponsor just one spending cut proposal
• Supported raising congressional pay three times:2001, 2002, and 2003.
Regulation
• Voted YES on Sarbanes-Oxley
This is an overreaching bill that tried to tighten accounting regulations following the Enron scandal but which harms more than it helps
• Flip-Flopped on role of federal govt in the housing market:
In late 2000, Santorum wrote an op-ed encouraging more home ownership, particularly for low-income families, with the help of government assistance, whether it was through the Federal Housing Administration, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
This was part of the Bush push to create an "Ownership Society". Sound progressive? It is. This push contributed to the housing market bubble which collapsed.
However he did change his tune in 2005 and pushed for reform of F&F. So his record is at best mixed on this.
• Before, in 1997, Santorum offered a campaign finance reform bill as an alternative to an earlier version of McCain-Feingold which was declared unConstitutional.
Education
• Thinks the Federal govt can be involved in education with his pro-choice bills, when there is NO Constitutional authority for it because there is no enumerated power for it. Although, he seems to have switched his position, he undermines that with support for too much federal government control. See No Child Left Behind.
• He hasn't called for getting rid of Dept of Ed
Trade
• To his credit he voted against one "Managed Trade" agreement that is more crony capitalism and corporatist called Nafta. However he supported these:
Voted YES on the Oman Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
Voted YES on CAFTA
Voted YES on the Morocco FTA
Voted YES on the Australia FTA
Voted YES on the Chile FTA
Voted YES on the Singapore FTA
Voted YES to Trade Promotion Authority
|
On January 05 2012 05:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:50 1Eris1 wrote:On January 05 2012 05:49 xDaunt wrote:On January 05 2012 05:48 1Eris1 wrote:On January 05 2012 05:42 xDaunt wrote:On January 05 2012 05:39 1Eris1 wrote:
I'm also curious as to say how someone like Santorum would be better than Obama? I can understand Romney/Paul/even Gingrich. But Santorum? There's probably a solid 40% of the country or so that would prefer a head of lettuce over Obama (myself included). It doesn't really matter who the Republican nominee is, that chunk of America will vote for him. I'm just confused why you would vote for someone who thinks more wars=good and wants to make the bible the leading jurisdiction in our country. -.- ....because that's not what he advocates? Have you actually watched any of the debates he's been in? Or read any of his statements? Yep, all of them. Your statements are off the mark. In fact, they're fairly inane over-simplifications.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2012/01/02/rick-santorum-on-iran/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/santorum-iran_b_1179134.html
Yeah, he definetely wouldn't start a war or anything
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 05:49 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:27 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 05:24 Dapper_Cad wrote:On January 05 2012 05:20 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 05:12 Dapper_Cad wrote:On January 05 2012 05:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 05:00 Djzapz wrote:On January 05 2012 04:56 Voros wrote:Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. That may not suit the utopians who don't understand the real-world consequences of universal healthcare, but in a world characterized by scarcity of commodities, it's the best we have. Utopians lol =) Only in America? if everyone has a right to everything they need why should anyone bother to do anything? And once no one is doing anything, where are all those things that everyone has a right to going to come from? Because they are human. It is absolutely self evident that humans continue to be creative and work hard once they have escaped the immediate problem life threatening poverty. The key to understanding the world must be observing the world, not half baked rationalisation blacked up by some streaks of paint on a white board. The extreme libertarian position is utterly blind to observable data. Observable data says that there are a ton of shitty jobs that only get done because the people doing them have needs and wants. You think someone wants to be a ditch digger, janitor, or McDonalds worker? Well, I'm sure there are some, but most do it because if they don't they can't support themselves. You aren't disagreeing with my point, you are ranting. I say people continue to work hard after they have escaped poverty. You say that people in poverty work hard. Do you see how you have missed my point? Why would someone continue to work hard in a shitty job they don't like when they don't need the money to keep eating or living? People work hard and are creative in endeavors they enjoy. You just restated your own point, again failing to understand mine which was in response to the completely assertion that people don't work unless threatened with death. I agree that people will do shitty jobs in order to survive. I don't agree that people stop working hard when their survival is guaranteed. Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:31 v3chr0 wrote:
It really is saddening, and scary. People in America continue to ignore History, and the obvious realization that this administration wants to completely CHANGE America.
Socialism and Communism have never worked, and will continue to fail, The government doesn't give a shit about you! It's all about power, and control. WHYYYYY do people let America take 50 steps back with this administration, the things this President has done, he should have been assassinated by now - it's treachery, this Country is in turmoil, and if he wins again, it's over - this Country will never be the same again, more so than now, and I seriously think he'd start a civil war/split.
Go fucking read a history book, Capitalism isn't perfect, but it provides equal opportunity for everyone, or go live in a Country that shares your ideals on how a Country should be run. I'm a conservative, but I can handle some Democrat ideas, sometimes the private sector can get out of hand and needs regulation, but LIBERALISM, and Socialism!? HOW IS THIS OK IN AMERICA?!?
There are THOUSANDS of programs to help poor and needy people, the last thing they need is everything handed to them. My brother is a New York State EMT, he can testify that thousands of people, many are homeless, get free healthcare and treatment, even though they cannot afford it.
Fuck I hate politics, you have to explain this to people who are already too ignorant to see this, it's no use.
Our Allies look at us, and think we're fucking insane/incredibly stupid letting this Administration do what it has.
Republican 2012, or its over.
You seem to think that Obama is a socialist. I suggest you find out what the word means before you use it again. There have been some suggestions in this thread that U.S. healthcare in it's current state is approximately as efficient as socialised health care in other states. This is simply wrong. ![[image loading]](http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/factbook-2010-en/images/graphics/10-02-02-g1.gif) The U.S. health care system is wildly inefficient in comparison to other states socialised systems. Now the solution could be to try a completely new and never before seen model of healthcare based on an unprovable economic ideology and the very nebulous concept of personal freedom or you could do what other countries are doing and perhaps double the efficiency of your healthcare spending overall, maybe even reducing government healthcare spending in the process.
I'm asking why they'd continue to do something they don't like if they don't need to. That's what it comes down to for most low-end jobs. They get done because the people doing them have little other choice. If they didn't need the money provided by those jobs then they wouldn't do them anymore.
Now, your argument that people work hard even when they are already financial secure has two sides. One is that if they stopped working hard they'd probably no longer be financially secure, and two is that people work hard on things they like. I work on a mod in my free time, obviously uncompensated, because I enjoy it. I would not go to work for 8 hours a day for free, even though I generally like my job, because it's not nearly as enjoyable.
|
On January 05 2012 05:50 lvent wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:39 1Eris1 wrote:
I'm also curious as to say how someone like Santorum would be better than Obama? I can understand Romney/Paul/even Gingrich. But Santorum? Santorum will not win, he burned way to many bridges here in Pennsylvania to be able to pull this state from the D's.
Doesn't need Pennsylvania to win. Bush didn't win it either time he was elected.
"Generic Republican candidate" is polling ahead of Obama. Obama has some of the lowest approval numbers going into reelection. I believe there's never been a President that has been reelected with an approval rating like his. The fact of the matter is any candidate has a pretty good shot at beating Obama so people that keep saying "Candidate X won't win a general election" are really just guessing and not working that out with any real information.
|
On January 05 2012 05:38 v3chr0 wrote:
Socialism and Communism have never worked, and will continue to fail, The government doesn't give a shit about you! It's all about power, and control. WHYYYYY do people let America take 50 steps back with this administration, the things this President has done, he should have been assassinated by now - it's treachery, this Country is in turmoil, and if he wins again, it's over - this Country will never be the same again, more so than now, and I seriously think he'd start a civil war/split.
Go fucking read a history book, Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's provides equal opportunity for everyone, or go live in a Country that shares your ideals on how a Country should be run. I'm a conservative, but I can handle some Democrat ideas, sometimes the private sector can get out of hand and needs regulation, but LIBERALISM, and Socialism!? HOW IS THIS OK IN AMERICA?!?
[....]
Obama wants to redistribute wealth, that's socialism, sorry, you can't cut it any other way.
No, that's progressive capitalism. If you don't understand the difference between what actual socialist economies did (completely eliminate the private sector, completely eliminate the concept of the market, pure central planning) versus what the US welfare system does, you don't need to be telling other people to brush up on their reading of anything. I don't even care if you're against progressivism, it's an egregious misunderstanding of history to imply it's the same as failed socialist or communist economies.
What, did you think the USSR collapsed because their Social Security system became unbalanced?
The actual "socialist" parts of our mixed economy provided by the government (military, police, schools, roads, parks, other goods/services paid for by the taxpayers and directly produced by the government) are things that no Republican except Ron Paul would touch, and most would probably increase.
|
On January 05 2012 05:59 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:50 lvent wrote:On January 05 2012 05:39 1Eris1 wrote:
I'm also curious as to say how someone like Santorum would be better than Obama? I can understand Romney/Paul/even Gingrich. But Santorum? Santorum will not win, he burned way to many bridges here in Pennsylvania to be able to pull this state from the D's. Doesn't need Pennsylvania to win. Bush didn't win it either time he was elected. "Generic Republican candidate" is polling ahead of Obama. Obama has some of the lowest approval numbers going into reelection. I believe there's never been a President that has been reelected with an approval rating like his. The fact of the matter is any candidate has a pretty good shot at beating Obama so people that keep saying "Candidate X won't win a general election" are really just guessing and not working that out with any real information.
Im sorry I should have added more detail to my original response, any R wanting to win needs 2 of the 3 OH,PA,FL. PA is tricky right now, I think that if any of the candidates other than Santorum they have a very realistic chance of taking PA out of the democrats pockets. Ohio as always will be a coin flip. And honestly I am unsure of the political scene in Florida presently.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 05 2012 05:59 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:50 lvent wrote:On January 05 2012 05:39 1Eris1 wrote:
I'm also curious as to say how someone like Santorum would be better than Obama? I can understand Romney/Paul/even Gingrich. But Santorum? Santorum will not win, he burned way to many bridges here in Pennsylvania to be able to pull this state from the D's. Doesn't need Pennsylvania to win. Bush didn't win it either time he was elected. "Generic Republican candidate" is polling ahead of Obama. Obama has some of the lowest approval numbers going into reelection. I believe there's never been a President that has been reelected with an approval rating like his. The fact of the matter is any candidate has a pretty good shot at beating Obama so people that keep saying "Candidate X won't win a general election" are really just guessing and not working that out with any real information. That's not true at all. His differentials are probably most in line with Reagan, and he doesn't have a wide margin like GWB did. In fact, Reagan is probably the closest comparison there is to Obama. The year before the election, he dipped below 40% and rose up from 50% to 60%+ during the campaign, because the Democrats sent a weak candidate.
Anyone but Romney will be a political mistake from the Republican party. A weak and vulnerable candidate is going to help the other side, especially when they're new weaknesses. Despite all the criticism, Obama's lowest approval and highest disapproval are not in dangerous territory and nearly all of the potential attacks that can be made are old, retried ones which are less likely to make an impact. Santorum will drive the middle right further left and the GOP doesn't really trust Paul. They don't trust Romney either, but he has a better chance of winning social conservatives. If Santorum has a big impact, you're going to see Obama Republicans.
Honestly, I don't understand anything in your post. His numbers aren't anywhere near an outlier and while they might not be increasing as quickly as Reagan's did, they are going up. His disapproves are the biggest issue, but honestly it's not at some crazy level. He has a very definite advantage at the moment, especially with the further splintering we've seen over the last week.
EDIT: Actually, I believe Reagan was just around 50% in January 84.
Here's the thing, when you say "Would you rather have a Republican or Obama?", 45%+ will choose Republican right now. Once you start naming specific Republicans, that number begins to shrink. Of the people who say "anyone but Obama", I guarantee you they'll be second guessing that thinking if it's between Bachmann or Obama.
|
On January 05 2012 06:11 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:59 BlackJack wrote:On January 05 2012 05:50 lvent wrote:On January 05 2012 05:39 1Eris1 wrote:
I'm also curious as to say how someone like Santorum would be better than Obama? I can understand Romney/Paul/even Gingrich. But Santorum? Santorum will not win, he burned way to many bridges here in Pennsylvania to be able to pull this state from the D's. Doesn't need Pennsylvania to win. Bush didn't win it either time he was elected. "Generic Republican candidate" is polling ahead of Obama. Obama has some of the lowest approval numbers going into reelection. I believe there's never been a President that has been reelected with an approval rating like his. The fact of the matter is any candidate has a pretty good shot at beating Obama so people that keep saying "Candidate X won't win a general election" are really just guessing and not working that out with any real information. That's not true at all. His differentials are probably most in line with Reagan, and he doesn't have a wide margin like GWB did. In fact, Reagan is probably the closest comparison there is to Obama. The year before the election, he dipped below 40% and rose up from 50% to 60%+ during the campaign, because the Democrats sent a weak candidate. Anyone but Romney will be a political mistake from the Republican party. A weak and vulnerable candidate is going to help the other side, especially when they're new weaknesses. Despite all the criticism, Obama's lowest approval and highest disapproval are not in dangerous territory and nearly all of the potential attacks that can be made are old, retried ones which are less likely to make an impact. Santorum will drive the middle right further left and the GOP doesn't really trust Paul. They don't trust Romney either, but he has a better chance of winning social conservatives. Honestly, I don't understand anything in your post. His numbers aren't anywhere near an outlier and while they might not be increasing as quickly as Reagan's did, they are going up. He has a very definite advantage at the moment, especially with the further splintering we've seen over the last week.
Looking at the actual polls (link to polls), there's not much evidence for any republican candidate having a major edge over Obama. I agree Romney is the best they can do, but Romney is just so incredibly unpopular.
I guess unpopular beats unelectable tho. Santorum is completely out of touch with independents/dems, Paul won't last in a 1 on 1 race due to his fringe ideas and the rest of the republican 'field' is near irrelevant at this point.
|
On January 05 2012 05:58 Myles wrote:
I'm asking why they'd continue to do something they don't like if they don't need to. That's what it comes down to for most low-end jobs. They get done because the people doing them have little other choice. If they didn't need the money provided by those jobs then they wouldn't do them anymore.
Now, your argument that people work hard even when they are already financial secure has two sides. One is that if they stopped working hard they'd probably no longer be financially secure, and two is that people work hard on things they like. I work on a mod in my free time, obviously uncompensated, because I enjoy it. I would not go to work for 8 hours a day for free, even though I generally like my job, because it's not nearly as enjoyable.
Off the top of my head... People work hard to feel that they contributed to society, to feel they are making a difference to the world, for creative satisfaction, because they love what they do or who they are doing it for, for a sense of fraternity, to give life meaning, to challenge themselves, to experience new things, to get out of the house, to get exercise, to meet new people, to spend time with people they know...
The list is endless.
You are supposing that the moment the population isn't threatened with death or misery that society will collapse because people will refuse to work. This is hypothesis for which you can present no evidence because no evidence for it exists. You would do well to apply a little scepticism to ideas as they occur to you.
|
On January 05 2012 05:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:39 1Eris1 wrote:
I'm also curious as to say how someone like Santorum would be better than Obama? I can understand Romney/Paul/even Gingrich. But Santorum? There's probably a solid 40% of the country or so that would prefer a head of lettuce over Obama (myself included). It doesn't really matter who the Republican nominee is, that chunk of America will vote for him.
This is true; I'd go as far as to say that in modern US politics, in any given year winning your party's bid guarantees 40-45% of the vote. 1992 being the bizarre recent exception in which a rich independent candidate tried to split the ideological difference.
|
On January 05 2012 06:11 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:59 BlackJack wrote:On January 05 2012 05:50 lvent wrote:On January 05 2012 05:39 1Eris1 wrote:
I'm also curious as to say how someone like Santorum would be better than Obama? I can understand Romney/Paul/even Gingrich. But Santorum? Santorum will not win, he burned way to many bridges here in Pennsylvania to be able to pull this state from the D's. Doesn't need Pennsylvania to win. Bush didn't win it either time he was elected. "Generic Republican candidate" is polling ahead of Obama. Obama has some of the lowest approval numbers going into reelection. I believe there's never been a President that has been reelected with an approval rating like his. The fact of the matter is any candidate has a pretty good shot at beating Obama so people that keep saying "Candidate X won't win a general election" are really just guessing and not working that out with any real information. That's not true at all. His differentials are probably most in line with Reagan, and he doesn't have a wide margin like GWB did. In fact, Reagan is probably the closest comparison there is to Obama. The year before the election, he dipped below 40% and rose up from 50% to 60%+ during the campaign, because the Democrats sent a weak candidate. Anyone but Romney will be a political mistake from the Republican party. A weak and vulnerable candidate is going to help the other side, especially when they're new weaknesses. Despite all the criticism, Obama's lowest approval and highest disapproval are not in dangerous territory and nearly all of the potential attacks that can be made are old, retried ones which are less likely to make an impact. Santorum will drive the middle right further left and the GOP doesn't really trust Paul. They don't trust Romney either, but he has a better chance of winning social conservatives. If Santorum has a big impact, you're going to see Obama Republicans. Honestly, I don't understand anything in your post. His numbers aren't anywhere near an outlier and while they might not be increasing as quickly as Reagan's did, they are going up. He has a very definite advantage at the moment, especially with the further splintering we've seen over the last week. EDIT: Actually, I believe Reagan was just around 49% in January 84.
Wasn't it Grenada that got him beat up for awhile?
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 06:20 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:58 Myles wrote:
I'm asking why they'd continue to do something they don't like if they don't need to. That's what it comes down to for most low-end jobs. They get done because the people doing them have little other choice. If they didn't need the money provided by those jobs then they wouldn't do them anymore.
Now, your argument that people work hard even when they are already financial secure has two sides. One is that if they stopped working hard they'd probably no longer be financially secure, and two is that people work hard on things they like. I work on a mod in my free time, obviously uncompensated, because I enjoy it. I would not go to work for 8 hours a day for free, even though I generally like my job, because it's not nearly as enjoyable. Off the top of my head... People work hard to feel that they contributed to society, to feel they are making a difference to the world, for creative satisfaction, because they love what they do or who they are doing it for, for a sense of fraternity, to give life meaning, to challenge themselves, to experience new things, to get out of the house, to get exercise, to meet new people, to spend time with people they know... The list is endless. You are supposing that the moment the population isn't threatened with death or misery that society will collapse because people will refuse to work. This is hypothesis for which you can present no evidence because no evidence for it exists. You would do well to apply a little scepticism to ideas as they occur to you.
I've said that many low end jobs are undesirable and the majority of people, given the chance, they would rather not dig a ditch all day or deal with a bunch of unreasonable customers if they didn't need to. You've provided no solid proof otherwise despite your condescending tone. And for accusing me of being so bias, you don't even seem to read my posts since I've twice acknowledged that people work hard on things they like.
|
On January 05 2012 04:48 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:33 Krikkitone wrote:On January 05 2012 04:28 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
What what?
Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable.
Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy?
Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better:
As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?
Apparently that applies also to human life.
Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. No, a large reason that an opt-in fire protection service doesn't work is because fires NEED to be put out that aren't even on the property of the person where the fire is at for the safety of the people around them if THEY paid for the fire protection... So people will be getting a free ride if they didn't pay, simply because the neighbors don't want to risk the fire going over to their territory. So I guess I would agree, that in case of some kind of extremely dangerous contagious disease, it shouldn't matter whether the person has insurance or not, the government should come in with hazmat suits, and remove the person, but this isn't even part of standard health-insurance, it's more of a straight up public service, because it's not like the person will have a choice about whether or not to be taken away. Fire protection isn't even a high-cost accident from the point of view of the fire department, it doesn't cost them a lot of money to come in and put out a fire... It costs a lot of money for the person who lost the stuff, so what you're really talking about is home-fire insurance, and that works just fine as opt-in. Actually opt-in/out fire protection DOES work in more rural areas.(where one house is far enough from another house) In the mountains in California a few years back there was a story about a guy who didn't pay his fire fees/taxes whatever, so when his house caught on fire, the fire service made sure everyone was out of the house and then just let it burn. (basically they treated it as a wild fire) What the fuck how can you tout that as a good thing though?
It's not a good thing. The guy who owned the house made a DECISION for HIMSELF and he suffered the CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. It was not the job or responsibility of his fellow citizens to protect him from HIMSELF. That is not unjust in the the least.
In fact using force (ie. taxes, which if you don't pay you will go to prison or lose your property by force) to make others protect that man from himself in my mind is a total injustice.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 05 2012 06:22 lvent wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 06:11 Jibba wrote:On January 05 2012 05:59 BlackJack wrote:On January 05 2012 05:50 lvent wrote:On January 05 2012 05:39 1Eris1 wrote:
I'm also curious as to say how someone like Santorum would be better than Obama? I can understand Romney/Paul/even Gingrich. But Santorum? Santorum will not win, he burned way to many bridges here in Pennsylvania to be able to pull this state from the D's. Doesn't need Pennsylvania to win. Bush didn't win it either time he was elected. "Generic Republican candidate" is polling ahead of Obama. Obama has some of the lowest approval numbers going into reelection. I believe there's never been a President that has been reelected with an approval rating like his. The fact of the matter is any candidate has a pretty good shot at beating Obama so people that keep saying "Candidate X won't win a general election" are really just guessing and not working that out with any real information. That's not true at all. His differentials are probably most in line with Reagan, and he doesn't have a wide margin like GWB did. In fact, Reagan is probably the closest comparison there is to Obama. The year before the election, he dipped below 40% and rose up from 50% to 60%+ during the campaign, because the Democrats sent a weak candidate. Anyone but Romney will be a political mistake from the Republican party. A weak and vulnerable candidate is going to help the other side, especially when they're new weaknesses. Despite all the criticism, Obama's lowest approval and highest disapproval are not in dangerous territory and nearly all of the potential attacks that can be made are old, retried ones which are less likely to make an impact. Santorum will drive the middle right further left and the GOP doesn't really trust Paul. They don't trust Romney either, but he has a better chance of winning social conservatives. If Santorum has a big impact, you're going to see Obama Republicans. Honestly, I don't understand anything in your post. His numbers aren't anywhere near an outlier and while they might not be increasing as quickly as Reagan's did, they are going up. He has a very definite advantage at the moment, especially with the further splintering we've seen over the last week. EDIT: Actually, I believe Reagan was just around 49% in January 84. Wasn't it Grenada that got him beat up for awhile? That and unemployment. Unemployment was still 10% in 1983.
Obama is taking some heat over the drone, the new payroll tax bill and NDAA but a lot can happen. He's still seen as strong (he's basically a hawk) on foreign policy and the new Iran sanctions are actually working, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that benefit him. Anyways, this is off topic. I'm just pointing out that a late resurgence has happened before and it seems quite likely it'll happen again. Especially when we KNOW the Republican field is relatively weak, compared to what it could be with Jindall, Daniels, possibly Christie, etc.
|
On January 05 2012 06:28 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 06:22 lvent wrote:On January 05 2012 06:11 Jibba wrote:On January 05 2012 05:59 BlackJack wrote:On January 05 2012 05:50 lvent wrote:On January 05 2012 05:39 1Eris1 wrote:
I'm also curious as to say how someone like Santorum would be better than Obama? I can understand Romney/Paul/even Gingrich. But Santorum? Santorum will not win, he burned way to many bridges here in Pennsylvania to be able to pull this state from the D's. Doesn't need Pennsylvania to win. Bush didn't win it either time he was elected. "Generic Republican candidate" is polling ahead of Obama. Obama has some of the lowest approval numbers going into reelection. I believe there's never been a President that has been reelected with an approval rating like his. The fact of the matter is any candidate has a pretty good shot at beating Obama so people that keep saying "Candidate X won't win a general election" are really just guessing and not working that out with any real information. That's not true at all. His differentials are probably most in line with Reagan, and he doesn't have a wide margin like GWB did. In fact, Reagan is probably the closest comparison there is to Obama. The year before the election, he dipped below 40% and rose up from 50% to 60%+ during the campaign, because the Democrats sent a weak candidate. Anyone but Romney will be a political mistake from the Republican party. A weak and vulnerable candidate is going to help the other side, especially when they're new weaknesses. Despite all the criticism, Obama's lowest approval and highest disapproval are not in dangerous territory and nearly all of the potential attacks that can be made are old, retried ones which are less likely to make an impact. Santorum will drive the middle right further left and the GOP doesn't really trust Paul. They don't trust Romney either, but he has a better chance of winning social conservatives. If Santorum has a big impact, you're going to see Obama Republicans. Honestly, I don't understand anything in your post. His numbers aren't anywhere near an outlier and while they might not be increasing as quickly as Reagan's did, they are going up. He has a very definite advantage at the moment, especially with the further splintering we've seen over the last week. EDIT: Actually, I believe Reagan was just around 49% in January 84. Wasn't it Grenada that got him beat up for awhile? That and unemployment. Unemployment was still 10% in 1983. Obama is taking some heat over the drone, the new payroll tax bill and NDAA but a lot can happen. He's still seen as strong (he's basically a hawk) on foreign policy and the new Iran sanctions are actually working, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that benefit him. Anyways, this is off topic. I'm just pointing out that a late resurgence has happened before and it seems quite likely it'll happen again. Especially when we KNOW the Republican field is relatively weak, compared to what it could be with Jindall, Daniels, possibly Christie, etc.
I hear you, its Jan 4th, by November a lot can and most likely will happen. I think it will still be Obama's race to lose. If the R's put up Santorum ill cry true story lol
|
On January 05 2012 06:26 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:48 Haemonculus wrote:On January 05 2012 04:33 Krikkitone wrote:On January 05 2012 04:28 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom.
When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. No, a large reason that an opt-in fire protection service doesn't work is because fires NEED to be put out that aren't even on the property of the person where the fire is at for the safety of the people around them if THEY paid for the fire protection... So people will be getting a free ride if they didn't pay, simply because the neighbors don't want to risk the fire going over to their territory. So I guess I would agree, that in case of some kind of extremely dangerous contagious disease, it shouldn't matter whether the person has insurance or not, the government should come in with hazmat suits, and remove the person, but this isn't even part of standard health-insurance, it's more of a straight up public service, because it's not like the person will have a choice about whether or not to be taken away. Fire protection isn't even a high-cost accident from the point of view of the fire department, it doesn't cost them a lot of money to come in and put out a fire... It costs a lot of money for the person who lost the stuff, so what you're really talking about is home-fire insurance, and that works just fine as opt-in. Actually opt-in/out fire protection DOES work in more rural areas.(where one house is far enough from another house) In the mountains in California a few years back there was a story about a guy who didn't pay his fire fees/taxes whatever, so when his house caught on fire, the fire service made sure everyone was out of the house and then just let it burn. (basically they treated it as a wild fire) What the fuck how can you tout that as a good thing though? It's not a good thing. The guy who owned the house made a DECISION for HIMSELF and he suffered the CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. It was not the job or responsibility of his fellow citizens to protect him from HIMSELF. That is not unjust in the the least. In fact using force (ie. taxes, which if you don't pay you will go to prison or lose your property by force) to make others protect that man from himself in my mind is a total injustice.
Yet he was also willing to pay any money at that point in time to have the fire dept save his house - and they refused. It's an injustice to sit by and watch someone's livelihood burn away all at the expense of 75$.
|
On January 05 2012 06:28 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 06:22 lvent wrote:On January 05 2012 06:11 Jibba wrote:On January 05 2012 05:59 BlackJack wrote:On January 05 2012 05:50 lvent wrote:On January 05 2012 05:39 1Eris1 wrote:
I'm also curious as to say how someone like Santorum would be better than Obama? I can understand Romney/Paul/even Gingrich. But Santorum? Santorum will not win, he burned way to many bridges here in Pennsylvania to be able to pull this state from the D's. Doesn't need Pennsylvania to win. Bush didn't win it either time he was elected. "Generic Republican candidate" is polling ahead of Obama. Obama has some of the lowest approval numbers going into reelection. I believe there's never been a President that has been reelected with an approval rating like his. The fact of the matter is any candidate has a pretty good shot at beating Obama so people that keep saying "Candidate X won't win a general election" are really just guessing and not working that out with any real information. That's not true at all. His differentials are probably most in line with Reagan, and he doesn't have a wide margin like GWB did. In fact, Reagan is probably the closest comparison there is to Obama. The year before the election, he dipped below 40% and rose up from 50% to 60%+ during the campaign, because the Democrats sent a weak candidate. Anyone but Romney will be a political mistake from the Republican party. A weak and vulnerable candidate is going to help the other side, especially when they're new weaknesses. Despite all the criticism, Obama's lowest approval and highest disapproval are not in dangerous territory and nearly all of the potential attacks that can be made are old, retried ones which are less likely to make an impact. Santorum will drive the middle right further left and the GOP doesn't really trust Paul. They don't trust Romney either, but he has a better chance of winning social conservatives. If Santorum has a big impact, you're going to see Obama Republicans. Honestly, I don't understand anything in your post. His numbers aren't anywhere near an outlier and while they might not be increasing as quickly as Reagan's did, they are going up. He has a very definite advantage at the moment, especially with the further splintering we've seen over the last week. EDIT: Actually, I believe Reagan was just around 49% in January 84. Wasn't it Grenada that got him beat up for awhile? That and unemployment. Unemployment was still 10% in 1983. Obama is taking some heat over the drone, the new payroll tax bill and NDAA but a lot can happen. He's still seen as strong (he's basically a hawk) on foreign policy and the new Iran sanctions are actually working, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that benefit him. Anyways, this is off topic. I'm just pointing out that a late resurgence has happened before and it seems quite likely it'll happen again. Especially when we KNOW the Republican field is relatively weak, compared to what it could be with Jindall, Daniels, possibly Christie, etc.
Don't forget that Reagan was perceived as a horribly flawed candidate when he ran in 1980.
|
On January 05 2012 06:11 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:59 BlackJack wrote:On January 05 2012 05:50 lvent wrote:On January 05 2012 05:39 1Eris1 wrote:
I'm also curious as to say how someone like Santorum would be better than Obama? I can understand Romney/Paul/even Gingrich. But Santorum? Santorum will not win, he burned way to many bridges here in Pennsylvania to be able to pull this state from the D's. Doesn't need Pennsylvania to win. Bush didn't win it either time he was elected. "Generic Republican candidate" is polling ahead of Obama. Obama has some of the lowest approval numbers going into reelection. I believe there's never been a President that has been reelected with an approval rating like his. The fact of the matter is any candidate has a pretty good shot at beating Obama so people that keep saying "Candidate X won't win a general election" are really just guessing and not working that out with any real information. That's not true at all. His differentials are probably most in line with Reagan, and he doesn't have a wide margin like GWB did. In fact, Reagan is probably the closest comparison there is to Obama. The year before the election, he dipped below 40% and rose up from 50% to 60%+ during the campaign, because the Democrats sent a weak candidate. Anyone but Romney will be a political mistake from the Republican party. A weak and vulnerable candidate is going to help the other side, especially when they're new weaknesses. Despite all the criticism, Obama's lowest approval and highest disapproval are not in dangerous territory and nearly all of the potential attacks that can be made are old, retried ones which are less likely to make an impact. Santorum will drive the middle right further left and the GOP doesn't really trust Paul. They don't trust Romney either, but he has a better chance of winning social conservatives. If Santorum has a big impact, you're going to see Obama Republicans. Honestly, I don't understand anything in your post. His numbers aren't anywhere near an outlier and while they might not be increasing as quickly as Reagan's did, they are going up. His disapproves are the biggest issue, but honestly it's not at some crazy level. He has a very definite advantage at the moment, especially with the further splintering we've seen over the last week. EDIT: Actually, I believe Reagan was just around 50% in January 84. Here's the thing, when you say "Would you rather have a Republican or Obama?", 45%+ will choose Republican right now. Once you start naming specific Republicans, that number begins to shrink. Of the people who say "anyone but Obama", I guarantee you they'll be second guessing that thinking if it's between Bachmann or Obama.
The gallup site appears to be down at the moment but the most I could google was a site citing gallup's numbers
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/29/obamas-job-approval-drops-below-carters
They have Reagan at 54% a year before the election. I'm not sure of the actual statistics but there are a lot of statistics out there such as "no president has ever won with unemployment at this level since President X" or "no president has ever won with these approval numbers since President Y"
But my point wasn't to suggest that Obama doesn't have a chance. It was to say that saying "X candidate doesn't have a chance" is ridiculous at this stage. I'm almost certain you would agree with that.
|
United States22883 Posts
No, I really don't think Santorum, Gingrich and possibly even Paul (although this might be more due to funding and campaign structure than anything else, since he won't fold to normal GOP pressures like McCain did) can get wide enough appeal. I edited this into one of my previous posts:
Here's the thing, when you say "Would you rather have a Republican or Obama?", 45%+ will choose Republican right now. Once you start naming specific Republicans, that number begins to shrink. Of the people who say "anyone but Obama", I guarantee you they'll be second guessing that thinking if it's between Bachmann or Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
