On September 13 2011 11:39 Ubertron wrote: Is that the general view of the American populace though or does it vary where in the country you go, or by background etc?
It's just interesting that to me it seems in America for many the word government has negative connotations far beyond what we experience over here. Over here grievances will open up over policy, or the right level of government, but there is a lot less of the outright disdain for government itself.
Regarding healthcare, it just seems to me that a free market is anything but. Have health insurance expenses not been rising and rising, but with no appreciable gain in the product itself? The companies themselves have become so huge that introducing new competitive elements to drive prices down for the consumer and create CHOICE are severely limited. Limited indeed to those companies that profit from charging a lot for their service. It just seems an alien concept to me that something as huge as your life itself should be the product of some kind of cost/benefit analysis on your part.
I don't agree with utilising individual anecdotal tales of the healthcare system fucking people over, but the whole concept of the healthcare industry being: A. Efficient B. This efficiency being the product of free market ideals and competition
Is that actually correct?
A: no, it's horribly inefficient and those costs are paid by the consumers B: there isn't really any competition in the industry which can be argued to be the cause of the problem, and a "marketplace" was supposed to be part of Obamacare, but I'm not sure that would address the problem at this point. I would like to see real competition and let supply and demand determine prices BUT I really don't think it will solve the problem; first because the prices are already so inflated and collusion is a concern, second because it's only one side of the triangle (insurance, hospitals/doctors, pharmaceuticals), but mostly because your life shouldn't be in the hands of organizations that make all their decisions based on profit. That is the fundamental problem with private health insurance. Obamacare papered over this broken system. It doesn't fix it at all and it forces me to participate in said broken system, although it does add some good patient protections (you know, those evil regulations).
Yes, government wastes billions, but so do private institutions.
Do you really think that this is reasonable logic? I'm not letting government off the hook for waste, because my money is taken from me without my will. If I purchase a product / service from a company, they can do what they want with that money, it's theirs, they've earned it and they can spend it on whatever they want. Government does not get that privilege, they work for us and they will be held to our rigid standards. We have and will remove(d) them if we are unhappy with their performance.
I'm also not understanding why you keep saying that Republicans aren't so bad, because while Democrats don't take seriously entitlement reform, Republicans don't take seriously the idea of tax reform. Both parties (and at the moment Republicans) are both guilty of not being able to recognize how to fix the actual problems in the country.
Welfare reform needs to come first, like I've said before it's not optimal to dump more money into an inefficient system, and its silly to crank up business taxes when faced with a recession. Skyrocketing corporate taxes will not solve anything either, as you can literally take ALL the profits of the 40 top multinational corporations, add em up, and you will still not come close to matching the budget shortfall for the US government this year.
Let's remember also that the Supreme Court allowed corporations to donate campaign financing, which is hugely supported by most people on the right. Yes, people on the left have supporters, but the overwhelming support that corporations hand their money to, are those on the right. The argument goes both ways.
I hope you don't have a problem with how a private firm spends its money, considering you can boycott them if you don't approve.
Did you even look at my numbers??? The most money over the past 20 years has been sent to Liberal candidates even when you factor in corporations. Do you really want my tax money to fund democrats while simultaneously prohibiting a private firm from supporting who they want just because they tend to support republicans? Preposterous. And, no public unions should not be donating to election campaigns. Private unions can donate all the money they want to liberal causes, but not a penny should come from public wages, for reasons I have already explained.
So once again, all I'm saying is that both parties are at fault for taking in massive donations. Your source can say one thing, but others sources (like this year for 2012) can say [link=http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php]another[/link].
Republicans are spending more now, but I bet that the numbers will be less lopsided once the GOP candidate is chosen and the liberal cash holders know who to spend the money on for their media attacks.
Yes, welfare requires reform, but not in the way that many conservatives are proposing.
Care to elaborate? All I ever hear is how welfare / SS can't be touched even though both systems are hemorrhaging cash to unqualified recipients and have been proven unsustainable in the future.
Let's remember that while government does waste money, it's also important to remember that government in the last fifty or so years, has done many things right
A classical, vague, progressive argument that I will not bother addressing right now until you've narrowed this down into specific instances. Otherwise I will simply say excusing waste is terrible for people like me who (will) put food on the table for our own family as well as three other families.
I actually gave a few examples in a post later on. It was addressed to someone else though. >.>
I never said we shouldn't tackle entitlements. If you read my post, I said that both parties are responsible for not taking problems seriously. I agree that entitlements and welfare reform are one of the biggest problems in the country, but what I was saying is completely different.
Like I said before, government does waste money, but I don't think that charging them with fiscal incompetence is enough to blame one particular party.
That's my ENTIRE argument: don't blame Democrats for problems with governments. It's been there forever, whether it be Republicans or Democrats.
Hopefully that was the message I was trying to give out, because I'm pretty sure my previous post illustrated it.
I don't know why you keep trying to tell me how much government waste there is. I already know. I'm merely concerned that you were saying you would never vote Democrat because of government waste.
It's clearly a problem of two.
Edit: I'm not going to argue campaign financing because there's too many statistics that can say too many things. Yes, Democrats have had campaign financing coming from unions. I understand your concern.
But like I said, it's worthless to debate it at this point (and yes I saw your numbers), because we're both going to say that one receives more but with different time paradigms and statistics.
And at this point I don't feel like proving one or the other.
Edit 2: I don't have a problem with how private firms spend money. I think some of their strategies though are a bit underhanded and corrupt, but I think what they use is up to them.
So I agree with you on that part. I'm just making the analysis that both sides can be equally susceptible to waste.
Edit 3: I'm also not going to argue too much about government waste because I've already said why so many programs have been successful.
In my opinion, many of these spending programs are not inherently waste but instead have become wasteful and redundant due to circumstances where we haven't reformed programs in the last few years.
On September 13 2011 11:26 Sufficiency wrote: According to one professor in University of Toronto who studied the election in 2008, many Americans are willing to vote a Republican simply because Obama is black.
Not sure if her claims can be proven or not, but yea, this is the Republican Party's last draw, I think. No moderates are going to vote them.
Because moderates are in obamas camp right? lol. Quit the delusion people, the Ameircan electorate is polarized at the moment with large camps on either extremes [the only difference being the extreme that ordinarily votes democratic has largely abandoned obama], which actually may be the start of an actual political realignment. Or not. Doesnt matter, when the American people are angry and hold radically opposing views, derpy derp, your going to see a radical leftwinger do battle with a radical right winger. Which is the election we have at the moment, and as everyone knows, America err's on the side of the right not the left.
Obama is going to be a one term president basically regardless of whos sent up.
On September 13 2011 11:26 Sufficiency wrote: According to one professor in University of Toronto who studied the election in 2008, many Americans are willing to vote a Republican simply because Obama is black.
Not sure if her claims can be proven or not, but yea, this is the Republican Party's last draw, I think. No moderates are going to vote them.
If anyone other than Romney or Perry somehow wins, then Obama has a guaranteed second term.
Moderates may be swung over. Perry will use his "I created jobs in Texas!" argument, while Romney had been the only sane person running for the Republican nomination until Perry came along.
Unless there's a dramatic change in the economy, Obama's toast no matter whom the republicans nominate. Even democrats are starting to fret a little more openly about Obama's reelection chances: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/politics/11obama.html?_r=1
On September 13 2011 11:26 Sufficiency wrote: According to one professor in University of Toronto who studied the election in 2008, many Americans are willing to vote a Republican simply because Obama is black.
Not sure if her claims can be proven or not, but yea, this is the Republican Party's last draw, I think. No moderates are going to vote them.
Because moderates are in obamas camp right? lol. Quit the delusion people, the Ameircan electorate is polarized at the moment with large camps on either extremes [the only difference being the extreme that ordinarily votes democratic has largely abandoned obama], which actually may be the start of an actual political realignment. Or not. Doesnt matter, when the American people are angry and hold radically opposing views, derpy derp, your going to see a radical leftwinger do battle with a radical right winger. Which is the election we have at the moment, and as everyone knows, America err's on the side of the right not the left.
Obama is going to be a one term president basically regardless of whos sent up.
On September 13 2011 11:26 Sufficiency wrote: According to one professor in University of Toronto who studied the election in 2008, many Americans are willing to vote a Republican simply because Obama is black.
Not sure if her claims can be proven or not, but yea, this is the Republican Party's last draw, I think. No moderates are going to vote them.
Because moderates are in obamas camp right? lol. Quit the delusion people, the Ameircan electorate is polarized at the moment with large camps on either extremes [the only difference being the extreme that ordinarily votes democratic has largely abandoned obama], which actually may be the start of an actual political realignment. Or not. Doesnt matter, when the American people are angry and hold radically opposing views, derpy derp, your going to see a radical leftwinger do battle with a radical right winger. Which is the election we have at the moment, and as everyone knows, America err's on the side of the right not the left.
Obama is going to be a one term president basically regardless of whos sent up.
Obama is effectively a centrist. There are no "radical leftwinger[s]" in US politics in any meaningful sense.
On September 13 2011 11:26 Sufficiency wrote: According to one professor in University of Toronto who studied the election in 2008, many Americans are willing to vote a Republican simply because Obama is black.
Not sure if her claims can be proven or not, but yea, this is the Republican Party's last draw, I think. No moderates are going to vote them.
Because moderates are in obamas camp right? lol. Quit the delusion people, the Ameircan electorate is polarized at the moment with large camps on either extremes [the only difference being the extreme that ordinarily votes democratic has largely abandoned obama], which actually may be the start of an actual political realignment. Or not. Doesnt matter, when the American people are angry and hold radically opposing views, derpy derp, your going to see a radical leftwinger do battle with a radical right winger. Which is the election we have at the moment, and as everyone knows, America err's on the side of the right not the left.
Obama is going to be a one term president basically regardless of whos sent up.
Obama is effectively a centrist. There are no "radical leftwinger[s]" in US politics in any meaningful sense.
Hes a centrist by standards outside of America, by American standards yes, he is far left. Pretty deluded to think otherwise, or entirely ignorant of his policies.
On September 13 2011 11:26 Sufficiency wrote: According to one professor in University of Toronto who studied the election in 2008, many Americans are willing to vote a Republican simply because Obama is black.
Not sure if her claims can be proven or not, but yea, this is the Republican Party's last draw, I think. No moderates are going to vote them.
Because moderates are in obamas camp right? lol. Quit the delusion people, the Ameircan electorate is polarized at the moment with large camps on either extremes [the only difference being the extreme that ordinarily votes democratic has largely abandoned obama], which actually may be the start of an actual political realignment. Or not. Doesnt matter, when the American people are angry and hold radically opposing views, derpy derp, your going to see a radical leftwinger do battle with a radical right winger. Which is the election we have at the moment, and as everyone knows, America err's on the side of the right not the left.
Obama is going to be a one term president basically regardless of whos sent up.
Obama is effectively a centrist. There are no "radical leftwinger[s]" in US politics in any meaningful sense.
With all due respect, it doesn't really matter what Canadians, Europeans, or even Martians think about the spectrum of American politics. In the US, Obama is perceived as a left-wing politician.
Obama is probably one of the most progressive presidents in U.S. History and he does indeed have political problems but I don't think as much as the GOP right now. The Tea Party remember is what cost the Republicans from gaining both houses now their influence has reached the Presidential nominees level which is bad.
Romney is not far right enough for the Tea Party/GOP. His Healthcare plan, and he is a moderate same goes for Huntsman.
Perry is having toback pedal and fast about his comments on Social Security and Medicare which is untouchable when it comes to voters across the both party lines. Old style and establishment Republicans DO NOT like him at all, and he is not supported by the entire Tea Party. In fact some have already said they will not vote for him when it comes to the Primaries.
I've checked the thread as well as the internets and I cant seem to find a full video of the debate that took place today. if anyone could PM me with a link to the full broadcast I will shower them with ♥♥!
On September 13 2011 11:39 Ubertron wrote: Is that the general view of the American populace though or does it vary where in the country you go, or by background etc?
It's just interesting that to me it seems in America for many the word government has negative connotations far beyond what we experience over here. Over here grievances will open up over policy, or the right level of government, but there is a lot less of the outright disdain for government itself.
Regarding healthcare, it just seems to me that a free market is anything but. Have health insurance expenses not been rising and rising, but with no appreciable gain in the product itself? The companies themselves have become so huge that introducing new competitive elements to drive prices down for the consumer and create CHOICE are severely limited. Limited indeed to those companies that profit from charging a lot for their service. It just seems an alien concept to me that something as huge as your life itself should be the product of some kind of cost/benefit analysis on your part.
I don't agree with utilising individual anecdotal tales of the healthcare system fucking people over, but the whole concept of the healthcare industry being: A. Efficient B. This efficiency being the product of free market ideals and competition
Is that actually correct?
A: no, it's horribly inefficient and those costs are paid by the consumers B: there isn't really any competition in the industry which can be argued to be the cause of the problem, and a "marketplace" was supposed to be part of Obamacare, but I'm not sure that would address the problem at this point. I would like to see real competition and let supply and demand determine prices BUT I really don't think it will solve the problem; first because the prices are already so inflated and collusion is a concern, second because it's only one side of the triangle (insurance, hospitals/doctors, pharmaceuticals), but mostly because your life shouldn't be in the hands of organizations that make all their decisions based on profit. That is the fundamental problem with private health insurance. Obamacare papered over this broken system. It doesn't fix it at all and it forces me to participate in said broken system, although it does add some good patient protections (you know, those evil regulations).
Well cheers for the response, I actually agree with your post pretty much 100%, was just posing a hypothetical because I know how many of your compatriots seem to despise us Europeans coming here telling you guys how we think things should be done. The only thing that I recall that actually will change things in 'Obamacare' are the restrictions on people with pre-existing conditions being lifted, truly one of the most morally repugnant things I've ever heard of that had been incorporated into a developed country
I also find it laughable how Obama is characterised as this leftist. Where is the evidence of this in his legislative agenda? Why are the actual left in America completetly disillusioned with the guy. Being a moderate is by no means a bad thing, the reason he's regarded as being on the left is a leftover of his campaign rhetoric (which should have dissipated in the interim), and the woeful, woeful usage of the media by the Democrats as a whole.
The only reason Obama seems more left than he used to be in 2008 is because the GOP has shifted dramatically to the right. In fact, that so many have gone to such an extreme worries me because like we have seen over and over, extremism in politics is not healthy.
On September 13 2011 11:26 Sufficiency wrote: According to one professor in University of Toronto who studied the election in 2008, many Americans are willing to vote a Republican simply because Obama is black.
Not sure if her claims can be proven or not, but yea, this is the Republican Party's last draw, I think. No moderates are going to vote them.
Because moderates are in obamas camp right? lol. Quit the delusion people, the Ameircan electorate is polarized at the moment with large camps on either extremes [the only difference being the extreme that ordinarily votes democratic has largely abandoned obama], which actually may be the start of an actual political realignment. Or not. Doesnt matter, when the American people are angry and hold radically opposing views, derpy derp, your going to see a radical leftwinger do battle with a radical right winger. Which is the election we have at the moment, and as everyone knows, America err's on the side of the right not the left.
Obama is going to be a one term president basically regardless of whos sent up.
Obama is effectively a centrist. There are no "radical leftwinger[s]" in US politics in any meaningful sense.
Hes a centrist by standards outside of America, by American standards yes, he is far left. Pretty deluded to think otherwise, or entirely ignorant of his policies.
No, by the precedents set by previous Presidents of the United States, he's centrist. By international standards he's right-of-centre.
On September 13 2011 11:26 Sufficiency wrote: According to one professor in University of Toronto who studied the election in 2008, many Americans are willing to vote a Republican simply because Obama is black.
Not sure if her claims can be proven or not, but yea, this is the Republican Party's last draw, I think. No moderates are going to vote them.
Because moderates are in obamas camp right? lol. Quit the delusion people, the Ameircan electorate is polarized at the moment with large camps on either extremes [the only difference being the extreme that ordinarily votes democratic has largely abandoned obama], which actually may be the start of an actual political realignment. Or not. Doesnt matter, when the American people are angry and hold radically opposing views, derpy derp, your going to see a radical leftwinger do battle with a radical right winger. Which is the election we have at the moment, and as everyone knows, America err's on the side of the right not the left.
Obama is going to be a one term president basically regardless of whos sent up.
Obama is effectively a centrist. There are no "radical leftwinger[s]" in US politics in any meaningful sense.
With all due respect, it doesn't really matter what Canadians, Europeans, or even Martians think about the spectrum of American politics. In the US, Obama is perceived as a left-wing politician.
If you want to get into that game, excepting those who don't perceive his policies as representative of the left (effectively, i.e. the left wing), Obama's policies are perceived as death panels and sharia law.
On September 13 2011 11:26 Sufficiency wrote: According to one professor in University of Toronto who studied the election in 2008, many Americans are willing to vote a Republican simply because Obama is black.
Not sure if her claims can be proven or not, but yea, this is the Republican Party's last draw, I think. No moderates are going to vote them.
Because moderates are in obamas camp right? lol. Quit the delusion people, the Ameircan electorate is polarized at the moment with large camps on either extremes [the only difference being the extreme that ordinarily votes democratic has largely abandoned obama], which actually may be the start of an actual political realignment. Or not. Doesnt matter, when the American people are angry and hold radically opposing views, derpy derp, your going to see a radical leftwinger do battle with a radical right winger. Which is the election we have at the moment, and as everyone knows, America err's on the side of the right not the left.
Obama is going to be a one term president basically regardless of whos sent up.
Obama is effectively a centrist. There are no "radical leftwinger[s]" in US politics in any meaningful sense.
Hes a centrist by standards outside of America, by American standards yes, he is far left. Pretty deluded to think otherwise, or entirely ignorant of his policies.
No, by the precedents set by previous Presidents of the United States, he's centrist. By international standards he's right-of-centre.
On September 13 2011 11:26 Sufficiency wrote: According to one professor in University of Toronto who studied the election in 2008, many Americans are willing to vote a Republican simply because Obama is black.
Not sure if her claims can be proven or not, but yea, this is the Republican Party's last draw, I think. No moderates are going to vote them.
Because moderates are in obamas camp right? lol. Quit the delusion people, the Ameircan electorate is polarized at the moment with large camps on either extremes [the only difference being the extreme that ordinarily votes democratic has largely abandoned obama], which actually may be the start of an actual political realignment. Or not. Doesnt matter, when the American people are angry and hold radically opposing views, derpy derp, your going to see a radical leftwinger do battle with a radical right winger. Which is the election we have at the moment, and as everyone knows, America err's on the side of the right not the left.
Obama is going to be a one term president basically regardless of whos sent up.
Obama is effectively a centrist. There are no "radical leftwinger[s]" in US politics in any meaningful sense.
With all due respect, it doesn't really matter what Canadians, Europeans, or even Martians think about the spectrum of American politics. In the US, Obama is perceived as a left-wing politician.
If you want to get into that game, excepting those who don't perceive his policies as representative of the left (effectively, i.e. the left wing), Obama's policies were perceived as death panels and sharia law.
Not to mention he was perceived the one ushering in the Red Revolution straight from Stalinist Russia and possibly the anti-Christ. And definitely Muslim. Perception have been so skewed in American politics.
On September 13 2011 11:26 Sufficiency wrote: According to one professor in University of Toronto who studied the election in 2008, many Americans are willing to vote a Republican simply because Obama is black.
Not sure if her claims can be proven or not, but yea, this is the Republican Party's last draw, I think. No moderates are going to vote them.
If anyone other than Romney or Perry somehow wins, then Obama has a guaranteed second term.
Moderates may be swung over. Perry will use his "I created jobs in Texas!" argument, while Romney had been the only sane person running for the Republican nomination until Perry came along.
Unless there's a dramatic change in the economy, Obama's toast no matter whom the republicans nominate. Even democrats are starting to fret a little more openly about Obama's reelection chances: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/politics/11obama.html?_r=1
You can't seriously be suggesting they would elect Bachman over him... PLEASE tell me you aren't suggesting that.
Ron Paul I can almost see... But he has some weird views, other than his foreign policy. I can give him credit for that.
The rest are nobodies who don't even deserve attention. Pretty much all of them have some story that makes people say "wtf...?"
It's disconcerting, wanting strongly to vote against Obama, but finding the freakshow of options presented by the GOP to be no better. I COULD vote for an independent candidate, after which said candidate would still lose anyway because of the bipartisan system we have.
And then people wonder why so many people just don't vote.
On September 13 2011 11:26 Sufficiency wrote: According to one professor in University of Toronto who studied the election in 2008, many Americans are willing to vote a Republican simply because Obama is black.
Not sure if her claims can be proven or not, but yea, this is the Republican Party's last draw, I think. No moderates are going to vote them.
If anyone other than Romney or Perry somehow wins, then Obama has a guaranteed second term.
Moderates may be swung over. Perry will use his "I created jobs in Texas!" argument, while Romney had been the only sane person running for the Republican nomination until Perry came along.
Unless there's a dramatic change in the economy, Obama's toast no matter whom the republicans nominate. Even democrats are starting to fret a little more openly about Obama's reelection chances: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/politics/11obama.html?_r=1
You can't seriously be suggesting they would elect Bachman over him... PLEASE tell me you aren't suggesting that.
Ron Paul I can almost see... But he has some weird views, other than his foreign policy. I can give him credit for that.
The rest are nobodies who don't even deserve attention. Pretty much all of them have some story that makes people say "wtf...?"
I almost threw in the Bachmann caveat. I'm not going to say categorically that she can't beat Obama, but she'd have a harder time than either Perry or Romney. This isn't really a statement about Bachmann's strength so much as it's statement about how weak Obama is politically right now.
EPT
