|
On September 08 2011 12:27 Senorcuidado wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2011 11:48 Senorcuidado wrote:On September 08 2011 10:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2011 10:17 Probulous wrote:On September 08 2011 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2011 09:31 Romantic wrote:On September 08 2011 09:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote:
I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's. The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits. I can't tell the future like you. The only reason the mandate exists is because Republicans would resist any move towards "Medicare for everyone with supplemental private insurance" as communism and the death of America, so Democrats had to use the corporate healthcare insurance system to get semi-universal coverage. Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobinAs for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal. Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist. The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts. Wow, I actually think I totally agree with you. I'm surprised to hear you advocate a single-payer system, as that was so far from palatable that Congress had to jump right to the "public option" and finally negotiate down to the stupid do-nothing bill we ended up with. I don't like the idea of an individual mandate either, and I really can't see the constitutional argument for it, but I would love a single-payer system for basic health care. Financially, the difference between a mandate and a taxpayer funded government program is kind of nominal, but there is an important distinction between them. The mandate forces us to participate in a broken industry that will continue to abuse us and I don't think the current bill will fix that. A "Medicare for all" system, implemented intelligently (probably a pipe dream), with a proper industry overhaul, would bring us in line with the rest of the industrialized world. Before you get too excited, keep in mind that there are "single payer systems" and then there are "single payer systems." The services and coverage that I would offer through a single payer system would be fairly limited, covering only the basics. People would have to purchase supplemental plans (or get them through employers) to get something comparable to what's typically available now through private insurers. Yeah, I understand what you're talking about. We may disagree on the specifics that constitute "basic health care" but I think starting there is much more desirable than a mandate, as well as having more potential for a meaningful reform of the industry. Unfortunately, even the limited approach you advocate would be labeled socialism and shot down by Republicans immediately, don't you think?
Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system. I'm not even sure that I want a federally-provided single payer system as opposed to simply providing some funding to the states and letting them figure out what to do with it. However, I do think that a lot of republicans would support a very limited single payer system that allowed for private supplemental insurance.
|
On September 08 2011 12:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 12:27 Senorcuidado wrote:On September 08 2011 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2011 11:48 Senorcuidado wrote:On September 08 2011 10:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2011 10:17 Probulous wrote:On September 08 2011 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2011 09:31 Romantic wrote:On September 08 2011 09:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote:
I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's. The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits. I can't tell the future like you. The only reason the mandate exists is because Republicans would resist any move towards "Medicare for everyone with supplemental private insurance" as communism and the death of America, so Democrats had to use the corporate healthcare insurance system to get semi-universal coverage. Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobinAs for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal. Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist. The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts. Wow, I actually think I totally agree with you. I'm surprised to hear you advocate a single-payer system, as that was so far from palatable that Congress had to jump right to the "public option" and finally negotiate down to the stupid do-nothing bill we ended up with. I don't like the idea of an individual mandate either, and I really can't see the constitutional argument for it, but I would love a single-payer system for basic health care. Financially, the difference between a mandate and a taxpayer funded government program is kind of nominal, but there is an important distinction between them. The mandate forces us to participate in a broken industry that will continue to abuse us and I don't think the current bill will fix that. A "Medicare for all" system, implemented intelligently (probably a pipe dream), with a proper industry overhaul, would bring us in line with the rest of the industrialized world. Before you get too excited, keep in mind that there are "single payer systems" and then there are "single payer systems." The services and coverage that I would offer through a single payer system would be fairly limited, covering only the basics. People would have to purchase supplemental plans (or get them through employers) to get something comparable to what's typically available now through private insurers. Yeah, I understand what you're talking about. We may disagree on the specifics that constitute "basic health care" but I think starting there is much more desirable than a mandate, as well as having more potential for a meaningful reform of the industry. Unfortunately, even the limited approach you advocate would be labeled socialism and shot down by Republicans immediately, don't you think? However, I do think that a lot of republicans would support a very limited single payer system that allowed for private supplemental insurance.
There doesn't seem to be much rational basis for this belief, however.
|
On September 08 2011 13:14 Fleebenworth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 12:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2011 12:27 Senorcuidado wrote:On September 08 2011 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2011 11:48 Senorcuidado wrote:On September 08 2011 10:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2011 10:17 Probulous wrote:On September 08 2011 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2011 09:31 Romantic wrote:On September 08 2011 09:28 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits. I can't tell the future like you. The only reason the mandate exists is because Republicans would resist any move towards "Medicare for everyone with supplemental private insurance" as communism and the death of America, so Democrats had to use the corporate healthcare insurance system to get semi-universal coverage. Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobinAs for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal. Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist. The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts. Wow, I actually think I totally agree with you. I'm surprised to hear you advocate a single-payer system, as that was so far from palatable that Congress had to jump right to the "public option" and finally negotiate down to the stupid do-nothing bill we ended up with. I don't like the idea of an individual mandate either, and I really can't see the constitutional argument for it, but I would love a single-payer system for basic health care. Financially, the difference between a mandate and a taxpayer funded government program is kind of nominal, but there is an important distinction between them. The mandate forces us to participate in a broken industry that will continue to abuse us and I don't think the current bill will fix that. A "Medicare for all" system, implemented intelligently (probably a pipe dream), with a proper industry overhaul, would bring us in line with the rest of the industrialized world. Before you get too excited, keep in mind that there are "single payer systems" and then there are "single payer systems." The services and coverage that I would offer through a single payer system would be fairly limited, covering only the basics. People would have to purchase supplemental plans (or get them through employers) to get something comparable to what's typically available now through private insurers. Yeah, I understand what you're talking about. We may disagree on the specifics that constitute "basic health care" but I think starting there is much more desirable than a mandate, as well as having more potential for a meaningful reform of the industry. Unfortunately, even the limited approach you advocate would be labeled socialism and shot down by Republicans immediately, don't you think? However, I do think that a lot of republicans would support a very limited single payer system that allowed for private supplemental insurance. There doesn't seem to be much rational basis for this belief, however.
Does Medicare Part D ring a bell?
|
On September 08 2011 13:14 Fleebenworth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 12:36 xDaunt wrote:
However, I do think that a lot of republicans would support a very limited single payer system that allowed for private supplemental insurance. There doesn't seem to be much rational basis for this belief, however.
Cynically (but I think somewhat truthfully), a lot of the current political atmosphere has to do with partisan and cultural mistrust of "the other side" as much as it does with actual policy differences among the public at large. A sizable part of the Republican base might support such a system if it was proposed by a Republican president -- like how they say "only Nixon could go to China" or Reagan be given the free reign to peacefully talk with Gorbachev.
To be fair, Democrats allowed Bill Clinton to enact welfare reform and free trade that they probably would have fought a Republican president harder on, and for that matter they haven't opposed Obama's tax cuts the same way they did when Bush was proposing them.
|
Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system.
Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate?
~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember.
This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No."
Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy.
A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever).
|
The point the article makes, pretty well in my opinion, is that the GOP is basically fear-mongering and obstructing anything that runs contrary to protecting their lobbyists while convincing the general populace that it's in their interests too, so I'm not sure how much it was a good thing that many people wanted the GOP to shoot down Obamacare. Let's face it, how many people really understood the deal if death-panels became such a big issue (seriously, how does crap like that even become an issue in US politics? It was absurd, patently untrue and without basis yet was very seriously discussed...)
Personally I think Obama has been ineffectual and has failed to repeal a lot of things he was put in power to do - the Patriot act should be flushed where it belongs, wire-tapping should be ended, he needs to go after lobby powers (what's the point of a micro-financed president if he isn't there to attack special and vested interests?), military spending needs ot be cut down. I also feel like he's tried far too hard to be bi-partisan, strangely. He is trying to not upset the applecart by refusing to even countenance the notion that Bush basically is a war criminal, and refusing to really attack the GOP on what they are doing. They have locked down US politics repeatedly since the elections, as the article mentions, and nobody seems to care! It's funny how they will talk about being bi-partisan when it suits them, but it has to be entirely on their terms. Obama might have been able to do more if he'd been able, but we'll never know.
My favourite bit during the whole Deficit crisis talks recently - you remember? Where the GOP basically held the world to ransom, risking ruining everyone's livelihoods? - they fought tooth and nail to have a very short-term deal done just to make the whole fucking thing an election issue. It constantly amazes me that they get votes from people, but let's face it, both parties are pretty piss-poor. The US needs a real multi-party system.
Also wanted to add this from the article, for me the saddest part:
[2] I am not a supporter of Obama and object to a number of his foreign and domestic policies. But when he took office amid the greatest financial collapse in 80 years, I wanted him to succeed, so that the country I served did not fail. But already in 2009, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, declared that his greatest legislative priority was - jobs for Americans? Rescuing the financial system? Solving the housing collapse? - no, none of those things. His top priority was to ensure that Obama should be a one-term president. Evidently Senator McConnell hates Obama more than he loves his country. Note that the mainstream media have lately been hailing McConnell as "the adult in the room," presumably because he is less visibly unstable than the Tea Party freshmen
I think a lot of the GOP right now are acting as if the very most important thing in the entire world is that Obama fail. Never mind that him failing as President is costing each and every one of us, never mind that the price of failure, right now, is almost inconceivable economic meltdown affecting the entire world, never mind that he is trying to do something with the worst mess a president has been left with for many decades. Point scoring is more important than the wellbeing of America. Doesn't that scare anyone else? It terrifies me, and I'm not even American.
|
On September 08 2011 14:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate? ~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember. This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No." Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy. A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever). This. To fly in the face of the trends on this site [as an aside rather mind boggiling, ive been on many a gamer sites and there usually fairly even split but teamliquid is like...overwhelmingly socialist, not liberal but literally socialist, its bizarre] what I want in my next president is the balls and the capability to undue everything Obama has done, and the majority of the policies hes retained from Bush.
|
Attacking the messenger rather than the message seems to be a recurrent theme in this thread.
|
On September 08 2011 15:41 lizzard_warish wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 14:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system. Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate? ~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember. This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No." Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy. A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever). This. To fly in the face of the trends on this site [as an aside rather mind boggiling, ive been on many a gamer sites and there usually fairly even split but teamliquid is like...overwhelmingly socialist, not liberal but literally socialist, its bizarre] what I want in my next president is the balls and the capability to undue everything Obama has done, and the majority of the policies hes retained from Bush.
There's nothing inherently evil with socialism. Many countries are socialist, and the liberal parts of America are probably leaning toward socialism while trying never to use the term due to the negative stigma attached. After the bull shit that's occurred in the recent past and are still happening due to the conservative forces, over compensation is to be expected as well. It's not bizarre at all to me.
Also I'm not sure what Obama has done, seems like more damage is done by his compromising disposition and passivity than anything else. Looking at the political climate, I don't think Bush's legacies are going away any time soon, at least not in the next election.
|
United States41672 Posts
On September 08 2011 15:41 lizzard_warish wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 14:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system. Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate? ~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember. This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No." Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy. A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever). This. To fly in the face of the trends on this site [as an aside rather mind boggiling, ive been on many a gamer sites and there usually fairly even split but teamliquid is like...overwhelmingly socialist, not liberal but literally socialist, its bizarre] what I want in my next president is the balls and the capability to undue everything Obama has done, and the majority of the policies hes retained from Bush.
What you need to remember is that a large portion of this site is not American and that the rest of the western world diverged from the United States about fifty years ago. You're shocked that we're "literally socialist" but to us you're a relic of a failed system that we advanced beyond. It's simply a matter of perspective.
|
The Republicans really have an incredibly cynically pessimistic view of the average intelligence of Americans. Sadly, they're right.
|
On September 08 2011 15:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 15:41 lizzard_warish wrote:On September 08 2011 14:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system. Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate? ~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember. This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No." Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy. A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever). This. To fly in the face of the trends on this site [as an aside rather mind boggiling, ive been on many a gamer sites and there usually fairly even split but teamliquid is like...overwhelmingly socialist, not liberal but literally socialist, its bizarre] what I want in my next president is the balls and the capability to undue everything Obama has done, and the majority of the policies hes retained from Bush. What you need to remember is that a large portion of this site is not American and that the rest of the western world diverged from the United States about fifty years ago. You're shocked that we're "literally socialist" but to us you're a relic of a failed system that we advanced beyond. It's simply a matter of perspective. It's not like an international gaming site is a novel concept to me. I've been in sites with similar age and national demographics, with entirely different political and religious ones.
|
On September 08 2011 15:41 lizzard_warish wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 14:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system. Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate? ~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember. This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No." Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy. A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever). This. To fly in the face of the trends on this site [as an aside rather mind boggiling, ive been on many a gamer sites and there usually fairly even split but teamliquid is like...overwhelmingly socialist, not liberal but literally socialist, its bizarre] what I want in my next president is the balls and the capability to undue everything Obama has done, and the majority of the policies hes retained from Bush.
Because TL is a whole community from all over the world? You have noticed there are a lot of swedes around here haven't you? Most laughing at the things american's likes to call socialistic.
|
United States41672 Posts
On September 08 2011 16:03 lizzard_warish wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 15:59 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2011 15:41 lizzard_warish wrote:On September 08 2011 14:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:Some hardliners won't allow any form of singlepayer system. Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate? ~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember. This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No." Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy. A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever). This. To fly in the face of the trends on this site [as an aside rather mind boggiling, ive been on many a gamer sites and there usually fairly even split but teamliquid is like...overwhelmingly socialist, not liberal but literally socialist, its bizarre] what I want in my next president is the balls and the capability to undue everything Obama has done, and the majority of the policies hes retained from Bush. What you need to remember is that a large portion of this site is not American and that the rest of the western world diverged from the United States about fifty years ago. You're shocked that we're "literally socialist" but to us you're a relic of a failed system that we advanced beyond. It's simply a matter of perspective. It's not like an international gaming site is a novel concept to me.
Then it shouldn't be mindboggling to you that there is support for the system that exists in the vast majority of first world countries. Socialist isn't even a dirty word over here.
I would be very, very surprised if you could find a site with an international user base that had views in line with the American right. Your right wing is batshit insane by any non American standard. The same applies with religion because the proportion of people who are actively religious in America is very much out of line with the rest of the western world. Your country is weird and interactions with the rest of the world will seem surprising and even alien.
|
On September 08 2011 08:31 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 07:12 Haemonculus wrote:On September 08 2011 07:05 InvalidID wrote:
The other reason I think it's valuable is because a certain portion of people tend to think that it's only recently that the GOP has gone batshit insane, rather than the entire party being founded on plutocratic ideals which are directly opposed to the interests of the vast majority of the country.
Even though I am fairly liberal myself, I find that characterization a bit extreme. The republican party was most definitely not "founded" on such ideals: it is Mr Lincolns party after all. It was not until the 20th century that the "radical" republicans exchanged roles with the democrats. The reality is that the republican party is not some secret conspiracy out to support the billionaires at the expense of the people: it is a regional populist party, and they do a very good job at representing the views of their constituents(even if some of those views may be, in my opinion, misguided). The position of political parties a hundred years ago is fairly irrelevant imo. The fact of the matter is that right now we have a party which blatantly ignores science, spouts religious scripture in official state government meetings, and defends the interests of the super wealthy while simultaneously demonizing the poor. I mean seriously, we have congressmen from NC banging locks together, (as a metaphor for gay marriage) and citing bible verses as supporting arguments for state legislature. I think calling them fucking crazy isn't too much of a stretch. I agree that it is irrelevant for the present situation, but the OP stated "founded," so I felt that his statement should be clarified. I disagree that the republicans are insane, in my opinion they are pragmatists, doing what a representative politician should do: represent the opinions of their constituents. I work as an engineer at a factory in the countryside, and as such I interact often with people who would be considered to be pretty typical of the republican base. The vast majority are evangelical christian, poorly educated, and lower middle class-working poor. The opinions they espouse are pretty-much identical to those that my rather ridiculous, tea-party, local representative espouses. When you examine many of their opinions, they are seemingly irrational: why would the working poor oppose a health care plan that helps them more then anyone else, or a support a tax break on the rich? I do not feel the answer lies with some sort of fox-news-billionaire conspiracy, but rather with something much more simple: fear. They are afraid of losing their jobs and their way of life. They have gotten the short end of the stick from scientific advancement: their jobs were replaced with automation, and they are faced with decreasing social mobility, as the economy becomes more technology oriented. The past world, whether it ever existed or not, of social mobility for a person with just a high school diploma is looked on with rose colored glasses. This memory was the ideal that you could work hard and make it rich in the world, even with little education. In the midst of this climate you have democrats who espouse social views that do not align with those of the highly traditionalist rural poor/middle class, and who present economic plans, which on the surface appear to not be in line with their ideal of work-reward. The republicans meanwhile, do an excellent job of representing the social values of the rural population, while also espousing the economic ideal that they so crave: work hard and get rewarded. I do agree with the sentiment made in the article quoted by the OP that the Democrats have udderly failed to communicate. You can't speak like a Harvard professor, and expect people with only a GED or a barely earned high school diploma from a failed school to understand what you mean or why. You need someone like Bill Clinton, who can summarize complex policy issues in simple terms, like his famous "Don't ask, don't tell," reform.
The republicans are indeed great at selling policies... I mean they somehow got the poor's support on taxation on assets of the wealthy upon their death, when it doesn't affect them at all.
All because the Republicans are good at milking the poor's need for some kind of raison d'etre-in this case ideals like Liberty, freedom etc.
Meanwhile, you have the 1-3rd richest man in the world begging to be taxed harder.
|
I have read trough your selection of "best bits" and sincerely non of them really made me outraged or anything, it's just the usual political bullshit , i have expected a bit more after that intro
|
On September 08 2011 11:31 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 11:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 08 2011 10:12 snotboogie wrote:On September 08 2011 06:39 Fleebenworth wrote:
This last bit about religion is particularly interesting because I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed from a radical anti-society poverty-embracing message to the gospel of wealth and corruption. What you're talking about is Prosperity Gospel, which is a heretical teaching. Many heresies have sprung up throughout the history of Christianity, and many have been very popular as this one is, but they do not represent theologically correct beliefs. Nor do they represent Christianity as a whole. The reason it may seem to an outsider that every Christian believes this nonsense is because the most popular (money-making) stuff about Christianity is Prosperity Gospel. They're the ones with the multibillion dollar TV networks pumping out their stuff. Their stuff is very prominent, so gets noticed by non-Christians more. The churches following Biblically-based teachings are old news and don't get noticed as much, but we're still around! ..? What? They are completely founded on Biblical verses, there's countless Biblical verses that state you're glorifying God when you make money and that God rewards good followers with wealth. That's what the Puritans were completely based on - being wealth driven. This was a different mentality from the previous Catholic dominated paradigm that wealth --> worldly --> leads to temptation and distraction from God. There are also many studies that show the average income of a Protestant is higher than the average income of a Catholic, and countries that were predominately Catholic are the Great Schism tended to have weaker economies than countries that were predominately Protestant the following centuries. Are these the only reasons? No. Is it even the main reason? Probably not, there are a ton of variables, but to say that it's heresy or out of the norm is a little odd, it's definitely been a mentality for a while and at the same time is very much so supported through Biblical verses. Actually, you're completely wrong. The Prosperity Gospel is not biblical. Please go to 10 of your local churches in your area and poll the lead pastors and congregations. You'll find that you have no idea what you are talking about regarding main stream christian beliefs. I think you'll find most Christians will agree God can bless you, but being good Christian does not lead to wealth, nor does wealth mean you were a good Christian. There is no casual relationship there. And it's a dangerous theology to preach as biblical fact.
Had a longass response written to this and accidently closed the window, so forgive me if I'm brief here but I'm kinda raging at what I just did  .
There are many passages in the scripture that saying if you trust in God, he will reward you, etc. etc. and sometimes it refers to wealth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism
Much of western Christianity, specifically those Protestant, have gone with the general notion that making wealth is a good thing. Saddleback Church, arguably one of the largest and most prominent churches in the world, has had an entire sermon on how generating wealth is glorifying God. I know, because I attended it. While I admit I was wrong on the issue specifically stating that God will reward good Christians with wealth in particular, there are many verses that say they will be rewarded, and it's not exactly a stretch to interpret that as wealth, so I fail to see why it wouldn't qualify as being Biblically based.
Sorry for the shorter, shittier reply of what I originally had, but that's a TLDR version.
|
On September 08 2011 08:50 zimz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 08:41 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 08 2011 08:35 zimz wrote:On September 08 2011 08:08 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 08 2011 06:49 zimz wrote:
Apple use to have a manufacturing plant where i lived, but a couple years ago they moved manufacturing to China. My friends use to work at the assembly line for Apple. Fuck Apple! Ya, how dare them employ those evil more productive chinese not more productive, but more CHEAP labor. It's not only that but its an American company, who makes most of its money off Americans, but sending the jobs to China instead. use your brain. Productiveness is measured by the output after including incomes and expenses. Given that, Chinese ARE more productive period. You are just being a nationalistic idiot. Of course i have a problem with it. American companies that make most of their money off Americans, yet not hiring Americans. watching Americas economy go down because of this business tactic, and not wanting it, is logical. it is not idiotic. think before you talk. Many people on TL is just hating on Americans. Its like a trend or something. im sick of it. im not surprised gotunk! whos from a 3rd world country. who's probably benefiting from American outsourcing talking shit.
Chile ain't a thirdworld country and is probably better off than the united states.
|
On September 08 2011 19:59 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 08:50 zimz wrote:On September 08 2011 08:41 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 08 2011 08:35 zimz wrote:On September 08 2011 08:08 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 08 2011 06:49 zimz wrote:
Apple use to have a manufacturing plant where i lived, but a couple years ago they moved manufacturing to China. My friends use to work at the assembly line for Apple. Fuck Apple! Ya, how dare them employ those evil more productive chinese not more productive, but more CHEAP labor. It's not only that but its an American company, who makes most of its money off Americans, but sending the jobs to China instead. use your brain. Productiveness is measured by the output after including incomes and expenses. Given that, Chinese ARE more productive period. You are just being a nationalistic idiot. Of course i have a problem with it. American companies that make most of their money off Americans, yet not hiring Americans. watching Americas economy go down because of this business tactic, and not wanting it, is logical. it is not idiotic. think before you talk. Many people on TL is just hating on Americans. Its like a trend or something. im sick of it. im not surprised gotunk! whos from a 3rd world country. who's probably benefiting from American outsourcing talking shit. Chile ain't a thirdworld country and is probably better off than the united states.
Hey, don't be hating on Americans... ...
|
On September 08 2011 14:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:Taking a step in the direction of single-payer caused the biggest congressional defeat in 60 years for Democrats and is one of the things imperiling Barack Obama's re-election, why do you think that a real single-payer system would cause anything but a very angry rejection by the American electorate? ~40% of Americans identify themselves as "conservative" (whatever that means to them) and ~20% "liberal" (whatever that means to them), remember. This "the Republicans won't let anything happen" line was already tried last year... didn't work. Turns out the people who showed up to vote were pretty damn happy that the GOP was the "Party of No." Just some things to consider while you're hashing out how the GOP is obstructionist and how bullcrap it is. It worked. It'll probably work again for next year. People wouldn't have demoted Nancy Pelosi if they'd disliked the Republicans' strategy. A lot of people in his country wish they could just erase Barack Obama's piss-poor presidency. Bush's too before anyone gets their panties too twisted. Next year = deathmatch with the way Obama's numbers are (down; depressed; in shouting distance of Bushian levels, whatever).
You're talking about the same party that passed Medicare Part D under Bush. I wouldn't be surprised if half of the party would pass some kind of limited single payer system.
I agree with you that Obamacare sunk the democrats in 2010 and is going to sink them again in 2012. However, I wouldn't confuse the unpopularity of Obamacare with a lack of popular appettite for health care reform -- even reform that includes some form of single payer system. The democrats' and Obama's biggest mistake with Obamacare is that they locked the republican party out of the negotiations. They made it a partisan bill, because they felt that they didn't need the republicans at the bargaining table. Quite frankly, they were kinda right. They had a majority in Congress and a super-majority in the Senate. They could pass whatever they wanted without one republican vote. Nonetheless, it was still a political mistake. Leaving the republicans out made it really, really easy for republicans politicians and party members to adopt a unified position in opposition to the democrats and Obama. More importantly, what ultimately was passed was an incredibly flawed bill that Obama and the democrats now own. If Obama and the democrats had been more inclusive of Republicans in the health care negotiations, they wouldn't be in the mess that they are in now, and the tea party may not have blown up as much as it has (I think it still would have given the scope of Obama's deficit spending).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
