|
|
On August 19 2012 17:13 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 17:11 Chriscras wrote:On August 19 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? It cuts a ton of spending and cuts a ton in taxes at the same time. Supposedly, fiscally responsible, but the tax cuts being proposed end up nullifying any savings (and then some) of the cuts to government. Theoretically, couldn't the tax cuts stimulate the US economy? Did the Bush tax cuts simulate the economy? http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/whats-in-the-ryan-plan/
Yes they did, just not very much. Obama's fiscal policy has stimulated the economy too, just not very much as well.
For whatever reason the usual Keynesian fixes don't seem to be working too well. Personally I think there's just too much debt in the economy and so trying to blow the debt bubble bigger just isn't working this time around.
|
On August 20 2012 01:41 Nymphaceae wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 01:27 BluePanther wrote:On August 20 2012 01:22 Nymphaceae wrote:
I was curious what the requirements are to run for mayor. I was thinking about running for mayor. Check with your minicipality. It's usually just 18 and a resident. Thanks, What are the requirements to be a resident.
?
It differs, check with your municipality/state.
|
On August 20 2012 01:04 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 00:56 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 00:47 whatevername wrote:On August 19 2012 23:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 19 2012 23:29 OsoVega wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? His supposedly radical, draconian plan is to not grow the government quite as much as Obama plans to. Certainly better than Obama, but it also shows how weak the right and how far left the left is when not growing the government enough is considered radical. Are you joking? America has moved so far to the right that even someone as centrist and corporatist as Obama is considered a radical leftist and socialist. Obama is the most left wing president ever. Hes the most Authoritarian since Wilson. He's never done a single centrist thing in his life, on any stage of politics. Name a single leftist thing he's done? Financial Reform? Healthcare Reform? Guantanamo? Drone Strikes? Foreign Policy? Repeal of DADT? Are any of these things leftist to you? Pick any of his policies, and we can discuss why you're wrong. Sorry, I consider you about as reasonable and worthy of a discussion as you take that "obama is a fascist" guy. Anyone who imagines Obama is a centrist in the American political spectrum is hilariously delusional.
Care to elaborate? I'm always very confused in this regard. Some of those policies are completely bipartisan. Healthcare Reform is probably the most centrist things he's done, because it's basically a massive compromise between trying to keep healthcare viciously corporate but still trying to reduce the absolute absurd costs to the consumer.
I'm not sure why people think that Obama is a "socialist," or a "leftist." He's been in favor of corporatism and corporate interests since he got into office. It all seems like strange hollow rhetoric from the anarcho-capitalist conservatives. Can someone explain to me where this attitude is coming from?
|
On August 20 2012 02:30 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 01:04 whatevername wrote:On August 20 2012 00:56 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 00:47 whatevername wrote:On August 19 2012 23:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 19 2012 23:29 OsoVega wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? His supposedly radical, draconian plan is to not grow the government quite as much as Obama plans to. Certainly better than Obama, but it also shows how weak the right and how far left the left is when not growing the government enough is considered radical. Are you joking? America has moved so far to the right that even someone as centrist and corporatist as Obama is considered a radical leftist and socialist. Obama is the most left wing president ever. Hes the most Authoritarian since Wilson. He's never done a single centrist thing in his life, on any stage of politics. Name a single leftist thing he's done? Financial Reform? Healthcare Reform? Guantanamo? Drone Strikes? Foreign Policy? Repeal of DADT? Are any of these things leftist to you? Pick any of his policies, and we can discuss why you're wrong. Sorry, I consider you about as reasonable and worthy of a discussion as you take that "obama is a fascist" guy. Anyone who imagines Obama is a centrist in the American political spectrum is hilariously delusional. Care to elaborate? I'm always very confused in this regard. Some of those policies are completely bipartisan. Healthcare Reform is probably the most centrist things he's done, because it's basically a massive compromise between trying to keep healthcare viciously corporate but still trying to reduce the absolute absurd costs to the consumer. I'm not sure why people think that Obama is a "socialist," or a "leftist." He's been in favor of corporatism and corporate interests since he got into office. It all seems like strange hollow rhetoric against the insane anarcho-capitalist conservatives. Can someone explain to me where this attitude is coming from?
Um.... lol? If you fail to see how Obama is a leftist, you clearly don't have any understanding of American politics.
|
On August 20 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 02:30 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 01:04 whatevername wrote:On August 20 2012 00:56 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 00:47 whatevername wrote:On August 19 2012 23:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 19 2012 23:29 OsoVega wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? His supposedly radical, draconian plan is to not grow the government quite as much as Obama plans to. Certainly better than Obama, but it also shows how weak the right and how far left the left is when not growing the government enough is considered radical. Are you joking? America has moved so far to the right that even someone as centrist and corporatist as Obama is considered a radical leftist and socialist. Obama is the most left wing president ever. Hes the most Authoritarian since Wilson. He's never done a single centrist thing in his life, on any stage of politics. Name a single leftist thing he's done? Financial Reform? Healthcare Reform? Guantanamo? Drone Strikes? Foreign Policy? Repeal of DADT? Are any of these things leftist to you? Pick any of his policies, and we can discuss why you're wrong. Sorry, I consider you about as reasonable and worthy of a discussion as you take that "obama is a fascist" guy. Anyone who imagines Obama is a centrist in the American political spectrum is hilariously delusional. Care to elaborate? I'm always very confused in this regard. Some of those policies are completely bipartisan. Healthcare Reform is probably the most centrist things he's done, because it's basically a massive compromise between trying to keep healthcare viciously corporate but still trying to reduce the absolute absurd costs to the consumer. I'm not sure why people think that Obama is a "socialist," or a "leftist." He's been in favor of corporatism and corporate interests since he got into office. It all seems like strange hollow rhetoric against the insane anarcho-capitalist conservatives. Can someone explain to me where this attitude is coming from? Um.... lol? If you fail to see how Obama is a leftist, you clearly don't have any understanding of American politics.
I didn't say Healthcare was bipartisan, because the Republicans were blocking everything (even conservative things like the mandate). Repealing of DADT was. I'm not sure about financial reform.
Care you explain how he's a leftist though? Go for a policy. I mean I'm sure if it's so blatantly obvious you should be able to come up with SOMETHING of his that's not totally centrist.
|
|
|
I'm with DoubleReed on that one. I'm a leftist and Obama sure as hell doesn't speak to me lol.
I think the key word in everyone's response so far is American politics. But that is just echoing what DoubleReed has already pointed out. Maybe we are all in unanimous agreement then?
|
On August 20 2012 02:37 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On August 20 2012 02:30 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 01:04 whatevername wrote:On August 20 2012 00:56 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 00:47 whatevername wrote:On August 19 2012 23:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 19 2012 23:29 OsoVega wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? His supposedly radical, draconian plan is to not grow the government quite as much as Obama plans to. Certainly better than Obama, but it also shows how weak the right and how far left the left is when not growing the government enough is considered radical. Are you joking? America has moved so far to the right that even someone as centrist and corporatist as Obama is considered a radical leftist and socialist. Obama is the most left wing president ever. Hes the most Authoritarian since Wilson. He's never done a single centrist thing in his life, on any stage of politics. Name a single leftist thing he's done? Financial Reform? Healthcare Reform? Guantanamo? Drone Strikes? Foreign Policy? Repeal of DADT? Are any of these things leftist to you? Pick any of his policies, and we can discuss why you're wrong. Sorry, I consider you about as reasonable and worthy of a discussion as you take that "obama is a fascist" guy. Anyone who imagines Obama is a centrist in the American political spectrum is hilariously delusional. Care to elaborate? I'm always very confused in this regard. Some of those policies are completely bipartisan. Healthcare Reform is probably the most centrist things he's done, because it's basically a massive compromise between trying to keep healthcare viciously corporate but still trying to reduce the absolute absurd costs to the consumer. I'm not sure why people think that Obama is a "socialist," or a "leftist." He's been in favor of corporatism and corporate interests since he got into office. It all seems like strange hollow rhetoric against the insane anarcho-capitalist conservatives. Can someone explain to me where this attitude is coming from? Um.... lol? If you fail to see how Obama is a leftist, you clearly don't have any understanding of American politics. I didn't say Healthcare was bipartisan, because the Republicans were blocking everything (even conservative things like the mandate). Repealing of DADT was. I'm not sure about financial reform. Care you explain how he's a leftist though? Go for a policy. I mean I'm sure if it's so blatantly obvious you should be able to come up with SOMETHING of his that's not totally centrist.
Your standards for leftism are too extreme so of course you can't recognize it in Obama. I don't have a definition for leftism, I think it's mostly a meaningless concept... but the first idea that comes to my mind when defining it is the Marxist principle: To each according to need, from each according to ability. And Obamacare mandate is a step in that direction. It is in effect seeking to expand the transfer of wealth FROM the young and healthy TO those who are old or have pre-existing conditions. Just because it doesn't go far enough in your mind by eliminating the corporate element does not mean the change itself is not in a leftist direction. You have to judge by what Obama WANTS not what he is actually able to achieve in the current political environment. Government grows in tiny steps year after year not in some great radical leap as you unreasonably expect. And that's because unlike in Europe our entire political system was founded on a distrust of the state, our entire constitution was an attempt to forever restrain the state, to put individual freedom above other ideals such as economic equality.
|
On August 20 2012 02:30 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 01:04 whatevername wrote:On August 20 2012 00:56 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 00:47 whatevername wrote:On August 19 2012 23:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 19 2012 23:29 OsoVega wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? His supposedly radical, draconian plan is to not grow the government quite as much as Obama plans to. Certainly better than Obama, but it also shows how weak the right and how far left the left is when not growing the government enough is considered radical. Are you joking? America has moved so far to the right that even someone as centrist and corporatist as Obama is considered a radical leftist and socialist. Obama is the most left wing president ever. Hes the most Authoritarian since Wilson. He's never done a single centrist thing in his life, on any stage of politics. Name a single leftist thing he's done? Financial Reform? Healthcare Reform? Guantanamo? Drone Strikes? Foreign Policy? Repeal of DADT? Are any of these things leftist to you? Pick any of his policies, and we can discuss why you're wrong. Sorry, I consider you about as reasonable and worthy of a discussion as you take that "obama is a fascist" guy. Anyone who imagines Obama is a centrist in the American political spectrum is hilariously delusional. Care to elaborate? I'm always very confused in this regard. Some of those policies are completely bipartisan. Healthcare Reform is probably the most centrist things he's done, because it's basically a massive compromise between trying to keep healthcare viciously corporate but still trying to reduce the absolute absurd costs to the consumer. I'm not sure why people think that Obama is a "socialist," or a "leftist." He's been in favor of corporatism and corporate interests since he got into office. It all seems like strange hollow rhetoric from the anarcho-capitalist conservatives. Can someone explain to me where this attitude is coming from?
Obama had one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate so many of the more centrist policies he's taken as President come more from political necessity rather than personal beliefs.
That said, plenty of his policies are 'leftist'. Just because a policy is pro-business doesn't make it in tune with the ideals of free market capitalism... which is where Obama runs afoul with myself.
For example, the GM bailout (and ignoring bankruptcy law), Dodd-Frank, AHA, clean energy loans... none of these involve market solutions to the problems they are addressing. They're all about the government picking winners and losers and micromanaging the private sector.
|
Gary Johnson is trending on Twitter... I am so proud.
|
On August 20 2012 02:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 02:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On August 20 2012 02:30 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 01:04 whatevername wrote:On August 20 2012 00:56 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 00:47 whatevername wrote:On August 19 2012 23:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 19 2012 23:29 OsoVega wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? His supposedly radical, draconian plan is to not grow the government quite as much as Obama plans to. Certainly better than Obama, but it also shows how weak the right and how far left the left is when not growing the government enough is considered radical. Are you joking? America has moved so far to the right that even someone as centrist and corporatist as Obama is considered a radical leftist and socialist. Obama is the most left wing president ever. Hes the most Authoritarian since Wilson. He's never done a single centrist thing in his life, on any stage of politics. Name a single leftist thing he's done? Financial Reform? Healthcare Reform? Guantanamo? Drone Strikes? Foreign Policy? Repeal of DADT? Are any of these things leftist to you? Pick any of his policies, and we can discuss why you're wrong. Sorry, I consider you about as reasonable and worthy of a discussion as you take that "obama is a fascist" guy. Anyone who imagines Obama is a centrist in the American political spectrum is hilariously delusional. Care to elaborate? I'm always very confused in this regard. Some of those policies are completely bipartisan. Healthcare Reform is probably the most centrist things he's done, because it's basically a massive compromise between trying to keep healthcare viciously corporate but still trying to reduce the absolute absurd costs to the consumer. I'm not sure why people think that Obama is a "socialist," or a "leftist." He's been in favor of corporatism and corporate interests since he got into office. It all seems like strange hollow rhetoric against the insane anarcho-capitalist conservatives. Can someone explain to me where this attitude is coming from? Um.... lol? If you fail to see how Obama is a leftist, you clearly don't have any understanding of American politics. I didn't say Healthcare was bipartisan, because the Republicans were blocking everything (even conservative things like the mandate). Repealing of DADT was. I'm not sure about financial reform. Care you explain how he's a leftist though? Go for a policy. I mean I'm sure if it's so blatantly obvious you should be able to come up with SOMETHING of his that's not totally centrist. Your standards for leftism are too extreme so of course you can't recognize it in Obama. I don't have a definition for leftism, I think it's mostly a meaningless concept... but the first idea that comes to my mind when defining it is the Marxist principle: To each according to need, from each according to ability. And Obamacare mandate is a step in that direction. It is in effect seeking to expand the transfer of wealth FROM the young and healthy TO those who are old or have pre-existing conditions. Just because it doesn't go far enough in your mind by eliminating the corporate element does not mean the change itself is not in a leftist direction. You have to judge by what Obama WANTS not what he is actually able to achieve in the current political environment. Government grows in tiny steps year after year not in some great radical leap as you unreasonably expect. And that's because unlike in Europe our entire political system was founded on a distrust of the state, our entire constitution was an attempt to forever restrain the state, to put individual freedom above other ideals such as economic equality.
The mandate is to prevent people without healthcare from freeloading off the system (which is essentially what happens). This is why Romney supported it. It is a completely conservative idea. The only reason it's being seen as leftist is because the moment that the Democrats wanted to use the conservative policy, the Republicans labeled it as liberal. It's a lie.
Health insurance not paying for pre-existing conditions completely undermines the purpose of the health insurance. I have no idea how anyone can see that as partisan at all. I think that's only liberal under the lens of anarcho-capitalism, where there should be no rules at all on the private sector.
|
On August 20 2012 03:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 02:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 20 2012 02:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On August 20 2012 02:30 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 01:04 whatevername wrote:On August 20 2012 00:56 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 00:47 whatevername wrote:On August 19 2012 23:47 DoubleReed wrote:On August 19 2012 23:29 OsoVega wrote:
[quote]
His supposedly radical, draconian plan is to not grow the government quite as much as Obama plans to. Certainly better than Obama, but it also shows how weak the right and how far left the left is when not growing the government enough is considered radical. Are you joking? America has moved so far to the right that even someone as centrist and corporatist as Obama is considered a radical leftist and socialist. Obama is the most left wing president ever. Hes the most Authoritarian since Wilson. He's never done a single centrist thing in his life, on any stage of politics. Name a single leftist thing he's done? Financial Reform? Healthcare Reform? Guantanamo? Drone Strikes? Foreign Policy? Repeal of DADT? Are any of these things leftist to you? Pick any of his policies, and we can discuss why you're wrong. Sorry, I consider you about as reasonable and worthy of a discussion as you take that "obama is a fascist" guy. Anyone who imagines Obama is a centrist in the American political spectrum is hilariously delusional. Care to elaborate? I'm always very confused in this regard. Some of those policies are completely bipartisan. Healthcare Reform is probably the most centrist things he's done, because it's basically a massive compromise between trying to keep healthcare viciously corporate but still trying to reduce the absolute absurd costs to the consumer. I'm not sure why people think that Obama is a "socialist," or a "leftist." He's been in favor of corporatism and corporate interests since he got into office. It all seems like strange hollow rhetoric against the insane anarcho-capitalist conservatives. Can someone explain to me where this attitude is coming from? Um.... lol? If you fail to see how Obama is a leftist, you clearly don't have any understanding of American politics. I didn't say Healthcare was bipartisan, because the Republicans were blocking everything (even conservative things like the mandate). Repealing of DADT was. I'm not sure about financial reform. Care you explain how he's a leftist though? Go for a policy. I mean I'm sure if it's so blatantly obvious you should be able to come up with SOMETHING of his that's not totally centrist. Your standards for leftism are too extreme so of course you can't recognize it in Obama. I don't have a definition for leftism, I think it's mostly a meaningless concept... but the first idea that comes to my mind when defining it is the Marxist principle: To each according to need, from each according to ability. And Obamacare mandate is a step in that direction. It is in effect seeking to expand the transfer of wealth FROM the young and healthy TO those who are old or have pre-existing conditions. Just because it doesn't go far enough in your mind by eliminating the corporate element does not mean the change itself is not in a leftist direction. You have to judge by what Obama WANTS not what he is actually able to achieve in the current political environment. Government grows in tiny steps year after year not in some great radical leap as you unreasonably expect. And that's because unlike in Europe our entire political system was founded on a distrust of the state, our entire constitution was an attempt to forever restrain the state, to put individual freedom above other ideals such as economic equality. The mandate is to prevent people without healthcare from freeloading off the system (which is essentially what happens). This is why Romney supported it. It is a completely conservative idea. The only reason it's being seen as leftist is because the moment that the Democrats wanted to use the conservative policy, the Republicans labeled it as liberal. It's a lie. Health insurance not paying for pre-existing conditions completely undermines the purpose of the health insurance. I have no idea how anyone can see that as partisan at all. I think that's only liberal under the lens of anarcho-capitalism, where there should be no rules at all on the private sector.
The purpose of health insurance is to financially protect a person against the risk, the future possibility, of a medical condition arising. You cannot insure against the risk of something that has already occured, that's no longer insurance. So you have it backwards. Forcing insurance companies to accept those with pre-existing conditions is in effect outlawing the practice of insurance entirely. I'm not saying we shouldn't help those with pre-existing conditions, but whatever help we provide cannot possibly be defined as "insurance." Perhaps welfare, charity, subsidy, transfer... anything but insurance.
As to your first point, only a handful of republicans supported health care mandates, and they didn't do it as a conservative ideal but as a compromise, as an alternative to the plans that were being offered at the time. Expanding the state transfer of wealth from one group to another can not be considered a conservative principle by any stretch.
|
On August 20 2012 02:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 17:13 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 19 2012 17:11 Chriscras wrote:On August 19 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? It cuts a ton of spending and cuts a ton in taxes at the same time. Supposedly, fiscally responsible, but the tax cuts being proposed end up nullifying any savings (and then some) of the cuts to government. Theoretically, couldn't the tax cuts stimulate the US economy? Did the Bush tax cuts simulate the economy? http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/whats-in-the-ryan-plan/ Yes they did, just not very much. Obama's fiscal policy has stimulated the economy too, just not very much as well. For whatever reason the usual Keynesian fixes don't seem to be working too well. Personally I think there's just too much debt in the economy and so trying to blow the debt bubble bigger just isn't working this time around.
What Keynesian fixes? The one time stimulus package followed by an overall cut in spending at all levels government? That doesn't sound Keynesian to me, just sounds like austerity in a recession.
Edit: Most economists agree that the 2000's growth was anemic. The tax cuts didn't do a whole lot.
|
On August 20 2012 03:19 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 02:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 17:13 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 19 2012 17:11 Chriscras wrote:On August 19 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? It cuts a ton of spending and cuts a ton in taxes at the same time. Supposedly, fiscally responsible, but the tax cuts being proposed end up nullifying any savings (and then some) of the cuts to government. Theoretically, couldn't the tax cuts stimulate the US economy? Did the Bush tax cuts simulate the economy? http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/whats-in-the-ryan-plan/ Yes they did, just not very much. Obama's fiscal policy has stimulated the economy too, just not very much as well. For whatever reason the usual Keynesian fixes don't seem to be working too well. Personally I think there's just too much debt in the economy and so trying to blow the debt bubble bigger just isn't working this time around. What Keynesian fixes? The one time stimulus package followed by an overall cut in spending at all levels government? That doesn't sound Keynesian to me, just sounds like austerity in a recession. Edit: Most economists agree that the 2000's growth was anemic. The tax cuts didn't do a whole lot.
The stimulus package wasn't a one-time spending plan. It lasts until 2019.
There has been huge fiscal stimulus (beyond stimulus bills) in the economy since the recession began. Government spending as a % of GDP has yet to come down to pre-recession levels and deficits are huge.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Honestly, this whole debate about how far "left" Obama is entirely meaningless. Don't even try to use "left" as a condemnation. If you want to debate that you disagree with the way he approaches policies, put the policy on the table and tell us specifically what problem(s) you have it with it. You don't agree with government regulation? Give us an example and explain why government regulation for that particular policy is worse for America.
On August 20 2012 02:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:
And that's because unlike in Europe our entire political system was founded on a distrust of the state, our entire constitution was an attempt to forever restrain the state, to put individual freedom above other ideals such as economic equality.
That's absolutely right and it's one of the issues I have with America. I don't believe trusting government is a bad thing; however, I don't believe our government can be completed trusted yet, so long as we can't work together, and so long as money = speech.
|
On August 20 2012 03:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 03:06 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 02:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 20 2012 02:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On August 20 2012 02:30 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 01:04 whatevername wrote:On August 20 2012 00:56 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 00:47 whatevername wrote:On August 19 2012 23:47 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Are you joking? America has moved so far to the right that even someone as centrist and corporatist as Obama is considered a radical leftist and socialist. Obama is the most left wing president ever. Hes the most Authoritarian since Wilson. He's never done a single centrist thing in his life, on any stage of politics. Name a single leftist thing he's done? Financial Reform? Healthcare Reform? Guantanamo? Drone Strikes? Foreign Policy? Repeal of DADT? Are any of these things leftist to you? Pick any of his policies, and we can discuss why you're wrong. Sorry, I consider you about as reasonable and worthy of a discussion as you take that "obama is a fascist" guy. Anyone who imagines Obama is a centrist in the American political spectrum is hilariously delusional. Care to elaborate? I'm always very confused in this regard. Some of those policies are completely bipartisan. Healthcare Reform is probably the most centrist things he's done, because it's basically a massive compromise between trying to keep healthcare viciously corporate but still trying to reduce the absolute absurd costs to the consumer. I'm not sure why people think that Obama is a "socialist," or a "leftist." He's been in favor of corporatism and corporate interests since he got into office. It all seems like strange hollow rhetoric against the insane anarcho-capitalist conservatives. Can someone explain to me where this attitude is coming from? Um.... lol? If you fail to see how Obama is a leftist, you clearly don't have any understanding of American politics. I didn't say Healthcare was bipartisan, because the Republicans were blocking everything (even conservative things like the mandate). Repealing of DADT was. I'm not sure about financial reform. Care you explain how he's a leftist though? Go for a policy. I mean I'm sure if it's so blatantly obvious you should be able to come up with SOMETHING of his that's not totally centrist. Your standards for leftism are too extreme so of course you can't recognize it in Obama. I don't have a definition for leftism, I think it's mostly a meaningless concept... but the first idea that comes to my mind when defining it is the Marxist principle: To each according to need, from each according to ability. And Obamacare mandate is a step in that direction. It is in effect seeking to expand the transfer of wealth FROM the young and healthy TO those who are old or have pre-existing conditions. Just because it doesn't go far enough in your mind by eliminating the corporate element does not mean the change itself is not in a leftist direction. You have to judge by what Obama WANTS not what he is actually able to achieve in the current political environment. Government grows in tiny steps year after year not in some great radical leap as you unreasonably expect. And that's because unlike in Europe our entire political system was founded on a distrust of the state, our entire constitution was an attempt to forever restrain the state, to put individual freedom above other ideals such as economic equality. The mandate is to prevent people without healthcare from freeloading off the system (which is essentially what happens). This is why Romney supported it. It is a completely conservative idea. The only reason it's being seen as leftist is because the moment that the Democrats wanted to use the conservative policy, the Republicans labeled it as liberal. It's a lie. Health insurance not paying for pre-existing conditions completely undermines the purpose of the health insurance. I have no idea how anyone can see that as partisan at all. I think that's only liberal under the lens of anarcho-capitalism, where there should be no rules at all on the private sector. The purpose of health insurance is to financially protect a person against the risk, the future possibility, of a medical condition arising. You cannot insure against the risk of something that has already occured, that's no longer insurance. So you have it backwards. Forcing insurance companies to accept those with pre-existing conditions is in effect outlawing the practice of insurance entirely. I'm not saying we shouldn't help those with pre-existing conditions, but whatever help we provide cannot possibly be defined as "insurance." Perhaps welfare, charity, subsidy, transfer... anything but insurance. As to your first point, only a handful of republicans supported health care mandates, and they didn't do it as a conservative ideal but as a compromise, as an alternative to the plans that were being offered at the time. Expanding the state transfer of wealth from one group to another can not be considered a conservative principle by any stretch.
State transfer of wealth? You realize that the mandate means that everyone has to put money into the system that they will use if they need it. Hospitals take the hit for the uninsured patients. It's a loss for everyone involved. There is no way you can consider the mandate a transfer of wealth, because that's exactly what happens without a mandate. And no, the mandate was a conservative compromise. It came from the conservative side and has completely conservative reasons for existing.
No, the purpose of insurance, all insurance, is for people as a collective to pool money for those that need it (and then insurance takes some off the top). You pay auto-insurance and that money goes to people in accidents and such. You do not simply get your money back from insurance. That's not the way it works. Health insurance itself is "socialist" because it is healthy people paying for sick people. That's actually how it works and how the money works. It would be impossible to have a sensible model if, for instance, there were significantly more sick people, because we wouldn't have enough money pooled to make it work.
By not insuring against pre-existing conditions, you are refusing to pay for sick people that need it that are in your pool. This defeats the purpose. Not to mention that pre-existing conditions is used a lot as a loophole to prevent people from getting money for perfectly normal things. It may make sense for other insurances, but obviously not health insurance. Your body is 'pre-existing' so it's kind of stupid anyway.
|
On August 20 2012 04:08 Souma wrote:
money = speech.
This is really at the root of most of our problems. Does anybody disagree with this?
|
On August 20 2012 04:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 03:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 20 2012 03:06 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 02:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 20 2012 02:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On August 20 2012 02:30 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 01:04 whatevername wrote:On August 20 2012 00:56 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 00:47 whatevername wrote:
[quote] Obama is the most left wing president ever. Hes the most Authoritarian since Wilson. He's never done a single centrist thing in his life, on any stage of politics.
Name a single leftist thing he's done? Financial Reform? Healthcare Reform? Guantanamo? Drone Strikes? Foreign Policy? Repeal of DADT? Are any of these things leftist to you? Pick any of his policies, and we can discuss why you're wrong. Sorry, I consider you about as reasonable and worthy of a discussion as you take that "obama is a fascist" guy. Anyone who imagines Obama is a centrist in the American political spectrum is hilariously delusional. Care to elaborate? I'm always very confused in this regard. Some of those policies are completely bipartisan. Healthcare Reform is probably the most centrist things he's done, because it's basically a massive compromise between trying to keep healthcare viciously corporate but still trying to reduce the absolute absurd costs to the consumer. I'm not sure why people think that Obama is a "socialist," or a "leftist." He's been in favor of corporatism and corporate interests since he got into office. It all seems like strange hollow rhetoric against the insane anarcho-capitalist conservatives. Can someone explain to me where this attitude is coming from? Um.... lol? If you fail to see how Obama is a leftist, you clearly don't have any understanding of American politics. I didn't say Healthcare was bipartisan, because the Republicans were blocking everything (even conservative things like the mandate). Repealing of DADT was. I'm not sure about financial reform. Care you explain how he's a leftist though? Go for a policy. I mean I'm sure if it's so blatantly obvious you should be able to come up with SOMETHING of his that's not totally centrist. Your standards for leftism are too extreme so of course you can't recognize it in Obama. I don't have a definition for leftism, I think it's mostly a meaningless concept... but the first idea that comes to my mind when defining it is the Marxist principle: To each according to need, from each according to ability. And Obamacare mandate is a step in that direction. It is in effect seeking to expand the transfer of wealth FROM the young and healthy TO those who are old or have pre-existing conditions. Just because it doesn't go far enough in your mind by eliminating the corporate element does not mean the change itself is not in a leftist direction. You have to judge by what Obama WANTS not what he is actually able to achieve in the current political environment. Government grows in tiny steps year after year not in some great radical leap as you unreasonably expect. And that's because unlike in Europe our entire political system was founded on a distrust of the state, our entire constitution was an attempt to forever restrain the state, to put individual freedom above other ideals such as economic equality. The mandate is to prevent people without healthcare from freeloading off the system (which is essentially what happens). This is why Romney supported it. It is a completely conservative idea. The only reason it's being seen as leftist is because the moment that the Democrats wanted to use the conservative policy, the Republicans labeled it as liberal. It's a lie. Health insurance not paying for pre-existing conditions completely undermines the purpose of the health insurance. I have no idea how anyone can see that as partisan at all. I think that's only liberal under the lens of anarcho-capitalism, where there should be no rules at all on the private sector. The purpose of health insurance is to financially protect a person against the risk, the future possibility, of a medical condition arising. You cannot insure against the risk of something that has already occured, that's no longer insurance. So you have it backwards. Forcing insurance companies to accept those with pre-existing conditions is in effect outlawing the practice of insurance entirely. I'm not saying we shouldn't help those with pre-existing conditions, but whatever help we provide cannot possibly be defined as "insurance." Perhaps welfare, charity, subsidy, transfer... anything but insurance. As to your first point, only a handful of republicans supported health care mandates, and they didn't do it as a conservative ideal but as a compromise, as an alternative to the plans that were being offered at the time. Expanding the state transfer of wealth from one group to another can not be considered a conservative principle by any stretch. No, the purpose of insurance, all insurance, is for people as a collective to pool money for those that need it (and then insurance takes some off the top).
Meh. Free healthcare through paying taxes accomplishes the exact same thing, without insurance companies taking 100% profit, which is a common enough practice. Although I'm sure there are restrictions on that; not that the principle isn't still flawed: Sick people having to argue and fight with their insurance companies, because their responsibility is to the company, and they will try to bend the law to their purpose, and anyone getting (e.g) a chemo treatment is unable to fight back.
|
On August 20 2012 03:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 03:19 aksfjh wrote:On August 20 2012 02:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 17:13 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 19 2012 17:11 Chriscras wrote:On August 19 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? It cuts a ton of spending and cuts a ton in taxes at the same time. Supposedly, fiscally responsible, but the tax cuts being proposed end up nullifying any savings (and then some) of the cuts to government. Theoretically, couldn't the tax cuts stimulate the US economy? Did the Bush tax cuts simulate the economy? http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/whats-in-the-ryan-plan/ Yes they did, just not very much. Obama's fiscal policy has stimulated the economy too, just not very much as well. For whatever reason the usual Keynesian fixes don't seem to be working too well. Personally I think there's just too much debt in the economy and so trying to blow the debt bubble bigger just isn't working this time around. What Keynesian fixes? The one time stimulus package followed by an overall cut in spending at all levels government? That doesn't sound Keynesian to me, just sounds like austerity in a recession. Edit: Most economists agree that the 2000's growth was anemic. The tax cuts didn't do a whole lot. The stimulus package wasn't a one-time spending plan. It lasts until 2019. There has been huge fiscal stimulus (beyond stimulus bills) in the economy since the recession began. Government spending as a % of GDP has yet to come down to pre-recession levels and deficits are huge.
It has yet to come down because we're still 6-12% below pre-crisis GDP potential and we still have high unemployment and underemployment, pushing a significant number of people into welfare programs like unemployment and food stamps.
Also, if you imagine that the government should attempt to fill the gap in production/consumption, the stimulus should have been much larger and over the span of 2-4 years. Stating that it "lasts until 2019" just emphasizes how pitiful of a stimulus it actually was.
Good picture:
![[image loading]](http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4fd021cbecad04ca73000034-590/nope-public-construction-spending-is-falling.jpg)
|
On August 20 2012 04:21 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2012 04:12 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 03:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 20 2012 03:06 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 02:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 20 2012 02:37 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On August 20 2012 02:30 DoubleReed wrote:On August 20 2012 01:04 whatevername wrote:On August 20 2012 00:56 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Name a single leftist thing he's done?
Financial Reform? Healthcare Reform? Guantanamo? Drone Strikes? Foreign Policy? Repeal of DADT?
Are any of these things leftist to you? Pick any of his policies, and we can discuss why you're wrong. Sorry, I consider you about as reasonable and worthy of a discussion as you take that "obama is a fascist" guy. Anyone who imagines Obama is a centrist in the American political spectrum is hilariously delusional. Care to elaborate? I'm always very confused in this regard. Some of those policies are completely bipartisan. Healthcare Reform is probably the most centrist things he's done, because it's basically a massive compromise between trying to keep healthcare viciously corporate but still trying to reduce the absolute absurd costs to the consumer. I'm not sure why people think that Obama is a "socialist," or a "leftist." He's been in favor of corporatism and corporate interests since he got into office. It all seems like strange hollow rhetoric against the insane anarcho-capitalist conservatives. Can someone explain to me where this attitude is coming from? Um.... lol? If you fail to see how Obama is a leftist, you clearly don't have any understanding of American politics. I didn't say Healthcare was bipartisan, because the Republicans were blocking everything (even conservative things like the mandate). Repealing of DADT was. I'm not sure about financial reform. Care you explain how he's a leftist though? Go for a policy. I mean I'm sure if it's so blatantly obvious you should be able to come up with SOMETHING of his that's not totally centrist. Your standards for leftism are too extreme so of course you can't recognize it in Obama. I don't have a definition for leftism, I think it's mostly a meaningless concept... but the first idea that comes to my mind when defining it is the Marxist principle: To each according to need, from each according to ability. And Obamacare mandate is a step in that direction. It is in effect seeking to expand the transfer of wealth FROM the young and healthy TO those who are old or have pre-existing conditions. Just because it doesn't go far enough in your mind by eliminating the corporate element does not mean the change itself is not in a leftist direction. You have to judge by what Obama WANTS not what he is actually able to achieve in the current political environment. Government grows in tiny steps year after year not in some great radical leap as you unreasonably expect. And that's because unlike in Europe our entire political system was founded on a distrust of the state, our entire constitution was an attempt to forever restrain the state, to put individual freedom above other ideals such as economic equality. The mandate is to prevent people without healthcare from freeloading off the system (which is essentially what happens). This is why Romney supported it. It is a completely conservative idea. The only reason it's being seen as leftist is because the moment that the Democrats wanted to use the conservative policy, the Republicans labeled it as liberal. It's a lie. Health insurance not paying for pre-existing conditions completely undermines the purpose of the health insurance. I have no idea how anyone can see that as partisan at all. I think that's only liberal under the lens of anarcho-capitalism, where there should be no rules at all on the private sector. The purpose of health insurance is to financially protect a person against the risk, the future possibility, of a medical condition arising. You cannot insure against the risk of something that has already occured, that's no longer insurance. So you have it backwards. Forcing insurance companies to accept those with pre-existing conditions is in effect outlawing the practice of insurance entirely. I'm not saying we shouldn't help those with pre-existing conditions, but whatever help we provide cannot possibly be defined as "insurance." Perhaps welfare, charity, subsidy, transfer... anything but insurance. As to your first point, only a handful of republicans supported health care mandates, and they didn't do it as a conservative ideal but as a compromise, as an alternative to the plans that were being offered at the time. Expanding the state transfer of wealth from one group to another can not be considered a conservative principle by any stretch. No, the purpose of insurance, all insurance, is for people as a collective to pool money for those that need it (and then insurance takes some off the top). Meh. Free healthcare through paying taxes accomplishes the exact same thing, without insurance companies taking 100% profit, which is a common enough practice. Although I'm sure there are restrictions on that; not that the principle isn't still flawed: Sick people having to argue and fight with their insurance companies, because their responsibility is to the company, and they will try to bend the law to their purpose, and anyone getting (e.g) a chemo treatment is unable to fight back.
Yes, that would do the same thing. It's an argument between private and public.
Conservatives would argue that a privatized system would be more efficient, cost less, and be better due to market forces. But of course I'm a dirty lib who thinks that's bullshit because we have tons and tons of evidence to the contrary. Basically whenever we've tried to deregulate the industry, the health insurance industry just makes more money but doesn't lower costs or provide better care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
