On August 31 2012 03:18 MCMXVI wrote: "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it." -Mark Twain/Emma Goldman
Simply put, you're all slaves to the men behind the curtain. You know, they ones who print the fiat currencies of the world.
"Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who makes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild
I'd probably sound like a broken record by now, but hey; its time to wake up. Take the red pill.
I've found that conflations of the discovery of truth with Matrix quotations are oftentimes good indicators of tinfoil hattery. Thanks for the grace of your wisdom.
Well he is not all wrong. Just look at the LIBOR scandal. Just because a government passes laws does not mean the mega-corporations will follow them. A few months later and the common public has all but forgot about it and I am ceirtan there is yet more manipulation going on that will never come to light because they are simply too powerful and can cover it up, but that is just how the world works.
The banks also told the Fed that they were manipulating LIBOR and the Fed was like "cool, bro."
Regulators are awesome like that.
FR = federal reserve
[Redacted]: You know, you know we, we went through a period where FR: Hmm. [Redacted]: We were putting in where we really thought we would be able to borrow cash in the interbank market and it was FR: Mm hmm. [Redacted]: Above where everyone else was publishing rates. FR: Mm hmm. [Redacted]: And the next thing we knew, there was um, an article in the Financial Times, charting our LIBOR contributions and comparing it with other banks and inferring that this meant that we had a problem raising cash in the interbank market. FR: Yeah. [Redacted]: And um, our share price went down. FR: Yes. [Redacted]: So it’s never supposed to be the prerogative of a, a money market dealer to affect their company share value. FR: Okay. [Redacted]: And so we just fit in with the rest of the crowd, if you like. FR: Okay. [Redacted]: So, we know that we’re not posting um, an honest LIBOR. FR: Okay. [Redacted]: And yet and yet we are doing it, because, um, if we didn’t do it FR: Mm hmm. [Redacted]: It draws, um, unwanted attention on ourselves. FR: Okay, I got you then. [Redacted]: And at a time when the market is so um, gossipy, and FR: Mm hmm. [Redacted]: Prone to FR: Mm hmm. [Redacted]: Speculate about other names FR: Mm hmm. [Redacted]: In the market FR: Mm hmm. [Redacted]: It’s um FR: Mm hmm. [Redacted]: Not a useful thing for us as an organization FR: Mm hmm. [Redacted]: To do. And in fact, wha-what we’ve noticed is almost like um, a um, um perverse thing where people that we know that are paying for money actually put in the lowest LIBOR rates. FR: Okay. [Redacted]: So it, it’s almost to um, you know the ones that need cash the most put in the lowest, lowest rates.
Regulators are awesome like that, because we have the fox guarding the henhouse... in every sector. Why does anyone expect the FDA and EPA to worth a shit, when they are filled with former execs of Smithfield, Monsanto etc... for example. Same with the Fed and Wall Street ties.
On August 31 2012 03:28 Wayne123 wrote: I have question for the citizen of the United States of America on TL:
As a person living in Germany I never understood why someone votes the Republicans. Maybe it´s because I´m German and our political system and social norms are different from the United States of America and I have no clue about the American culture and their values. But when I read some points out of the Republican manifesto for the coming elections I honestly though "These people are fuckin stupid and they don´t know what they are doing. How can somebody support that?".
Here are some points I don´t understand. I´m also going to explain why I don´t understand them. Maybe somebody can explain to me why some people in the USA support that.
1. Abortion: Sorry for my harsh language, but to my mind it´s retarded that some Republicans(For example Paul Ryan) say that abortion shouldn´t be allowed in any case even when the woman was raped or the life of the woman is in danger. To my mind, a woman should decide on her own if she wants to keep the child or not. No one should tell a woman what to do with her own body. And the claim that abortion shouldn´t be allowed for raped woman is just beyond comprehension for me. How can somebody seriously believe that unless he´s fuckin stupid? That´s just inhuman. I don´t think that any woman wants a child from her rapist.
2. Health Care: In Germany, we have universal health care for anyone and to I think that´s good. Everyone should be able to see a doctor or go to the hospital when he/she needs it. I read that millions of people didn´t have a health insurance before Obamacare. What would happen to these people if they get a serious illness? They could never support that without insurance. That´s why I do not understand why the Republicans are against Obamacare. It doesn´t makes sense to me. It´s a good thing because it supports their own people.
3. Gun Ownership: I guess this is a really controversial topic but to my mind, no citizen should be allowed to own a gun. Only the army and the police and other important government bodies should be allowed to carry weapons. However, the Republicans have absolutly no problems with gun ownership.
4. Gay marriage: Why shouldn´t gay people be allowed to marry according to the Republicans? They don´t harm anyone. Just let them do it.
I also ask myself why they are so conservative. In Germany, people with these kind of political goals don´t exist. Even the most powerful party at the moment in Germany, the CDU, isn´t that conservative.
I'm not a conservative, but I've lived in texas so I might qualify to answer
1. Bible.
2. The premise of the Constitution is a limited government. Some people take that to the extreme of not wanting government in their lives. However, it's also because the majority of republicans are people who don't want t be forced with a fee to government.
3. They don't read selectively interpret the 2nd Amendment, and the NRA is waaaay too powerful. Americans like them guns.
Yeah, but you can't attribute an increase in the deficit to factors that existed before the increase occurred. It just doesn't hold water.
Meaning anything happening before the exact moment of the increase is not causally determining. Following that argument if someone were to throw a rock you at from any distance, the person would not be responsible for your increase in pain since the rock hit you AFTER it had been thrown.
On August 31 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse wrote: More on Ryan's speech
You’re going to read and hear a lot about Paul Ryan’s speech on Wednesday night. And I imagine most of it will be about how Ryan’s speech played—with the party loyalists in Tampa, with the television viewers across the country, and eventually with the swing voters who will decide the election.
I’d like to talk, instead, about what Ryan actually said—not because I find Ryan’s ideas objectionable, although I do, but because I thought he was so brazenly willing to twist the truth.
At least five times, Ryan misrepresented the facts. And while none of the statements were new, the context was. It’s one thing to hear them on a thirty-second television spot or even in a stump speech before a small crowd. It’s something else entirely to hear them in prime time address, as a vice presidential nominee is accepting his party’s nomination and speaking to the entire country.
Here are the five statements that deserve serious scrutiny:
1) About the GM plant in Janesville.
Ryan’s home district includes a shuttered General Motors plant. Here’s what happened, according to Ryan:
A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.
Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.
It’s true: The plant shut down. But it shut down in 2008—before Obama became president.
By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled. Credible estimates suggested that the rescue saved more than a million jobs. Unemployment in Michigan and Ohio, the two states with the most auto jobs, have declined precipitously.
2) About Medicare.
Ryan attacked Obama for “raiding” Medicare. Again, Ryan has no standing whatsoever to make this attack, because his own budget called for taking the same amount of money from Medicare. Twice. The only difference is that Ryan’s budget used those savings to finance Ryan’s priorities, which include a massive tax cut that benefits the wealthy disproportionately.
It’s true that Romney has pledged to put that money back into Medicare and Ryan now says he would do the same. But the claim is totally implausible given Romney's promise to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of gross domestic product.
By the way, Obamacare's cut to Medicare was a reduction in what the plan pays hospitals and insurance companies. And the hospitals said they could live with those cuts, because Obamacare was simultaneously giving more people health insurance, alleviating the financial burden of charity care.
What Obamacare did not do is take away benefits. On the contrary, it added benefits, by offering free preventative care and new prescription drug coverage. By repealing Obamacare, Romney and Ryan would take away those benefits—and, by the way, add to Medicare's financial troubles because the program would be back to paying hospitals and insurers the higher rates.
3) About the credit rating downgrade.
Ryan blamed the downgrading of American debt on Obama. But it was the possibility that America would default on its debts that led to the downgrade. And why did that possibility exist? Because Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, playing chicken not just with the nations’ credit rating but the whole economy, unless Obama would cave into their budget demands.
4) About the deficit.
Ryan said “President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him” and proclaimed “We need to stop spending money we don’t have.” In fact, this decade’s big deficits are primarily a product of Bush-era tax cuts and wars. (See graph.) And you know who voted for them? Paul Ryan.
5) About protecting the weak.
Here’s Ryan on the obligations to help those who can’t help themselves:
We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves. … We can make the safety net safe again.
The rhetoric is stirring—and positively galling. Analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that 62 percent of the cuts in Ryan budget would come from programs that serve low-income people. And that’s assuming he keeps the Obamacare Medicare cuts. If he’s serious about putting that money back into Medicare, the cuts to these programs would have to be even bigger.
Among the cuts Ryan specified was a massive reduction in Medicaid spending. According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute, between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance from these cuts. That’s above and beyond the 15 million or so who are supposed to get Medicaid coverage from the Affordable Care Act but wouldn’t because Romney and Ryan have pledged to repeal the law.
I realize conservatives think that transforming Medicaid into a block grant, so that states have more control over how to spend the money, can make the program more efficient. But Medicaid already costs far less than any other insurance program in America. And even to the extent states can find some new efficiencies, the idea that they can find enough to offset such a draconian funding cut is just not credible.
That graph does not make sense. Pre-crisis the deficit was $160B, for 2012 the deficit is $1,320B ... not sure how you can explain the change with policies that existed both pre and post crisis (wars and tax cuts).
Yeah, but you can't attribute an increase in the deficit to factors that existed before the increase occurred. It just doesn't hold water.
What?
The tax cuts and wars are constants. You can't explain a change by something that is constant.
The deficit went from $160B in '07 to over a trillion now. The tax cuts and wars didn't change between then and now so you can't explain the change in the deficit on them.
Yeah, but you can't attribute an increase in the deficit to factors that existed before the increase occurred. It just doesn't hold water.
Meaning anything happening before the exact moment of the increase is not causally determining. Following that argument if someone were to throw a rock you at from any distance, the person would not be responsible for your increase in pain since the rock hit you AFTER it had been thrown.
The tax cuts occurred in '01 and '03. Pretty sure the rock hit its mark well before '09.
On August 31 2012 03:28 Wayne123 wrote: I have question for the citizen of the United States of America on TL:
As a person living in Germany I never understood why someone votes the Republicans. Maybe it´s because I´m German and our political system and social norms are different from the United States of America and I have no clue about the American culture and their values. But when I read some points out of the Republican manifesto for the coming elections I honestly though "These people are fuckin stupid and they don´t know what they are doing. How can somebody support that?".
Here are some points I don´t understand. I´m also going to explain why I don´t understand them. Maybe somebody can explain to me why some people in the USA support that.
1. Abortion: Sorry for my harsh language, but to my mind it´s retarded that some Republicans(For example Paul Ryan) say that abortion shouldn´t be allowed in any case even when the woman was raped or the life of the woman is in danger. To my mind, a woman should decide on her own if she wants to keep the child or not. No one should tell a woman what to do with her own body. And the claim that abortion shouldn´t be allowed for raped woman is just beyond comprehension for me. How can somebody seriously believe that unless he´s fuckin stupid? That´s just inhuman. I don´t think that any woman wants a child from her rapist.
2. Health Care: In Germany, we have universal health care for anyone and to I think that´s good. Everyone should be able to see a doctor or go to the hospital when he/she needs it. I read that millions of people didn´t have a health insurance before Obamacare. What would happen to these people if they get a serious illness? They could never support that without insurance. That´s why I do not understand why the Republicans are against Obamacare. It doesn´t makes sense to me. It´s a good thing because it supports their own people.
3. Gun Ownership: I guess this is a really controversial topic but to my mind, no citizen should be allowed to own a gun. Only the army and the police and other important government bodies should be allowed to carry weapons. However, the Republicans have absolutly no problems with gun ownership.
4. Gay marriage: Why shouldn´t gay people be allowed to marry according to the Republicans? They don´t harm anyone. Just let them do it.
I also ask myself why they are so conservative. In Germany, people with these kind of political goals don´t exist. Even the most powerful party at the moment in Germany, the CDU, isn´t that conservative.
I have voted Republican in the past, although never for social reasons. But let me take a swing at some of this:
1. You put it harshly but only on one side. How about the other? Is it okay for a mother to kill her children? No, right? So then walk that back. Is it okay for her to strangle her newborn infant child? No. Is it okay for her to kill her child a day before it is born? No. A week? No. A month? No. At the extreme, you get to a point where it's not okay for her to kill the child at conception. I don't subscribe to the exceptions (rape, incest, health of mother) at all so I won't try to justify that. But the point is that the child may also have a right to life and it is unfair for the mother to make that choice.
2. Health care is a multifaceted issue. It is simplistic to say universal health care is good. It IS good, in one dimension. But can universal health care deliver quality care at a cost-effective price? That is a much more difficult question, one that every OECD country is currently wrestling with. Millions of Americans don't have insurance, but ironically Obamacare treats them as free-loaders, not victims. They're pushed to buy insurance or pay a fine. Although Obamacare does address victims as well by banning companies from refusing to insure anyone who wants to buy.
America's big problem is that we spend 4x more than anyone else on health care but Americans aren't far healthier than the rest of the world. Nobody knows how to fix it.
3. This is a difference of opinion from history. Americans regard individual gun ownership as a defense against tyranny and a fundamental right. Every other OECD country disagrees with that stance. Republicans make a big deal out of it because it fires up conservative voters and motivates them to vote.
4. Gay marriage is also not allowed in Germany. It's again a difference of opinion. The politics in the US is that individual states can grant gay marriage if they want and several states do. The problem with that is different states with different levels of recognition and benefits causes a discrimination lawsuit that can force states that don't want to recognize gay marriage to do so.
But in summary, what you really seem to not like about the Republican Party is social conservatism. Lots of people don't like it but social conservatives are a very necessary part of maintaining power. They used to be the backbone of the Democratic Party until the civil rights movement of the 1960s. What happened when they migrated to the right? Well, Democrats have only elected three presidents since (Carter, Clinton, Obama; the GOP has elected five), and we've had a conservative Supreme Court for 30+ years as a result. There's no way the Republicans are going to cast social conservatives out and eat the liberal agenda for a generation like that.
On August 31 2012 04:03 screamingpalm wrote: Regulators are awesome like that, because we have the fox guarding the henhouse... in every sector. Why does anyone expect the FDA and EPA to worth a shit, when they are filled with former execs of Smithfield, Monsanto etc... for example. Same with the Fed and Wall Street ties.
It works the other way too. Regulators will make regulations overly complex so they can get jobs at private firms as consultants afterwards.
On August 31 2012 03:28 Wayne123 wrote: I have question for the citizen of the United States of America on TL:
As a person living in Germany I never understood why someone votes the Republicans. Maybe it´s because I´m German and our political system and social norms are different from the United States of America and I have no clue about the American culture and their values. But when I read some points out of the Republican manifesto for the coming elections I honestly though "These people are fuckin stupid and they don´t know what they are doing. How can somebody support that?".
Here are some points I don´t understand. I´m also going to explain why I don´t understand them. Maybe somebody can explain to me why some people in the USA support that.
1. Abortion: Sorry for my harsh language, but to my mind it´s retarded that some Republicans(For example Paul Ryan) say that abortion shouldn´t be allowed in any case even when the woman was raped or the life of the woman is in danger. To my mind, a woman should decide on her own if she wants to keep the child or not. No one should tell a woman what to do with her own body. And the claim that abortion shouldn´t be allowed for raped woman is just beyond comprehension for me. How can somebody seriously believe that unless he´s fuckin stupid? That´s just inhuman. I don´t think that any woman wants a child from her rapist.
2. Health Care: In Germany, we have universal health care for anyone and to I think that´s good. Everyone should be able to see a doctor or go to the hospital when he/she needs it. I read that millions of people didn´t have a health insurance before Obamacare. What would happen to these people if they get a serious illness? They could never support that without insurance. That´s why I do not understand why the Republicans are against Obamacare. It doesn´t makes sense to me. It´s a good thing because it supports their own people.
3. Gun Ownership: I guess this is a really controversial topic but to my mind, no citizen should be allowed to own a gun. Only the army and the police and other important government bodies should be allowed to carry weapons. However, the Republicans have absolutly no problems with gun ownership.
4. Gay marriage: Why shouldn´t gay people be allowed to marry according to the Republicans? They don´t harm anyone. Just let them do it.
I also ask myself why they are so conservative. In Germany, people with these kind of political goals don´t exist. Even the most powerful party at the moment in Germany, the CDU, isn´t that conservative.
As a Canadian I absolutely agree with all of your points, the gay marriage and abortion are very obvious human rights things that always gets a period where certain groups fight tooth or nail to prevent before the right are inevitably granted (i.e. slavery, suffrage). As for the healthcare issue everyone knows the U.S. spend a higher % of their GDP and get worse coverage than every other first world country, they know it too but the country is founded on the idea of every man for himself so that's not something that changes over night. Same thing for gun ownership, in just about every other first world country people (most) are willing to give up that kind of freedom for general safety but it's just not the American (every man for himself) way.
To answer your question whereas in Germany where development is spread, in America since before the civil war the north has a huge portion of the wealth and industry while the south has always remained more agrarian, thus you have a large % of the population there with views that most people in other first world countries would find rather backwards.
Yeah, but you can't attribute an increase in the deficit to factors that existed before the increase occurred. It just doesn't hold water.
Meaning anything happening before the exact moment of the increase is not causally determining. Following that argument if someone were to throw a rock you at from any distance, the person would not be responsible for your increase in pain since the rock hit you AFTER it had been thrown.
The tax cuts occurred in '01 and '03. Pretty sure the rock hit its mark well before '09.
Seems like you were talking about one specific element while I understood something else. To that single point your argument seems conclusive. Meaning to my current knowledge you are right. I apologize.
On August 31 2012 04:03 screamingpalm wrote: Regulators are awesome like that, because we have the fox guarding the henhouse... in every sector. Why does anyone expect the FDA and EPA to worth a shit, when they are filled with former execs of Smithfield, Monsanto etc... for example. Same with the Fed and Wall Street ties.
It works the other way too. Regulators will make regulations overly complex so they can get jobs at private firms as consultants afterwards.
On August 31 2012 03:28 Wayne123 wrote: I have question for the citizen of the United States of America on TL:
As a person living in Germany I never understood why someone votes the Republicans. Maybe it´s because I´m German and our political system and social norms are different from the United States of America and I have no clue about the American culture and their values. But when I read some points out of the Republican manifesto for the coming elections I honestly though "These people are fuckin stupid and they don´t know what they are doing. How can somebody support that?".
Here are some points I don´t understand. I´m also going to explain why I don´t understand them. Maybe somebody can explain to me why some people in the USA support that.
1. Abortion: Sorry for my harsh language, but to my mind it´s retarded that some Republicans(For example Paul Ryan) say that abortion shouldn´t be allowed in any case even when the woman was raped or the life of the woman is in danger. To my mind, a woman should decide on her own if she wants to keep the child or not. No one should tell a woman what to do with her own body. And the claim that abortion shouldn´t be allowed for raped woman is just beyond comprehension for me. How can somebody seriously believe that unless he´s fuckin stupid? That´s just inhuman. I don´t think that any woman wants a child from her rapist.
2. Health Care: In Germany, we have universal health care for anyone and to I think that´s good. Everyone should be able to see a doctor or go to the hospital when he/she needs it. I read that millions of people didn´t have a health insurance before Obamacare. What would happen to these people if they get a serious illness? They could never support that without insurance. That´s why I do not understand why the Republicans are against Obamacare. It doesn´t makes sense to me. It´s a good thing because it supports their own people.
3. Gun Ownership: I guess this is a really controversial topic but to my mind, no citizen should be allowed to own a gun. Only the army and the police and other important government bodies should be allowed to carry weapons. However, the Republicans have absolutly no problems with gun ownership.
4. Gay marriage: Why shouldn´t gay people be allowed to marry according to the Republicans? They don´t harm anyone. Just let them do it.
I also ask myself why they are so conservative. In Germany, people with these kind of political goals don´t exist. Even the most powerful party at the moment in Germany, the CDU, isn´t that conservative.
I have voted Republican in the past, although never for social reasons. But let me take a swing at some of this:
1. You put it harshly but only on one side. How about the other? Is it okay for a mother to kill her children? No, right? So then walk that back. Is it okay for her to strangle her newborn infant child? No. Is it okay for her to kill her child a day before it is born? No. A week? No. A month? No. At the extreme, you get to a point where it's not okay for her to kill the child at conception. I don't subscribe to the exceptions (rape, incest, health of mother) at all so I won't try to justify that. But the point is that the child may also have a right to life and it is unfair for the mother to make that choice.
2. Health care is a multifaceted issue. It is simplistic to say universal health care is good. It IS good, in one dimension. But can universal health care deliver quality care at a cost-effective price? That is a much more difficult question, one that every OECD country is currently wrestling with. Millions of Americans don't have insurance, but ironically Obamacare treats them as free-loaders, not victims. They're pushed to buy insurance or pay a fine. Although Obamacare does address victims as well by banning companies from refusing to insure anyone who wants to buy.
America's big problem is that we spend 4x more than anyone else on health care but Americans aren't far healthier than the rest of the world. Nobody knows how to fix it.
3. This is a difference of opinion from history. Americans regard individual gun ownership as a defense against tyranny and a fundamental right. Every other OECD country disagrees with that stance. Republicans make a big deal out of it because it fires up conservative voters and motivates them to vote.
4. Gay marriage is also not allowed in Germany. It's again a difference of opinion. The politics in the US is that individual states can grant gay marriage if they want and several states do. The problem with that is different states with different levels of recognition and benefits causes a discrimination lawsuit that can force states that don't want to recognize gay marriage to do so.
But in summary, what you really seem to not like about the Republican Party is social conservatism. Lots of people don't like it but social conservatives are a very necessary part of maintaining power. They used to be the backbone of the Democratic Party until the civil rights movement of the 1960s. What happened when they migrated to the right? Well, Democrats have only elected three presidents since (Carter, Clinton, Obama; the GOP has elected five), and we've had a conservative Supreme Court for 30+ years as a result. There's no way the Republicans are going to cast social conservatives out and eat the liberal agenda for a generation like that.
About the healthcare issue, all of the developed countries except the U.S. have universal healthcare (as far as I know, they might be a couple exceptions) and they all pay far less and get atleast equal and arguably significantly better healthcare, I don't think any OECD country except the U.S. is still debating "can universal health care deliver quality care at a cost-effective price?"
Think about it, the U.S. government doesn't even pay for the indirect healthcare services like checkups (whereas countries with universal healthcare do) yet they're spending so much more so where's all the money going? People who can't afford insurance often end up in the emergency room and in that case they still have to be treated at huge government expense whereas if they had preventative care it might've been altogether avoided. The government realizes this, but the American pay your own way spirit is just to strong they can't switch to the more efficient system.
On August 31 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse wrote: More on Ryan's speech
You’re going to read and hear a lot about Paul Ryan’s speech on Wednesday night. And I imagine most of it will be about how Ryan’s speech played—with the party loyalists in Tampa, with the television viewers across the country, and eventually with the swing voters who will decide the election.
I’d like to talk, instead, about what Ryan actually said—not because I find Ryan’s ideas objectionable, although I do, but because I thought he was so brazenly willing to twist the truth.
At least five times, Ryan misrepresented the facts. And while none of the statements were new, the context was. It’s one thing to hear them on a thirty-second television spot or even in a stump speech before a small crowd. It’s something else entirely to hear them in prime time address, as a vice presidential nominee is accepting his party’s nomination and speaking to the entire country.
Here are the five statements that deserve serious scrutiny:
1) About the GM plant in Janesville.
Ryan’s home district includes a shuttered General Motors plant. Here’s what happened, according to Ryan:
A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.
Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.
It’s true: The plant shut down. But it shut down in 2008—before Obama became president.
By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled. Credible estimates suggested that the rescue saved more than a million jobs. Unemployment in Michigan and Ohio, the two states with the most auto jobs, have declined precipitously.
2) About Medicare.
Ryan attacked Obama for “raiding” Medicare. Again, Ryan has no standing whatsoever to make this attack, because his own budget called for taking the same amount of money from Medicare. Twice. The only difference is that Ryan’s budget used those savings to finance Ryan’s priorities, which include a massive tax cut that benefits the wealthy disproportionately.
It’s true that Romney has pledged to put that money back into Medicare and Ryan now says he would do the same. But the claim is totally implausible given Romney's promise to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of gross domestic product.
By the way, Obamacare's cut to Medicare was a reduction in what the plan pays hospitals and insurance companies. And the hospitals said they could live with those cuts, because Obamacare was simultaneously giving more people health insurance, alleviating the financial burden of charity care.
What Obamacare did not do is take away benefits. On the contrary, it added benefits, by offering free preventative care and new prescription drug coverage. By repealing Obamacare, Romney and Ryan would take away those benefits—and, by the way, add to Medicare's financial troubles because the program would be back to paying hospitals and insurers the higher rates.
3) About the credit rating downgrade.
Ryan blamed the downgrading of American debt on Obama. But it was the possibility that America would default on its debts that led to the downgrade. And why did that possibility exist? Because Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, playing chicken not just with the nations’ credit rating but the whole economy, unless Obama would cave into their budget demands.
4) About the deficit.
Ryan said “President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him” and proclaimed “We need to stop spending money we don’t have.” In fact, this decade’s big deficits are primarily a product of Bush-era tax cuts and wars. (See graph.) And you know who voted for them? Paul Ryan.
5) About protecting the weak.
Here’s Ryan on the obligations to help those who can’t help themselves:
We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves. … We can make the safety net safe again.
The rhetoric is stirring—and positively galling. Analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that 62 percent of the cuts in Ryan budget would come from programs that serve low-income people. And that’s assuming he keeps the Obamacare Medicare cuts. If he’s serious about putting that money back into Medicare, the cuts to these programs would have to be even bigger.
Among the cuts Ryan specified was a massive reduction in Medicaid spending. According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute, between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance from these cuts. That’s above and beyond the 15 million or so who are supposed to get Medicaid coverage from the Affordable Care Act but wouldn’t because Romney and Ryan have pledged to repeal the law.
I realize conservatives think that transforming Medicaid into a block grant, so that states have more control over how to spend the money, can make the program more efficient. But Medicaid already costs far less than any other insurance program in America. And even to the extent states can find some new efficiencies, the idea that they can find enough to offset such a draconian funding cut is just not credible.
That graph does not make sense. Pre-crisis the deficit was $160B, for 2012 the deficit is $1,320B ... not sure how you can explain the change with policies that existed both pre and post crisis (wars and tax cuts).
Yeah, but you can't attribute an increase in the deficit to factors that existed before the increase occurred. It just doesn't hold water.
What?
The tax cuts and wars are constants. You can't explain a change by something that is constant.
The deficit went from $160B in '07 to over a trillion now. The tax cuts and wars didn't change between then and now so you can't explain the change in the deficit on them.
GFC, falling revenues, increased unemployment claims, etc.
On August 31 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse wrote: More on Ryan's speech
You’re going to read and hear a lot about Paul Ryan’s speech on Wednesday night. And I imagine most of it will be about how Ryan’s speech played—with the party loyalists in Tampa, with the television viewers across the country, and eventually with the swing voters who will decide the election.
I’d like to talk, instead, about what Ryan actually said—not because I find Ryan’s ideas objectionable, although I do, but because I thought he was so brazenly willing to twist the truth.
At least five times, Ryan misrepresented the facts. And while none of the statements were new, the context was. It’s one thing to hear them on a thirty-second television spot or even in a stump speech before a small crowd. It’s something else entirely to hear them in prime time address, as a vice presidential nominee is accepting his party’s nomination and speaking to the entire country.
Here are the five statements that deserve serious scrutiny:
1) About the GM plant in Janesville.
Ryan’s home district includes a shuttered General Motors plant. Here’s what happened, according to Ryan:
A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.
Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.
It’s true: The plant shut down. But it shut down in 2008—before Obama became president.
By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled. Credible estimates suggested that the rescue saved more than a million jobs. Unemployment in Michigan and Ohio, the two states with the most auto jobs, have declined precipitously.
2) About Medicare.
Ryan attacked Obama for “raiding” Medicare. Again, Ryan has no standing whatsoever to make this attack, because his own budget called for taking the same amount of money from Medicare. Twice. The only difference is that Ryan’s budget used those savings to finance Ryan’s priorities, which include a massive tax cut that benefits the wealthy disproportionately.
It’s true that Romney has pledged to put that money back into Medicare and Ryan now says he would do the same. But the claim is totally implausible given Romney's promise to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of gross domestic product.
By the way, Obamacare's cut to Medicare was a reduction in what the plan pays hospitals and insurance companies. And the hospitals said they could live with those cuts, because Obamacare was simultaneously giving more people health insurance, alleviating the financial burden of charity care.
What Obamacare did not do is take away benefits. On the contrary, it added benefits, by offering free preventative care and new prescription drug coverage. By repealing Obamacare, Romney and Ryan would take away those benefits—and, by the way, add to Medicare's financial troubles because the program would be back to paying hospitals and insurers the higher rates.
3) About the credit rating downgrade.
Ryan blamed the downgrading of American debt on Obama. But it was the possibility that America would default on its debts that led to the downgrade. And why did that possibility exist? Because Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, playing chicken not just with the nations’ credit rating but the whole economy, unless Obama would cave into their budget demands.
4) About the deficit.
Ryan said “President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him” and proclaimed “We need to stop spending money we don’t have.” In fact, this decade’s big deficits are primarily a product of Bush-era tax cuts and wars. (See graph.) And you know who voted for them? Paul Ryan.
5) About protecting the weak.
Here’s Ryan on the obligations to help those who can’t help themselves:
We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves. … We can make the safety net safe again.
The rhetoric is stirring—and positively galling. Analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that 62 percent of the cuts in Ryan budget would come from programs that serve low-income people. And that’s assuming he keeps the Obamacare Medicare cuts. If he’s serious about putting that money back into Medicare, the cuts to these programs would have to be even bigger.
Among the cuts Ryan specified was a massive reduction in Medicaid spending. According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute, between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance from these cuts. That’s above and beyond the 15 million or so who are supposed to get Medicaid coverage from the Affordable Care Act but wouldn’t because Romney and Ryan have pledged to repeal the law.
I realize conservatives think that transforming Medicaid into a block grant, so that states have more control over how to spend the money, can make the program more efficient. But Medicaid already costs far less than any other insurance program in America. And even to the extent states can find some new efficiencies, the idea that they can find enough to offset such a draconian funding cut is just not credible.
That graph does not make sense. Pre-crisis the deficit was $160B, for 2012 the deficit is $1,320B ... not sure how you can explain the change with policies that existed both pre and post crisis (wars and tax cuts).
Yeah, but you can't attribute an increase in the deficit to factors that existed before the increase occurred. It just doesn't hold water.
What?
The tax cuts and wars are constants. You can't explain a change by something that is constant.
The deficit went from $160B in '07 to over a trillion now. The tax cuts and wars didn't change between then and now so you can't explain the change in the deficit on them.
GFC, falling revenues, increased unemployment claims, etc.
It's labeled as "economic downturn" in the graph.
That part of the graph is valid. Listing the Bush tax cuts and the wars is not. Most likely the economic downturn is underestimated in the graph.
On August 31 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse quoted someone who wrote:
By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled.
On August 31 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse wrote: More on Ryan's speech
You’re going to read and hear a lot about Paul Ryan’s speech on Wednesday night. And I imagine most of it will be about how Ryan’s speech played—with the party loyalists in Tampa, with the television viewers across the country, and eventually with the swing voters who will decide the election.
I’d like to talk, instead, about what Ryan actually said—not because I find Ryan’s ideas objectionable, although I do, but because I thought he was so brazenly willing to twist the truth.
At least five times, Ryan misrepresented the facts. And while none of the statements were new, the context was. It’s one thing to hear them on a thirty-second television spot or even in a stump speech before a small crowd. It’s something else entirely to hear them in prime time address, as a vice presidential nominee is accepting his party’s nomination and speaking to the entire country.
Here are the five statements that deserve serious scrutiny:
1) About the GM plant in Janesville.
Ryan’s home district includes a shuttered General Motors plant. Here’s what happened, according to Ryan:
A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.
Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.
It’s true: The plant shut down. But it shut down in 2008—before Obama became president.
By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled. Credible estimates suggested that the rescue saved more than a million jobs. Unemployment in Michigan and Ohio, the two states with the most auto jobs, have declined precipitously.
2) About Medicare.
Ryan attacked Obama for “raiding” Medicare. Again, Ryan has no standing whatsoever to make this attack, because his own budget called for taking the same amount of money from Medicare. Twice. The only difference is that Ryan’s budget used those savings to finance Ryan’s priorities, which include a massive tax cut that benefits the wealthy disproportionately.
It’s true that Romney has pledged to put that money back into Medicare and Ryan now says he would do the same. But the claim is totally implausible given Romney's promise to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of gross domestic product.
By the way, Obamacare's cut to Medicare was a reduction in what the plan pays hospitals and insurance companies. And the hospitals said they could live with those cuts, because Obamacare was simultaneously giving more people health insurance, alleviating the financial burden of charity care.
What Obamacare did not do is take away benefits. On the contrary, it added benefits, by offering free preventative care and new prescription drug coverage. By repealing Obamacare, Romney and Ryan would take away those benefits—and, by the way, add to Medicare's financial troubles because the program would be back to paying hospitals and insurers the higher rates.
3) About the credit rating downgrade.
Ryan blamed the downgrading of American debt on Obama. But it was the possibility that America would default on its debts that led to the downgrade. And why did that possibility exist? Because Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, playing chicken not just with the nations’ credit rating but the whole economy, unless Obama would cave into their budget demands.
4) About the deficit.
Ryan said “President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him” and proclaimed “We need to stop spending money we don’t have.” In fact, this decade’s big deficits are primarily a product of Bush-era tax cuts and wars. (See graph.) And you know who voted for them? Paul Ryan.
5) About protecting the weak.
Here’s Ryan on the obligations to help those who can’t help themselves:
We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves. … We can make the safety net safe again.
The rhetoric is stirring—and positively galling. Analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that 62 percent of the cuts in Ryan budget would come from programs that serve low-income people. And that’s assuming he keeps the Obamacare Medicare cuts. If he’s serious about putting that money back into Medicare, the cuts to these programs would have to be even bigger.
Among the cuts Ryan specified was a massive reduction in Medicaid spending. According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute, between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance from these cuts. That’s above and beyond the 15 million or so who are supposed to get Medicaid coverage from the Affordable Care Act but wouldn’t because Romney and Ryan have pledged to repeal the law.
I realize conservatives think that transforming Medicaid into a block grant, so that states have more control over how to spend the money, can make the program more efficient. But Medicaid already costs far less than any other insurance program in America. And even to the extent states can find some new efficiencies, the idea that they can find enough to offset such a draconian funding cut is just not credible.
That graph does not make sense. Pre-crisis the deficit was $160B, for 2012 the deficit is $1,320B ... not sure how you can explain the change with policies that existed both pre and post crisis (wars and tax cuts).
Yeah, but you can't attribute an increase in the deficit to factors that existed before the increase occurred. It just doesn't hold water.
What?
The tax cuts and wars are constants. You can't explain a change by something that is constant.
The deficit went from $160B in '07 to over a trillion now. The tax cuts and wars didn't change between then and now so you can't explain the change in the deficit on them.
GFC, falling revenues, increased unemployment claims, etc.
It's labeled as "economic downturn" in the graph.
That part of the graph is valid. Listing the Bush tax cuts and the wars is not. Most likely the economic downturn is underestimated in the graph.
Why isn't it valid to list them? I haven't looked at the numbers, but their negative impact could for example have been almost entirely compensated previously by the good economic situation. Meaning their negative impact would have been the same, but the positive factors made it so that the net deficit was below their value in absolute terms. Now, you're feeling their full impact with no positive economic factors to blunt it. (it's just a hypothesis, there could be other reasons, I just don't see why their place on the graph would necessarily be invalid)
On August 31 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse quoted someone who wrote:
By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled.
That's as far as I got into that nonsense.
Thanks for telling us, we care deeply about how much of our posts you read.
On August 31 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse wrote: More on Ryan's speech
You’re going to read and hear a lot about Paul Ryan’s speech on Wednesday night. And I imagine most of it will be about how Ryan’s speech played—with the party loyalists in Tampa, with the television viewers across the country, and eventually with the swing voters who will decide the election.
I’d like to talk, instead, about what Ryan actually said—not because I find Ryan’s ideas objectionable, although I do, but because I thought he was so brazenly willing to twist the truth.
At least five times, Ryan misrepresented the facts. And while none of the statements were new, the context was. It’s one thing to hear them on a thirty-second television spot or even in a stump speech before a small crowd. It’s something else entirely to hear them in prime time address, as a vice presidential nominee is accepting his party’s nomination and speaking to the entire country.
Here are the five statements that deserve serious scrutiny:
1) About the GM plant in Janesville.
Ryan’s home district includes a shuttered General Motors plant. Here’s what happened, according to Ryan:
A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.
Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.
It’s true: The plant shut down. But it shut down in 2008—before Obama became president.
By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled. Credible estimates suggested that the rescue saved more than a million jobs. Unemployment in Michigan and Ohio, the two states with the most auto jobs, have declined precipitously.
2) About Medicare.
Ryan attacked Obama for “raiding” Medicare. Again, Ryan has no standing whatsoever to make this attack, because his own budget called for taking the same amount of money from Medicare. Twice. The only difference is that Ryan’s budget used those savings to finance Ryan’s priorities, which include a massive tax cut that benefits the wealthy disproportionately.
It’s true that Romney has pledged to put that money back into Medicare and Ryan now says he would do the same. But the claim is totally implausible given Romney's promise to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of gross domestic product.
By the way, Obamacare's cut to Medicare was a reduction in what the plan pays hospitals and insurance companies. And the hospitals said they could live with those cuts, because Obamacare was simultaneously giving more people health insurance, alleviating the financial burden of charity care.
What Obamacare did not do is take away benefits. On the contrary, it added benefits, by offering free preventative care and new prescription drug coverage. By repealing Obamacare, Romney and Ryan would take away those benefits—and, by the way, add to Medicare's financial troubles because the program would be back to paying hospitals and insurers the higher rates.
3) About the credit rating downgrade.
Ryan blamed the downgrading of American debt on Obama. But it was the possibility that America would default on its debts that led to the downgrade. And why did that possibility exist? Because Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, playing chicken not just with the nations’ credit rating but the whole economy, unless Obama would cave into their budget demands.
4) About the deficit.
Ryan said “President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him” and proclaimed “We need to stop spending money we don’t have.” In fact, this decade’s big deficits are primarily a product of Bush-era tax cuts and wars. (See graph.) And you know who voted for them? Paul Ryan.
5) About protecting the weak.
Here’s Ryan on the obligations to help those who can’t help themselves:
We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves. … We can make the safety net safe again.
The rhetoric is stirring—and positively galling. Analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that 62 percent of the cuts in Ryan budget would come from programs that serve low-income people. And that’s assuming he keeps the Obamacare Medicare cuts. If he’s serious about putting that money back into Medicare, the cuts to these programs would have to be even bigger.
Among the cuts Ryan specified was a massive reduction in Medicaid spending. According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute, between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance from these cuts. That’s above and beyond the 15 million or so who are supposed to get Medicaid coverage from the Affordable Care Act but wouldn’t because Romney and Ryan have pledged to repeal the law.
I realize conservatives think that transforming Medicaid into a block grant, so that states have more control over how to spend the money, can make the program more efficient. But Medicaid already costs far less than any other insurance program in America. And even to the extent states can find some new efficiencies, the idea that they can find enough to offset such a draconian funding cut is just not credible.
That graph does not make sense. Pre-crisis the deficit was $160B, for 2012 the deficit is $1,320B ... not sure how you can explain the change with policies that existed both pre and post crisis (wars and tax cuts).
Yeah, but you can't attribute an increase in the deficit to factors that existed before the increase occurred. It just doesn't hold water.
What?
The tax cuts and wars are constants. You can't explain a change by something that is constant.
The deficit went from $160B in '07 to over a trillion now. The tax cuts and wars didn't change between then and now so you can't explain the change in the deficit on them.
GFC, falling revenues, increased unemployment claims, etc.
It's labeled as "economic downturn" in the graph.
That part of the graph is valid. Listing the Bush tax cuts and the wars is not. Most likely the economic downturn is underestimated in the graph.
Why isn't valid to list them? I haven't looked at the numbers, but their negative impact could for example have been almost entirely compensated previously by the good economic situation. Meaning their negative impact would have been the same, but the positive factors made it so that the net deficit was below their value in absolute terms. Now, you're feeling their full impact with no positive economic factors to blunt it. (it's just a hypothesis, there could be other reasons, I just don't see why their place on the graph would necessarily be invalid)
Because including them is as valid as including any bit of government spending or taxation that you do not like. The bush tax cuts and wars no more contributed to the increase in the deficit than any other portion of government spending and taxation (or lack thereof). It is just throwing something into the graph to throw something into the graph. No different than putting in social security or medicare or welfare spending or the EITC. It is completely arbitrary.
On August 31 2012 03:28 Wayne123 wrote: I have question for the citizen of the United States of America on TL:
As a person living in Germany I never understood why someone votes the Republicans. Maybe it´s because I´m German and our political system and social norms are different from the United States of America and I have no clue about the American culture and their values. But when I read some points out of the Republican manifesto for the coming elections I honestly though "These people are fuckin stupid and they don´t know what they are doing. How can somebody support that?".
Here are some points I don´t understand. I´m also going to explain why I don´t understand them. Maybe somebody can explain to me why some people in the USA support that.
1. Abortion: Sorry for my harsh language, but to my mind it´s retarded that some Republicans(For example Paul Ryan) say that abortion shouldn´t be allowed in any case even when the woman was raped or the life of the woman is in danger. To my mind, a woman should decide on her own if she wants to keep the child or not. No one should tell a woman what to do with her own body. And the claim that abortion shouldn´t be allowed for raped woman is just beyond comprehension for me. How can somebody seriously believe that unless he´s fuckin stupid? That´s just inhuman. I don´t think that any woman wants a child from her rapist.
2. Health Care: In Germany, we have universal health care for anyone and to I think that´s good. Everyone should be able to see a doctor or go to the hospital when he/she needs it. I read that millions of people didn´t have a health insurance before Obamacare. What would happen to these people if they get a serious illness? They could never support that without insurance. That´s why I do not understand why the Republicans are against Obamacare. It doesn´t makes sense to me. It´s a good thing because it supports their own people.
3. Gun Ownership: I guess this is a really controversial topic but to my mind, no citizen should be allowed to own a gun. Only the army and the police and other important government bodies should be allowed to carry weapons. However, the Republicans have absolutly no problems with gun ownership.
4. Gay marriage: Why shouldn´t gay people be allowed to marry according to the Republicans? They don´t harm anyone. Just let them do it.
I also ask myself why they are so conservative. In Germany, people with these kind of political goals don´t exist. Even the most powerful party at the moment in Germany, the CDU, isn´t that conservative.
Defending innocent life, supporting the free market's ability to provide better service for lower cost, recognizing the right to defend yourself, and acknowledging the basic foundation of society may be foreign concepts to you but to be fair exterminating Jews is a foreign concept to me.
On August 31 2012 03:28 Wayne123 wrote: I have question for the citizen of the United States of America on TL:
As a person living in Germany I never understood why someone votes the Republicans. Maybe it´s because I´m German and our political system and social norms are different from the United States of America and I have no clue about the American culture and their values. But when I read some points out of the Republican manifesto for the coming elections I honestly though "These people are fuckin stupid and they don´t know what they are doing. How can somebody support that?".
Here are some points I don´t understand. I´m also going to explain why I don´t understand them. Maybe somebody can explain to me why some people in the USA support that.
1. Abortion: Sorry for my harsh language, but to my mind it´s retarded that some Republicans(For example Paul Ryan) say that abortion shouldn´t be allowed in any case even when the woman was raped or the life of the woman is in danger. To my mind, a woman should decide on her own if she wants to keep the child or not. No one should tell a woman what to do with her own body. And the claim that abortion shouldn´t be allowed for raped woman is just beyond comprehension for me. How can somebody seriously believe that unless he´s fuckin stupid? That´s just inhuman. I don´t think that any woman wants a child from her rapist.
2. Health Care: In Germany, we have universal health care for anyone and to I think that´s good. Everyone should be able to see a doctor or go to the hospital when he/she needs it. I read that millions of people didn´t have a health insurance before Obamacare. What would happen to these people if they get a serious illness? They could never support that without insurance. That´s why I do not understand why the Republicans are against Obamacare. It doesn´t makes sense to me. It´s a good thing because it supports their own people.
3. Gun Ownership: I guess this is a really controversial topic but to my mind, no citizen should be allowed to own a gun. Only the army and the police and other important government bodies should be allowed to carry weapons. However, the Republicans have absolutly no problems with gun ownership.
4. Gay marriage: Why shouldn´t gay people be allowed to marry according to the Republicans? They don´t harm anyone. Just let them do it.
I also ask myself why they are so conservative. In Germany, people with these kind of political goals don´t exist. Even the most powerful party at the moment in Germany, the CDU, isn´t that conservative.
There have been some good explanations already in this thread. Continuing from there, if you really want to understand American conservatism (or any other popular political ideology that you look at and find truly baffling), the reasoning people present for their policy views tend to be rationalizations or attempts to win an argument, not a reflection of the actual thought process through which they arrived at their stances.
I am a part of the Republican party but i have to say this years election will be a joke in trying to choose between romney and Obama. But the scary thing is that Romney might actually come close which clearly shows the American majority at large.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/EconomicDownturnGraph.jpg)
